Continuous CH 4 and δ 13 CH 4 measurements in London demonstrate under-reported natural gas leakage
Top-down greenhouse gas measurements can be used to independently assess the accuracy of bottom-up emission estimates. We report atmospheric methane (CH4) mole fractions and δ13CH4 measurements from Imperial College London from early 2018 onwards using a Picarro G2201-i analyser. Measurements from M...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Atmospheric chemistry and physics 2022-03, Vol.22 (5), p.3595-3613 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Top-down greenhouse gas measurements can be used to
independently assess the accuracy of bottom-up emission estimates. We
report atmospheric methane (CH4) mole fractions and δ13CH4 measurements from Imperial College London from early
2018 onwards using a Picarro G2201-i analyser. Measurements from March 2018 to
October 2020 were compared to simulations of CH4 mole fractions and
δ13CH4 produced using the NAME (Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion Modelling Environment) dispersion model coupled
with the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, UK NAEI, and a
global inventory, the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), with model spatial resolutions of ∼ 2, ∼ 10, and ∼ 25 km. Simulation–measurement
comparisons are used to evaluate London emissions and the source
apportionment in the global (EDGAR) and UK national (NAEI) emission
inventories. Observed mole fractions were underestimated by 30 %–35 % in
the NAEI simulations. In contrast, a good correspondence between
observations and EDGAR simulations was seen. There was no correlation
between the measured and simulated δ13CH4 values for
either NAEI or EDGAR, however, suggesting the inventories' sectoral
attributions are incorrect. On average, natural gas sources accounted for
20 %–28 % of the above background CH4 in the NAEI simulations and
only 6 %–9 % in the EDGAR simulations. In contrast, nearly 84 % of
isotopic source values calculated by Keeling plot analysis (using
measurement data from the afternoon) of individual pollution events were
higher than −45 ‰, suggesting the primary CH4
sources in London are actually natural gas leaks. The simulation–observation
comparison of CH4 mole fractions suggests that total emissions in
London are much higher than the NAEI estimate (0.04 Tg CH4 yr−1)
but close to, or slightly lower than, the EDGAR estimate (0.10 Tg CH4 yr−1). However, the simulation–observation comparison of δ13CH4 and the Keeling plot results indicate that emissions due
to natural gas leaks in London are being underestimated in both the UK NAEI
and EDGAR. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1680-7324 1680-7324 |
DOI: | 10.5194/acp-22-3595-2022 |