the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimating NOx emissions of stack plumes using a high-resolution atmospheric chemistry model and satellite-derived NO2 columns
Abstract. This work contributes to an European Monitoring and Verification Support (MVS) capacity for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Future satellite instruments that map CO2 and NO2 from space will focus on hot-spot emissions from cities and large point sources, where CO2 emissions are accompanied by emissions of NOx. To use NOx as proxy CO2 emission, information about its atmospheric lifetime and the fraction of NOx present as NO2 is required to interpret NO2 plumes. This paper presents Large Eddy Simulations with atmospheric chemistry of four large point sources world-wide. We find that the chemical evolution of the plumes depends strongly on the amount of NOx that is emitted, next to wind speed and direction. For large NOx emissions the chemistry is pushed in a high-NOx chemical regime over a length of almost 100 km downwind of the stack location. Other plumes with lower NOx emissions show a fast transition to an intermediate NOx chemical regime, with short NOx lifetimes. Simulated NO2 columns mostly agree within 20 % with the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), signalling that the emissions used in the model were approximately correct. However, variability in the simulations is large, making a one-to-one comparison difficult. We find that wind speed variations should be accounted for in emission estimation methods. Moreover, results indicate that common assumptions about the NO2 lifetime (≈4 hours) and NOx: NO2 ratios (≈1.3) in simplified methods that estimate emissions from NO2 satellite data (e.g. Beirle et al., 2019) need revision.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(22310 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(22310 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2519', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Mar 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2519/egusphere-2023-2519-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2519', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Apr 2024
Krol et al. presented a comprehensive analysis of interpreting NO2 plumes over several power plants across the globe. High-scale turbulent mixing is realized by LES with a condensed chemistry scheme representing key reactions associated with NOx chemistry. What is particularly neat about this study is the diagnosis of the relative importance of atmospheric transport/mixing versus chemistry (via the covariance between NO2 and OH) and their interaction as plumes disperse. They also examined how corrections of AMF and upper columns affect the model-data comparison. Overall, the manuscript is informative and well-organized. I enjoyed reading it and thereby recommend publishing it after addressing a few comments.
General Comments:
- Title: The title of the manuscript centered on the estimate of NOx emissions, but the current manuscript seems to focus less on the inversion/optimization of NOx emissions, and more on the forward simulations of NO2 columns and how transport, chemistry, and adaptation to TROPOMI affect the simulations. I may suggest the authors revise the title to better highlight the real novelty of their study.
- Methodology: The definition of plume background area and the choice of prior emissions seem to be unclear. Did the authors use “correct” emissions reported from the CoCO2 project? If not, since emission, mixing, and chemistry can all be uncertain, it would be hard to evaluate the model performance (especially given the end goal of estimating emissions). Also, the “background” or background air has been mentioned but not properly defined. Was there a fixed threshold or a fixed distance from the stack? The background definition may affect the statements about lifetime diagnoses (page 18).
- Results: I understand the authors’ great effort in adding chemical reactions in LES for several simulations, but the explicit estimation of uncertainties associated with transport/mixing and chemistry seem to be missing from the manuscript, especially when the authors also acknowledged large uncertainties in the chemical model parameterization and atmospheric transport (L43 – L45). Again, if the final goal is to estimate/optimize emissions as suggested by the title, it would be important to acknowledge uncertainties in every model component (using either a simple CSF method or more complex chemical inversions). For example, Wu et al. (2023) (as mentioned on L44) tested the WRF-Chem-based chemical parameterization by estimating the chemical uncertainties with NOx lifetime and NO2-to-NOx ratio and by evaluating against TROPOMI using EPA-reported power plant emissions.
Minor comments:
Eq. 2: What are some other processes? Emission and deposition?
There seemed to be some considerations of the injection height (L78) and the use of a plume rise calculation (Table 5). But whether/how both injection height and the plume-rise were implemented in the model is not super clear to me, despite the acknowledgment and discussions in Sect. 4.4. More clarifications would help the readers, as injection height and plume height are important for point sources with intensive emission rates.
Future application: Just out of general curiosity, how is the possibility of applying this approach to urban areas?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2519-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 3 May 2024 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2519-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2519/egusphere-2023-2519-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2519', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Mar 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2519/egusphere-2023-2519-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2519', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Apr 2024
Krol et al. presented a comprehensive analysis of interpreting NO2 plumes over several power plants across the globe. High-scale turbulent mixing is realized by LES with a condensed chemistry scheme representing key reactions associated with NOx chemistry. What is particularly neat about this study is the diagnosis of the relative importance of atmospheric transport/mixing versus chemistry (via the covariance between NO2 and OH) and their interaction as plumes disperse. They also examined how corrections of AMF and upper columns affect the model-data comparison. Overall, the manuscript is informative and well-organized. I enjoyed reading it and thereby recommend publishing it after addressing a few comments.
General Comments:
- Title: The title of the manuscript centered on the estimate of NOx emissions, but the current manuscript seems to focus less on the inversion/optimization of NOx emissions, and more on the forward simulations of NO2 columns and how transport, chemistry, and adaptation to TROPOMI affect the simulations. I may suggest the authors revise the title to better highlight the real novelty of their study.
- Methodology: The definition of plume background area and the choice of prior emissions seem to be unclear. Did the authors use “correct” emissions reported from the CoCO2 project? If not, since emission, mixing, and chemistry can all be uncertain, it would be hard to evaluate the model performance (especially given the end goal of estimating emissions). Also, the “background” or background air has been mentioned but not properly defined. Was there a fixed threshold or a fixed distance from the stack? The background definition may affect the statements about lifetime diagnoses (page 18).
- Results: I understand the authors’ great effort in adding chemical reactions in LES for several simulations, but the explicit estimation of uncertainties associated with transport/mixing and chemistry seem to be missing from the manuscript, especially when the authors also acknowledged large uncertainties in the chemical model parameterization and atmospheric transport (L43 – L45). Again, if the final goal is to estimate/optimize emissions as suggested by the title, it would be important to acknowledge uncertainties in every model component (using either a simple CSF method or more complex chemical inversions). For example, Wu et al. (2023) (as mentioned on L44) tested the WRF-Chem-based chemical parameterization by estimating the chemical uncertainties with NOx lifetime and NO2-to-NOx ratio and by evaluating against TROPOMI using EPA-reported power plant emissions.
Minor comments:
Eq. 2: What are some other processes? Emission and deposition?
There seemed to be some considerations of the injection height (L78) and the use of a plume rise calculation (Table 5). But whether/how both injection height and the plume-rise were implemented in the model is not super clear to me, despite the acknowledgment and discussions in Sect. 4.4. More clarifications would help the readers, as injection height and plume height are important for point sources with intensive emission rates.
Future application: Just out of general curiosity, how is the possibility of applying this approach to urban areas?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2519-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 3 May 2024 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2519-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maarten Krol, 02 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-2519/egusphere-2023-2519-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive computing environment
Code, input, output, and analysis software of the CoCO2 paper, submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Maarten Krol https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10053684
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
548 | 148 | 29 | 725 | 22 | 19 |
- HTML: 548
- PDF: 148
- XML: 29
- Total: 725
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Bart van Stratum
Isidora Anglou
Klaas Folkert Boersma
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(22310 KB) - Metadata XML