Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1175
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1175
29 Jul 2024
 | 29 Jul 2024

Quantitative estimate of sources of uncertainty in drone-based methane emission measurements

Tannaz H. Mohammadloo, Matthew Jones, Bas van de Kerkhof, Kyle Dawson, Brendan James Smith, Stephen Conley, Abigail Corbett, and Rutger IJzermans

Abstract. Site level measurements of methane emissions are used by operators for reconciliation with bottom-up emission inventories with the aim to improve accuracy, thoroughness and confidence in reported emissions. In that context it is of critical importance to avoid measurement errors, and to  understand the measurement uncertainty. Remotely piloted aircraft systems (commonly referred to as ‘drones’) can play a pivotal role in the quantification of site-level methane emissions. Typical implementations use the ‘mass balance method’ to quantify emissions, with a high-precision methane sensor mounted on a quadcopter drone flying in a vertical curtain pattern; the total mass emission rate can then be computed post hoc from the measured methane concentration data and simultaneous wind data. Controlled release tests have shown that errors with the mass balance method can be considerable. For example, Liu et al. (2023) report absolute errors for more than 100 % for the two drone solutions tested; on the other hand, errors can be much smaller, of the order of 16 % root-mean-square errors in Corbett & Smith (2022), if additional constraints are placed on the data, restricting the analysis to cases where the wind field was steady.
In this paper we present a systematic error analysis of physical phenomena affecting the error in the mass balance method for parameters related to the acquisition of methane concentration data and to postprocessing. The sources of error are analysed individually, and it must be realised that individual errors can accumulate in practice, and they can also be augmented by other sources that are not included in the present work. Examples of these sources include the uncertainty in methane concentration measurements by a sensor with finite precision or the method used to measure the unperturbed wind velocity at the position of the drone. We find that the most important source of error considered is the horizontal and vertical spacings in the data acquisition as a coarse spacings can results in missing a methane plume. The potential error can be as high as 100 % in situations where the wind speed is steady and the methane plume has a coherent shape, contradicting the intuition of some operators in the industry. The likelihood of the extent of this error can be expressed in terms of a dimensionless number defined by the spatial resolution of the methane concentration measurements and the downwind distance from the main emission sources. The learnings from our theoretical error analysis are then applied to a number of historical measurements in a controlled release setting. We show how the learnings on the main sources of error can be used to eliminate potential errors during the postprocessing of flight data. Second, we evaluate an aggregated data set of 1,001 historical drone flights; our analysis shows that the potential errors in the mass balance method can be of the order of 100 % on occasions, even though the individual errors can be much smaller in the vast majority of the flights. The discussion section provides some guidelines to industry on how to avoid or minimize potential errors in drone measurements for methane emission quantification.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Tannaz H. Mohammadloo, Matthew Jones, Bas van de Kerkhof, Kyle Dawson, Brendan James Smith, Stephen Conley, Abigail Corbett, and Rutger IJzermans

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1175', Joseph Pitt, 15 Aug 2024
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rutger IJzermans, 24 Oct 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1175', Steven van Heuven, 27 Sep 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rutger IJzermans, 24 Oct 2024

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1175', Joseph Pitt, 15 Aug 2024
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rutger IJzermans, 24 Oct 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1175', Steven van Heuven, 27 Sep 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rutger IJzermans, 24 Oct 2024
Tannaz H. Mohammadloo, Matthew Jones, Bas van de Kerkhof, Kyle Dawson, Brendan James Smith, Stephen Conley, Abigail Corbett, and Rutger IJzermans
Tannaz H. Mohammadloo, Matthew Jones, Bas van de Kerkhof, Kyle Dawson, Brendan James Smith, Stephen Conley, Abigail Corbett, and Rutger IJzermans

Viewed

Total article views: 511 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
304 107 100 511 5 8
  • HTML: 304
  • PDF: 107
  • XML: 100
  • Total: 511
  • BibTeX: 5
  • EndNote: 8
Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jul 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jul 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 549 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 549 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 17 Dec 2024
Download
Short summary
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Trustable detection and quantification of methane emissions at facility level is critical to identify the largest sources, and to prioritize them for repair. We provide a systematic analysis of the uncertainty in drone-based methane emission surveys, based on theoretical considerations and historical data sets. We provide guidelines to industry on how to avoid or minimize potential errors in drone-based measurements for methane emission quantification.