the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A new production-based model for estimating emissions and banks of ODSs: Application to HCFC-141b
Abstract. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a global agreement to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. It requires the phase out of the production of long-lived ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that are intended for use in emissive applications. The Protocol does not, however, limit the release to the atmosphere of ODSs that currently exist in applications and equipment. Accounting for emissions from these “banked” ODSs (e.g., in insulating foams) is important for monitoring the success of and compliance with the Protocol, for understanding where further mitigation of ODS emissions might be effective, and for estimating future ozone depletion. Here, we present a new bottom-up model for 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b), a chemical used primarily in foam insulation and whose production is currently being phased out. Using this refined model, we calculate global emissions that are similar to those derived from atmospheric measurements for the period from 1990 to 2017. After 2017, our modelled emissions are increasingly lower than the observationally based estimates through the end of the comparison in 2021. This discrepancy suggests either a growing additional source of emissions that is inconsistent with reported production or a model deficiency that did not exist or was not apparent before 2017. Our calculations also show that the easily accessible bank will be much smaller in the future than the total bank estimated in other recent work, with important implications for the feasibility of recovering and destroying banks before the release of HCFC-141b to the atmosphere.
- Preprint
(2774 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 May 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-297', Guus Velders, 02 Apr 2025
reply
The authors discuss novel work on deriving emissions with a bottom-up approach taken into account all sectors in which HCFC-141b is being used. Although HCFC-141b is a minor ODS, the method that is developed is very useful to be applied to other ODS and F-gases in general. Especially the estimates of active and inactive banks with a potential for mitigation options makes the work relevant for policymakers.
The paper is well written and the methods well described.
The title refers to a new model and the abstract says that a refined model has been developed. However, the abstract does not say anything about this model and what is new about it. It does mention important results derived from the model. So, what is the focus of the paper, the new model or the results? I suggest you clarify this and at least write something in the abstract what new is in the model.
What I miss are results for the different geographical regions. It is mentioned that the method is applied to 10 regions, but no results are given. Information on where active and inactive banks are located would be important for policymakers and for the potential of mitigation options.
Related to lines 358-360 and Figure 5: It is mentioned that the emissions from your work are similar that the emissions derived from the NOAA and AGAGE networks, but that there is a discrepancy in the last few years. But there is an absolute difference in emissions of 10-20 Gg/yr. If you take this into account the discrepancy after about 2017 is less clear. Also, how much are the emissions in the latter years affected by your assumption given in L207-209 that HCFC-141b in refrigeration is linearly phased out over 2010-2015? I can also not find how the market splits was after 2015. What is assumed for these latter years and how much does that effect the trend in emissions past 2015.
Some specifics comments:
L78-80, : This is probably true for banks, but not for top-down derived emissions. The uncertainties in top-down inferred emissions are generally much smaller than from bottom-up derived emissions.
L105-106: I suggest you give the reference for the production data here. Also, refer to, e.g., WMO2022, for a reference for the observations of mole fractions.
L139: Great graphical representation of the different stages and cumulative emissions.
l145-146: Countries report data of the individual HCFCs to UNEP, but only the aggregated data for total ODP-weighted HCFCs is published by UNEP. I assume you used the data from the individual HCFCs and did not disaggregate the ODP-weighted total HCFCs data. That is probably why the data is summed per region. I know, referencing the real data you used is than tricky (just a remark, no solution).
L218: I suggest you give the value of the low boiling point here, to support the statement that emissions will easily occur also in more or less confined applications.
L222-223: What is the reason you let the emissions decrease for large installations?
L223: “larger estimated installation emissions”. What are installation emissions? Should this be equipment, production or use?
L256: “assuming the quoted value is a factor of 10 too large”. You can not just write “is taken from Table A4.3 in TEAP (2019)”and then divide the value by a factor of 10. Please justify this.
L225, Table 1: For the Weibull function you refer to section 2.4. Shouldn’t that be 2.3?
L325: Section 2.6: In the introduction you mention regional differences in emissions, from which I assumed that this would be taken into account in the model. Is this the case or not? In the conclusion you mention again that the analysis is performed for 10 geographical regions, but now data or figure with emissions of banks is presented for the regions? Please be specific how the regions are taken into account in the modelling.
L292: Figure 3: I suggest you make clear that what is shown is not the total bank, but the active bank (see text above the figure).
L326-328: I suggest you refer here to Velders and Daniel (2014) who performed a similar Monte Carlo analysis.
L343-345: How the text now reads, it seems that the market breakdown is completely new in this paper, while from section 2.2 it is clear that is based on various UNEP/FTOC reports (with some additional assumptions). Please mention this here.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-297-CC1
Model code and software
HCFC-141b source code John S. Daniel https://csl.noaa.gov/groups/csl8/modeldata/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
105 | 21 | 6 | 132 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 105
- PDF: 21
- XML: 6
- Total: 132
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 68 | 47 |
China | 2 | 13 | 9 |
Germany | 3 | 11 | 7 |
France | 4 | 8 | 5 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 7 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 68