Abstract
Coal-fired power plants are a major carbon source in China. In order to assess the evaluation of China’s carbon reduction progress with the promise made on the Paris Agreement, it is crucial to monitor the carbon flux intensity from coal-fired power plants. Previous studies have calculated CO2 emissions from point sources based on Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 and -3 (OCO-2 and OCO-3) satellite measurements, but the factors affecting CO2 flux estimations are uncertain. In this study, we employ a Gaussian Plume Model to estimate CO2 emissions from three power plants in China based on OCO-3 XCO2 measurements. Moreover, flux uncertainties resulting from wind information, background values, satellite CO2 measurements, and atmospheric stability are discussed. This study highlights the CO2 flux uncertainty derived from the satellite measurements. Finally, satellite-based CO2 emission estimates are compared to bottom-up inventories. The satellite-based CO2 emission estimates at the Tuoketuo and Nongliushi power plants are ∼30 and ∼10 kt d−1 smaller than the Open-Data Inventory for Anthropogenic Carbon dioxide (ODIAC) respectively, but ∼10 kt d−1 larger than the ODIAC at Baotou.
摘 要
电厂是中国主要的碳排放源。为了评估中国在实现《巴黎协定》方面的碳减排进展,监测发电厂的碳排放强度至关重要。已有研究证明了卫星观测计算点源的二氧化碳排放量的可行性,但该方法存在一定的不确定性。本研究基于OCO-3卫星观测数据,采用高斯烟羽模型估算中国三家发电厂的二氧化碳排放量,针对大气风场、二氧化碳背景值、卫星二氧化碳观测和大气稳定度等要素,讨论二氧化碳通量估算的不确定性。除此之外,本研究还将基于卫星观测的二氧化碳排放估算与自下而上的清单进行比较,结果表明托克托和农六师发电厂的二氧化碳排放量估算值比ODIAC排放清单分别偏低∼3和∼1 kt d-−1,而包头发电厂的二氧化碳排放量估算值比ODIAC偏高∼1 kt d-−1。
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bovensmann, H., and Coauthors, 2010: A remote sensing technique for global monitoring of power plant CO2 emissions from space and related applications. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 3, 781–811, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-781-2010.
Brune, S., J. D. Keller, and S. Wahl, 2021: Evaluation of wind speed estimates in reanalyses for wind energy applications. Advances in Science and Research, 18, 115–126, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-18-115-2021.
Crisp, D., and Coauthors, 2017: The on-orbit performance of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) instrument and its radiometrically calibrated products. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-59-2017.
Delgado, A., C. Gertig, E. Blesa, A. Loza, C. Hidalgo, and R. Ron, 2016: Evaluation of the variability of wind speed at different heights and its impact on the receiver efficiency of central receiver systems. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1734, 030011, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949063.
EDGAR, 2018: Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR v4.3.2). European Commission.
Eldering, A., and Coauthors, 2017: The orbiting carbon observatory-2: First 18 months of science data products. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 549–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-549-2017.
GMAO, 2015: inst33dasmCp: MERRA-2 3D IAU State, Meteorology Instantaneous 3-hourly (p-coord, 0. 625x0. 5L42), version 5.12.4. USA: Goddard Space Flight Center Distributed Active Archive Center (GSFC DAAC), Greenbelt, MD, https://doi.org/10.5067/VJAFPLI1CSIV.
Gualtieri, G., 2022: Analysing the uncertainties of reanalysis data used for wind resource assessment: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167, 112741, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112741.
Guo, W. Y., Y. S. Shi, Y. Liu, and M. Q. Su, 2023: CO2 emissions retrieval from coal-fired power plants based on OCO-2/3 satellite observations and a Gaussian plume model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 136525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136525.
Hakkarainen, J., M. E. Szelag, I. Ialongo, C. Retscher, T. Oda, and D. Crisp, 2021: Analyzing nitrogen oxides to carbon dioxide emission ratios from space: a case study of 401 Matimba Power Station in South Africa. Atmos. Environ. X, 10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100110.
Hersbach, H., and Coauthors, 2023: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS), https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47.
Hu, Y. Q., and Y. S. Shi, 2021: Estimating CO2 emissions from large scale coal-fired power plants using OCO-2 observations and emission inventories. Atmosphere, 12, 811, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070811.
Hutchins, M. G., J. D. Colby, G. Marland, and E. Marland, 2017: A comparison of five high-resolution spatially-explicit, fossil-fuel, carbon dioxide emission inventories for the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22, 947–972, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-016-9709-9.
IEA, 2020: China’s Emissions Trading Scheme: Designing Efficient Allowance Allocation. IEA, 112.
Kort, E. A., C. Frankenberg, C. E. Miller, and T. Oda, 2012: Space-based observations of megacity carbon dioxide. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L17806, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052738.
Krings, T., and Coauthors, 2011: MAMAP - a new spectrometer system for column-averaged methane and carbon dioxide observations from aircraft: Retrieval algorithm and first inversions for point source emission rates. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4, 1735–1758, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1735-2011.
Kuze, A., and Coauthors, 2016: Update on GOSAT TANSO-FTS performance, operations, and data products after more than 6 years in space. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9, 2445–2461, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-2445-2016.
Lin, X. J., and Coauthors, 2023: Monitoring and quantifying CO2 emissions of isolated power plants from space. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 23, 6599–6611, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6599-2023.
Liu, L. Y., and Coauthors, 2022: Satellite remote sensing for global stocktaking: Methods, progress and perspectives. National Remote Sensing Bulletin, 26, 243–267, https://doi.org/10.11834/jrs.20221806.
Mustafa, F., and Coauthors, 2021: Validation of GOSAT and OCO-2 against in situ aircraft measurements and comparison with CarbonTracker and GEOS-Chem over Qinhuangdao, China. Remote Sensing, 13, 899, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050899.
Nassar, R., T. G. Hill, C. A. McLinden, D. Wunch, D. B. A. Jones, and D. Crisp, 2017: Quantifying CO2 emissions from individual power plants from space. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 10 045–10 053, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074702.
Nassar, R., and Coauthors, 2021: Advances in quantifying power plant CO2 emissions with OCO-2. Remote Sens. Environ., 264, 112579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112579.
Nassar, R., and Coauthors, 2022: Tracking CO2 emission reductions from space: A case study at Europe’s largest fossil fuel power plant. Frontiers in Remote Sensing, 3, 1028240, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsen.2022.1028240.
Noël, S., and Coauthors, 2022: Retrieval of greenhouse gases from GOSAT and GOSAT-2 using the FOCAL algorithm. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 15, 3401–3437, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3401-2022.
Oda, T., S. Maksyutov, and R. J. Andres, 2018: The open-source data inventory for anthropogenic CO2, version 2016 (ODIAC2016): A global monthly fossil fuel CO2 gridded emissions data product for tracer transport simulations and surface flux inversions. Earth System Science Data, 10, 87–107, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-87-2018.
O’Dell, C. W., and Coauthors, 2018: Improved retrievals of carbon dioxide from Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 with the version 8 ACOS algorithm. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11, 6539–6576, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6539-2018.
Pasquill, F., 1961: The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material. The Meteorological Magazine, 90, 33–49
Reuter, M., M. Buchwitz, O. Schneising, S. Krautwurst, C. W. O’Dell, A. Richter, H. Bovensmann, and J. P. Burrows, 2019: Towards monitoring localized CO2 emissions from space: Co-located regional CO2 and NO2 enhancements observed by the OCO-2 and S5P satellites. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19, 9371–9383, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9371-2019.
Rodgers, C. D., 2000: Inverse methods for atmospheric sounding. Series on Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics: Volume 2, World Scientific Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1142/3171.
Schwandner, F. M., and Coauthors, 2017: Spaceborne detection of localized carbon dioxide sources. Science, 358, eaam5782, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5782.
Shim, C., J. Han, D. K. Henze, and T. Yoon, 2018: Identifying local anthropogenic CO2 emissions with satellite retrievals: A case study in South Korea. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 40, 1011–1029, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1523585.
Taylor, T. E., and Coauthors, 2020: OCO-3 early mission operations and initial (vEarly) XCO2 and SIF retrievals. Remote Sensing of Environment, 251, 112032, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112032.
Taylor, T. E., and Coauthors, 2023: Evaluating the consistency between OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO2 estimates derived from the NASA ACOS version 10 retrieval algorithm. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 16, 3173–3209, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-3173-2023.
UNFCCC, 2018: Decision 18/CMA.1 Modalities, procedures and guidelines for the transparency framework for action and support referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.2.
Varon, D. J., D. J. Jacob, J. McKeever, D. Jervis, B. O. A. Durak, Y. Xia, and Y. Huang, 2018: Quantifying methane point sources from fine-scale satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11, 5673–5686, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5673-2018.
WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, 2021: The state of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere based on global observations through 2020. World Meteorological Organization.
Worden, J. R., G. Doran, S. Kulawik, A. Eldering, D. Crisp, C. Frankenberg, C. O’Dell, and K. Bowman, 2017: Evaluation and attribution of OCO-2 XCO2 uncertainties. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 2759–2771, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2759-2017.
Wunch, D., and Coauthors, 2017: Comparisons of the orbiting carbon observatory-2 (OCO-2) XCO2 measurements with TCCON. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10, 2209–2238, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2209-2017.
Yang, D. X., J. Hakkarainen, Y. Liu, I. Ialongo, Z. N. Cai, and J. Tamminen, 2023: Detection of anthropogenic CO2 emission signatures with TanSat CO2 and with Copernicus Sentinel-5 Precursor (S5P) NO2 measurements: First results. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 40, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-2237-5.
Zhang, Q. Q., K. F. Boersma, B. Zhao, H. Eskes, C. H. Chen, H. T. Zheng, and X. Y. Zhang, 2023: Quantifying daily NOx and CO2 emissions from Wuhan using satellite observations from TROPOMI and OCO-2. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 23, 551–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-551-2023.
Zhang, X. Y., and Coauthors, 2020: The development and application of satellite remote sensing for atmospheric compositions in China. Atmospheric Research, 245, 105056, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105056.
Zheng, B., F. Chevallier, P. Ciais, G. Broquet, Y. L. Wang, J. H. Lian, and Y. H. Zhao, 2020: Observing carbon dioxide emissions over China’s cities and industrial areas with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20, 8501–8510, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8501-2020.
Zheng, T., R. Nassar, and M. Baxter, 2019: Estimating power plant CO2 emission using OCO-2 XCO2 and high resolution WRF-Chem simulations. Environmental Research Letters, 14, 085001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab25ae.
Zhou, M. Q., and Coauthors, 2022: CO2 in Beijing and Xianghe observed by ground-based FTIR column measurements and validation to OCO-2/3 satellite observations. Remote Sensing, 14, 3769, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153769.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Shanghai Sailing Program (Grant No. 22YF1442000), the Key Laboratory of Middle Atmosphere and Global Environment Observation (Grant No. LAGEO-2021-07), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41975035), and Jiaxing University (Grant Nos. 00323027AL and CD70522035).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Article Highlights
• CO2 emissions at three power plants in China are successfully retrieved by OCO-3 satellite observations.
• Uncertainties stem from satellite measurement noise, the CO2 background, winds, and atmospheric stability.
• OCO-3 satellite-derived emissions at Tuoketuo and Nongliushi are ∼30 and ∼10 kt d−1 smaller than ODIAC data, respectively, but ∼10 kt d−1 larger at Baotou.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Y., Zhou, M., Wang, W. et al. Quantification of CO2 Emissions from Three Power Plants in China Using OCO-3 Satellite Measurements. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 41, 2276–2288 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-024-3293-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-024-3293-9