Temporalization of peak electric generation particulate matter emissions during high energy demand days

Caroline M. Farkas, Michael D. Moeller, Frank Felder, Kirk R. Baker, Mark Rodgers, Annmarie G. Carlton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Underprediction of peak ambient pollution by air quality models hinders development of effective strategies to protect health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model routinely underpredicts peak ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations. Temporal misallocation of electricity sector emissions contributes to this modeling deficiency. Hourly emissions are created for CMAQ by use of temporal profiles applied to annual emission totals unless a source is matched to a continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). More than 53% of CEMs in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) electricity market and 45% nationally are unmatched in the 2008 NEI. For July 2006, a United States heat wave with high electricity demand, peak electric sector emissions, and elevated ambient PM2.5 mass, we match hourly emissions for 267 CEM/NEI pairs in PJM (approximately 49% and 12% of unmatched CEMs in PJM and nationwide) using state permits, electricity dispatch modeling and CEMs. Hourly emissions for individual facilities can differ up to 154% during the simulation when measurement data is used rather than default temporalization values. Maximum CMAQ PM2.5 mass, sulfate, and elemental carbon predictions increase up to 83%, 103%, and 310%, at the surface and 51%, 75%, and 38% aloft (800 mb), respectively.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4696-4704
Number of pages9
JournalEnvironmental Science and Technology
Volume49
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 7 2015

Fingerprint

Particulate Matter
Air quality
particulate matter
Electricity
electricity
air quality
emission inventory
Ozone
Environmental protection
Sulfates
Pollution
Carbon
Health
energy demand
modeling
environmental protection
ozone
sulfate
pollution
market

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry

Cite this

Temporalization of peak electric generation particulate matter emissions during high energy demand days. / Farkas, Caroline M.; Moeller, Michael D.; Felder, Frank; Baker, Kirk R.; Rodgers, Mark; Carlton, Annmarie G.

In: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 7, 07.04.2015, p. 4696-4704.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Farkas, Caroline M. ; Moeller, Michael D. ; Felder, Frank ; Baker, Kirk R. ; Rodgers, Mark ; Carlton, Annmarie G. / Temporalization of peak electric generation particulate matter emissions during high energy demand days. In: Environmental Science and Technology. 2015 ; Vol. 49, No. 7. pp. 4696-4704.
@article{19e5387a34114364b22362af925ba802,
title = "Temporalization of peak electric generation particulate matter emissions during high energy demand days",
abstract = "Underprediction of peak ambient pollution by air quality models hinders development of effective strategies to protect health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model routinely underpredicts peak ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations. Temporal misallocation of electricity sector emissions contributes to this modeling deficiency. Hourly emissions are created for CMAQ by use of temporal profiles applied to annual emission totals unless a source is matched to a continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). More than 53{\%} of CEMs in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) electricity market and 45{\%} nationally are unmatched in the 2008 NEI. For July 2006, a United States heat wave with high electricity demand, peak electric sector emissions, and elevated ambient PM2.5 mass, we match hourly emissions for 267 CEM/NEI pairs in PJM (approximately 49{\%} and 12{\%} of unmatched CEMs in PJM and nationwide) using state permits, electricity dispatch modeling and CEMs. Hourly emissions for individual facilities can differ up to 154{\%} during the simulation when measurement data is used rather than default temporalization values. Maximum CMAQ PM2.5 mass, sulfate, and elemental carbon predictions increase up to 83{\%}, 103{\%}, and 310{\%}, at the surface and 51{\%}, 75{\%}, and 38{\%} aloft (800 mb), respectively.",
author = "Farkas, {Caroline M.} and Moeller, {Michael D.} and Frank Felder and Baker, {Kirk R.} and Mark Rodgers and Carlton, {Annmarie G.}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1021/es5050248",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "4696--4704",
journal = "Environmental Science & Technology",
issn = "0013-936X",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Temporalization of peak electric generation particulate matter emissions during high energy demand days

AU - Farkas, Caroline M.

AU - Moeller, Michael D.

AU - Felder, Frank

AU - Baker, Kirk R.

AU - Rodgers, Mark

AU - Carlton, Annmarie G.

PY - 2015/4/7

Y1 - 2015/4/7

N2 - Underprediction of peak ambient pollution by air quality models hinders development of effective strategies to protect health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model routinely underpredicts peak ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations. Temporal misallocation of electricity sector emissions contributes to this modeling deficiency. Hourly emissions are created for CMAQ by use of temporal profiles applied to annual emission totals unless a source is matched to a continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). More than 53% of CEMs in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) electricity market and 45% nationally are unmatched in the 2008 NEI. For July 2006, a United States heat wave with high electricity demand, peak electric sector emissions, and elevated ambient PM2.5 mass, we match hourly emissions for 267 CEM/NEI pairs in PJM (approximately 49% and 12% of unmatched CEMs in PJM and nationwide) using state permits, electricity dispatch modeling and CEMs. Hourly emissions for individual facilities can differ up to 154% during the simulation when measurement data is used rather than default temporalization values. Maximum CMAQ PM2.5 mass, sulfate, and elemental carbon predictions increase up to 83%, 103%, and 310%, at the surface and 51%, 75%, and 38% aloft (800 mb), respectively.

AB - Underprediction of peak ambient pollution by air quality models hinders development of effective strategies to protect health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) model routinely underpredicts peak ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations. Temporal misallocation of electricity sector emissions contributes to this modeling deficiency. Hourly emissions are created for CMAQ by use of temporal profiles applied to annual emission totals unless a source is matched to a continuous emissions monitor (CEM) in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). More than 53% of CEMs in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) electricity market and 45% nationally are unmatched in the 2008 NEI. For July 2006, a United States heat wave with high electricity demand, peak electric sector emissions, and elevated ambient PM2.5 mass, we match hourly emissions for 267 CEM/NEI pairs in PJM (approximately 49% and 12% of unmatched CEMs in PJM and nationwide) using state permits, electricity dispatch modeling and CEMs. Hourly emissions for individual facilities can differ up to 154% during the simulation when measurement data is used rather than default temporalization values. Maximum CMAQ PM2.5 mass, sulfate, and elemental carbon predictions increase up to 83%, 103%, and 310%, at the surface and 51%, 75%, and 38% aloft (800 mb), respectively.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926431839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926431839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1021/es5050248

DO - 10.1021/es5050248

M3 - Article

C2 - 25705922

AN - SCOPUS:84926431839

VL - 49

SP - 4696

EP - 4704

JO - Environmental Science & Technology

JF - Environmental Science & Technology

SN - 0013-936X

IS - 7

ER -