MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3091790827 · doi:10.5194/acp-2019-521

A methodology to constrain carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants using satellite observations of co-emitted nitrogen dioxide

2019· article· en· W3091790827 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Liu, B. N. Duncan, N. A. Krotkov, Lok N. Lamsal, Steffen Beirle, Debora Griffin, C. A. McLinden, Daniel L. Goldberg, Zifeng Lü

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsOzone Monitoring InstrumentNOxEnvironmental scienceNitrogen dioxideOzoneTroposphereAtmospheric sciencesCoalCarbon dioxideEmission inventoryAir pollutionPower stationTropospheric ozoneMeteorologyCombustionWaste managementAir quality indexChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We present a novel method to infer CO2 emissions from individual power plants based on satellite observations of co-emitted nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and demonstrate its utility on US power plants, where accurate stack emission estimates of both gases are available for comparison. In the first step of our methodology, we infer nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from isolated power plants using Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) NO2 tropospheric vertical column densities (VCDs) averaged over the ozone season (May–September) and a "top-down" approach that we previously developed. Second, we determine the relationship between NOx and CO2 emissions based on the direct stack emissions measurements reported by continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) programs, accounting for coal type, boiler firing type, NOx emission control device type, and changes in operating conditions. Third, we estimate CO2 emissions of the ozone season for a plant using the OMI-estimated NOx emissions and the CEMS NOx / CO2 emission ratio. We find that the CO2 emissions estimated by our satellite-based method during 2005–2017 are in reasonable agreement with the CEMS measurements, with a relative difference of 8 % ± 41 % (mean ± standard deviation) for the selected US power plants in our analysis. Total uncertainty in the inferred CO2 estimates is partly associated with the uncertainty associated with the OMI NO2 VCD data, so we expect that it will decrease when our method is applied to OMI-like sensors with improved capabilities, such as TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) and geostationary Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring Pollution (TEMPO). The broader implication of our methodology is that it has the potential to provide an additional constraint on CO2 emissions from power plants in regions of the world without reliable emissions accounting. We explore the feasibility by applying our methodology to a power plant in South Africa, where the satellite-based emission estimates show reasonable consistency with other estimates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→