Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:05:54.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications for Deriving Regional Fossil Fuel CO2 Estimates from Atmospheric Observations in a Hot Spot of Nuclear Power Plant 14CO2 Emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

Felix R Vogel ,
Ingeborg Levin  and
Doug E J Worthy
Felix R Vogel*
Affiliation:
Environment Canada, Climate Research Division, 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4, Canada Now at Laboratoire de Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Ingeborg Levin
Affiliation:
Institut für Umweltphysik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Doug E J Worthy
Affiliation:
Environment Canada, Climate Research Division, 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4, Canada
*
Corresponding author. Email: Felix.Vogel@lsce.ipsl.fr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using Δ14C observations to infer the local concentration excess of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels (ΔFFCO2) is a promising technique to monitor anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A recent study showed that 14CO2 emissions from the nuclear industry can significantly alter the local atmospheric 14CO2 concentration and thus mask the Δ14C depletion due to ΔFFCO2. In this study, we investigate the relevance of this effect for the vicinity of Toronto, Canada, a hot spot of anthropogenic 14CO2 emissions. Comparing the measured emissions from local power plants to a global emission inventory highlighted significant deviations on interannual timescales. Although the previously assumed emission factor of 1.6 TBq(GWa)-1 agrees with the observed long-term average for all CANDU reactors of 1.50 ± 0.18 TBq(GWa)-1. This power-based parameterization neglects the different emission ratios for individual reactors, which range from 3.4 ± 0.82 to 0.65 ± 0.09 TBq(GWa)-1. This causes a mean difference of-14% in 14CO2 concentrations in our simulations at our observational site in Egbert, Canada. On an annual time basis, this additional 14CO2 masks the equivalent of 27–82% of the total annual FFCO2 offset. A pseudo-data experiment suggests that the interannual variability in the masked fraction may cause spurious trends in the ΔFFCO2 estimates of the order of 30% from 2006–2010. In addition, a comparison of the modeled Δ14C levels with our observational time series from 2008–2010 underlines that incorporating the best available 14CO2 emissions significantly increases the agreement. There were also short periods with significant observed Δ14C offsets, which were found to be linked with maintenance periods conducted on these nuclear reactors.

Type
Atmospheric Carbon Cycle
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 55 , Issue 3: Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 2 of 2) , 2013 , pp. 1556 - 1572
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andres, RJ, Boden, TA, Breon, FM, Ciais, P, Davis, S, Erickson, D, Gregg, JS, Jacobson, A, Marland, A, Miller, J, Oda, T, Olivier, JGJ, Raupach, MR, Rayner, P, Treanton, K. 2012. A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogesciences 9:1845–71.Google Scholar
Beninson, D, Gonzalez, AJ. 1982. Application of the dose limitation system to the control of 14C releases from heavy-water-moderated reactors. IAEA-SM-258/53.Google Scholar
Dias, C, Santos, R, Stenström, K, Nicoli, I, Skog, G, da Silveira Corrêa, R. 2008. 14C content in vegetation in the vicinities of Brazilian nuclear power reactors. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 99(7):1095–101.Google Scholar
Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research [EDGAR]. Release version 4.1 of the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Available from http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu. Accessed 10 January 2011.Google Scholar
Gerbig, C, Lin, JC, Wofsy, SC, Daube, BC, Andrews, AE, Stephens, BB, Bakwin, PS, Grainger, CA. 2003. Toward constraining regional-scale fluxes of CO2 with atmospheric observations over a continent: 1. Observed spatial variability from airborne platforms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 108:4756, doi:10.1029/2002JD003018.Google Scholar
Guan, D, Liu, Z, Geng, Y, Lindner, S, Hubacek, K. 2012. The gigatonne gap in China's carbon dioxide inventories. Nature Climate Change 2(9):672–5.Google Scholar
Graven, HD, Gruber, N. 2011. Continental-scale enrichment of atmospheric 14CO2 from the nuclear power industry: potential impact on the estimation of fossil fuel-derived CO2 . Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11:12,339–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graven, HD, Guilderson, TP, Keeling, RF. 2012. Observations of radiocarbon CO2 at seven global sampling sites in the Scripps flask network: analysis of spatial gradients and seasonal cycles. Journal of Geophysical Research 117: D02303, doi:10.1029/2011JD016535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesshaimer, V, Levin, I. 2000. Revision of the stratospheric bomb 14CO2 inventory. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D9):11,641–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, JR, Haynes, PH, McIntyre, ME, Douglass, AR, Rood, BR, Pfister, L. 1995. Stratosphere-troposphere exchange. Reviews of Geophysics 33(4):403–39.Google Scholar
Hsueh, DY, Krakauer, NY, Randerson, JT, Xu, X, Trumbore, SE, Southon, JR. 2007. Regional patterns of radiocarbon and fossil fuel-derived CO2 in surface air across North America. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L02816, doi:10.1029/2006GL027032.Google Scholar
Kromer, B, Münnich, KO. 1992. CO2 gas proportional counting in Radiocarbon dating—review and perspective. In: Taylor, RE, Long, A, Kra, RS, editors. Radiocarbon After Four Decades. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 184–97.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Münnich, KO, Weiss, W. 1980. The effect of anthropogenic CO2 and 14C sources on the distribution of 14CO2 in the atmosphere. Radiocarbon 22(2):379–91.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Naegler, T, Kromer, B, Diehl, M, Francey, RJ, Gomez-Pelaez, AJ, Steele, LP, Wagenbach, D, Weller, R, Worthy, DEJ. 2010. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2 . Tellus B 62:26–46.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Schmidt, M, Sartorius, H. 2003. A novel approach for independent budgeting of fossil fuel CO2 over Europe by 14CO2 observations. Geophysical Research Letters 30:2194, doi:10.1029/2003GL018477.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Rödenbeck, C. 2008. Can the envisaged reductions of fossil fuel CO2 emissions be detected by atmospheric observations? Naturwissenschaften 95(3):203–8.Google Scholar
Lin, JC, Gerbig, C, Wofsy, SC, Andrews, AE, Daube, BC, Davis, KJ, Grainger, CA. 2003. A near-field tool for simulating the upstream influence of atmospheric observations: the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport (STILT) model. Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) 108:4493, doi:10.1029/2002JD003161.Google Scholar
Marland, G, Hamal, K, Jonas, M. 2009. How uncertain are estimates of CO2 emissions? Journal of Industrial Ecology 13:4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, JB, Lehman, SJ, Montzka, SA, Sweeney, C, Miller, BR, Wolak, C, Dlugokencky, EJ, Southon, JR, Turnbull, JC, Tans, PP. 2012. Linking emissions of fossil fuel CO2 and other anthropogenic trace gases using atmospheric 14CO2 . Journal of Geophysical Research 117: D08302, doi:10.1029/2011JD017048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naegler, T, Levin, I. 2009. Biosphere-atmosphere gross carbon exchange flux and the δ13CO2 and Δ14CO2 disequilibria constrained by the biospheric excess radiocarbon inventory. Journal of Geophysical Research 114:D17303, doi:10.1029/2008JD011116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naegler, T, Ciais, P, Rodgers, K, Levin, I. 2006. Excess radiocarbon constraints on air-sea gas exchange and the uptake of CO2 by the oceans. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L 11802, doi:10.1029/2005GL025408.Google Scholar
Nassar, R, Napier-Linton, L, Gurney, KR, Andres, RJ, Oda, T, Vogel, FR, Deng, F. 2012. Improving the temporal and spatial distribution of CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel emission datasets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118:917–33.Google Scholar
Peylin, P, Houweling, S, Krol, MC, Karstens, U, Pieterse, G, Ciais, P, Heimann, M. 2011. Importance of fossil fuel emission uncertainties over Europe for CO2 modeling: model intercomparison. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11(13):6607–22.Google Scholar
Rasch, PJ, Tie, X, Boville, BA, Williamson, DL. 1994. A three-dimensional transport model for the middle atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 99(D1):999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radiological Environmental Assessment Program [REMP]. 2012. Available from http://www.opg.com/news/reports/. Accessed 21 January 2012.Google Scholar
Robertson, JAL. 1978. The CANDU reactor system: an appropriate technology. Science 199(4329):657–64.Google Scholar
[StatsCan] Statistics Canada, Government of Canada. 2008. Census 2006 (Internet; cited 2011 October 4). Available from http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.Google Scholar
Sweeney, CE, Gloor, E, Jacobson, AR, Key, RM, McKinley, G, Sarmiento, JL, Wanninkhof, R. 2007. Constraining global air-sea gas exchange for CO2 with recent bomb 14C measurements. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21: GB2015, doi:10.1029/2006GB002784.Google Scholar
Trumbore, SE. 2000. Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: radiocarbon constraints on belowground C dynamics. Ecological Applications 10(2):399–411.Google Scholar
Trumbore, S. 2006. Carbon respired by terrestrial ecosystems – recent progress and challenges. Global Change Biology 12:141–53.Google Scholar
Turnbull, JC, Miller, JB, Lehman, SJ, Tans, PP, Sparks, RJ, Southon, J. 2006. Comparison of 14CO2, CO, and SF6 as tracers for recently added fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere and implications for biological CO2 exchange. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L01817, doi:10.1029/2005GL024213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, JC, Miller, JB, Lehman, SJ, Hurst, D, Peters, W, Tans, PP, Southon, J, Montzka, SA, Elkins, JW, Mondeel, DJ, Romashkin, PA, Elansky, N, Skorokhod, A. 2009a. Spatial distribution of 14CO2 across Eurasia: measurements from the TROICA-8 expedition. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9(1):175–87.Google Scholar
Turnbull, J, Rayner, P, Miller, JB, Naegler, T, Ciais, P, Cozic, A. 2009b. On the use of 14CO2 as a tracer for fossil fuel CO2: quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: D22302, doi:10.1029/2009JD012308.Google Scholar
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR]. 1988, 1993, 2000. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, UNSCEAR 1988, 1993, 2000 Report to the General Assembly. Vienna: UNSCEAR.Google Scholar
Vogel, FR, Hammer, S, Steinhof, A, Kromer, B, Levin, I. 2010. Implication of weekly and diurnal 14C calibration on hourly estimates of CO-based fossil fuel CO2 at a moderately polluted site in southwestern Germany. Tellus B 62:512–20.Google Scholar
Vogel, FR, Ishizawa, M, Chan, E, Chan, D, Hammer, S, Levin, I, Worthy, DEJ. 2012. Regional non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes inferred from atmospheric measurements in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(Supplement 1):41–55.Google Scholar
Wanninkhof, R. 1992. Relationship between wind speed and gas exchange over the ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 97(C5):7373–82.Google Scholar
Weiss, R, Nisbet, E. 2010. Top-down versus bottom-up. Science 328(5983):1241–43.Google Scholar