DOCSLIB.ORG

Benefit Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet Fuel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benefit Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet Fuel Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Environmental Cost- Benefit Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet Fuel PARTNER Project 27 Final Report prepared by Christopher K. Gilmore, Steven R. H. Barrett, Steve H. L. Yim, Lee T. Murray, Stephen R. Kuhn, Amos P. K. Tai, Robert M. Yantosca, Daewon W. Byun, Fong Ngan, Xiangshang Li, Jonathan I. Levy, Akshay Ashok, Jamin Koo, Hsin Min Wong, Olivier Dessens, Sathya Balasubramanian, Gregg G. Fleming, Matthew N. Pearlson, Christoph Wollersheim, Robert Malina,, Sarav Arunachalam, Francis S. Binkowski, Eric M. Leibensperger, Daniel J. Jacob, James I. Hileman, Ian A. Waitz December 2011 REPORT NO. PARTNER-COE-2011-006 Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ultra Low Sulfur Jet Fuel A report to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy Christopher K. Gilmore1, Steven R. H. Barrett1, Steve H. L. Yim1, Lee T. Murray2, Stephen R. Kuhn1, Amos P. K. Tai2, Robert M. Yantosca2, Daewon W. Byun3, Fong Ngan3, Xiangshang Li4, Jonathan I. Levy5, Akshay Ashok1, Jamin Koo1, Hsin Min Wong1, Olivier Dessens6, Sathya Balasubramanian7, Gregg G. Fleming7, Matthew N. Pearlson1, Christoph Wollersheim1, Robert Malina1,8, Sarav Arunachalam9, Francis S. Binkowski9, Eric M. Leibensperger10, Daniel J. Jacob2, James I. Hileman1, and Ian A. Waitz1 1 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; 2 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.3 Air Resources Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA;4 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA;5 Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;6 Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;7 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA;8 Institute of Transport Economics, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;9 Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;10 Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Steven R. H. Barrett is the corresponding author. He may be reached at [email protected] Report No. PARTNER-COE-2011-006 December 2011 This work was funded by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy, under FAA Cooperative Agreement No. 06-C-NE-MIT, Amendment Nos. 010, 015, 022, and 025 (with U. of Houston Subaward No. 5710002426 and U. of Cambridge Subaward No. 5710002636); and FAA Cooperative Agreement No. 07-C-NE-SU, Amendment No. 002, and FAA Cooperative Agreement No. 09-C- NE-MIT, Amendment Nos. 003 and 010. The project was managed by S. Daniel Jacob. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA, NASA, Transport Canada, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction — PARTNER — is a cooperative aviation research organization, and an FAA Center of Excellence sponsored by the FAA, NASA, Transport Canada, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PARTNER fosters breakthrough technological, operational, policy, and workforce advances for the betterment of mobility, economy, national security, and the environment. The organization's operational headquarters is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 33-240 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA http://www.partner.aero ENVIRONMENTAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ULTRA LOW SULFUR JET FUEL A report to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy by Christopher K. Gilmore1, Steven R. H. Barrett1*, Steve H. L. Yim1, Lee T. Murray2, Stephen R. Kuhn1, Amos P. K. Tai2, Robert M. Yantosca2, Daewon W. Byun3, Fong Ngan3, Xiangshang Li4, Jonathan I. Levy5, Akshay Ashok1, Jamin Koo1, Hsin Min Wong1, Olivier Dessens6, Sathya Balasubramanian7, Gregg G. Fleming7, Matthew N. Pearlson1, Christoph Wollersheim1, Robert Malina1,8, Sarav Arunachalam9, Francis S. Binkowski9, Eric M. Leibensperger10, Daniel J. Jacob2, James I. Hileman1 and Ian A. Waitz1. 1 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; 2 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.3 Air Resources Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA;4 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA;5 Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;6 Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;7 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA;8 Institute of Transport Economics, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany;9 Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;10 Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 1 Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14 1.1. Context ............................................................................................................................... 14 1.2. Overview ............................................................................................................................ 14 2. Methods and Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 16 2.1. Fuel Properties .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2. Emissions ............................................................................................................................ 16 2.3. Chemistry-Transport Modeling .......................................................................................... 17 2.4. Climate Impacts .................................................................................................................. 17 2.5. Health Impacts .................................................................................................................... 18 2.6. Benefit-Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................... 18 3. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Surface PM2.5 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Health Impacts .................................................................................................................... 22 3.3. Climate Impacts .................................................................................................................. 23 3.4. Additional Production Costs ............................................................................................... 24 3.5. Benefit-Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................... 25 4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 27 2 5. References ................................................................................................................................. 29 6. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 33 A. ULSJ Background ..................................................................................................................... 35 A.1. ULSD Case Study .............................................................................................................. 35 A.2. Other Studies ..................................................................................................................... 36 A.2.1. QinetiQ Report on Jet Fuel Sulfur Limit Reduction ................................................... 36 A.2.2. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Report on Market Effects Due to ULSD 37 A.2.3. Other Transportation Sectors ...................................................................................... 37 B. Air Quality Modeling ................................................................................................................ 37 B.1. Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 37 B.2. Chemical Transport Model (CTM) Descriptions ............................................................... 38 B.2.1. Global and Nested GEOS-Chem Model Descriptions ................................................ 38 B.2.2. CMAQ Model Description
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free
    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Center Rojc, Pula, Croatia
    SOLIDARITY MOVERS OF ROJC Community center Rojc, Pula, Croatia CONTENT Community center Rojc Rojc Alliance About the project Activities About Pula Currency How to get to Pula Meet the team Contact Follow us Community center Rojc is a unique space Community for culture and civil society. Situated in a repurposed building that forms part of the cultural heritage of Pula, the center gathers center Rojc over a hundred organisations under one roof while also hosting numerous cultural and social events. The center is polivalent space with wide spectrum of activities: culture, sports, psychosocial care and health services, activities for children and youth, care for the disabled, environmental protection, technical culture, ethnic minorities, etc. Community center Rojc is a member of Trans Europe Halles. Rojc Alliance The Rojc Alliance is a network of Rojc organizations that presents and represents common interests, promotes mutual cooperation and carries out community actions and events. Main activities of Rojc Alliance are: management and events in Rojc public spaces - the Living room and inner courtyard; community radio Radio Rojc; community development programs; participatory governance; networking and fostering development of cultural and community centers; European Solidarity Corps volunteering progams. The Rojc Alliance has formed a kind of civic-public partnership with the City of Pula, which co- governs the center and encourages its development. WHAT WE DO The center is a host to 110 associations from various fields. Thousands of Rojc inhabitants and their visitors pass through its painted hallways each week – bringing vivid influence to the community life. PROJECT NAME Solidarity movers of Rojc PROJECT DURATION 1.8.2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Off-Line Algorithm for Calculation of Vertical Tracer Transport in The
    EGU Journal Logos (RGB) Open Access Open Access Open Access Advances in Annales Nonlinear Processes Geosciences Geophysicae in Geophysics Open Access Open Access Natural Hazards Natural Hazards and Earth System and Earth System Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1093–1114, 2013 Atmospheric Atmospheric www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1093/2013/ doi:10.5194/acp-13-1093-2013 Chemistry Chemistry © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. and Physics and Physics Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Measurement Measurement Techniques Techniques Off-line algorithm for calculation of vertical tracer transport in the Discussions Open Access troposphere due to deep convection Open Access Biogeosciences 1,2 1 3,4,5 6 7 8 Biogeosciences9 10 D. A. Belikov , S. Maksyutov , M. Krol , A. Fraser , M. Rigby , H. Bian , A. Agusti-Panareda , D. Bergmann , Discussions P. Bousquet11, P. Cameron-Smith10, M. P. Chipperfield12, A. Fortems-Cheiney11, E. Gloor12, K. Haynes13,14, P. Hess15, S. Houweling3,4, S. R. Kawa8, R. M. Law14, Z. Loh14, L. Meng16, P. I. Palmer6, P. K. Patra17, R. G. Prinn18, R. Saito17, 12 Open Access and C. Wilson Open Access 1Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa,Climate Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Climate 305-8506, Japan of the Past 2 of the Past Division for Polar Research, National Institute of Polar Research, 10-3, Midoricho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8518, Japan Discussions 3SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Jet Fuel for Aviation
    Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Ras- mus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl TemaNord 2016:538 Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Rasmus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl ISBN 978-92-893-4661-0 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-4662-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-4663-4 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2016-538 TemaNord 2016:538 ISSN 0908-6692 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2016 Layout: Hanne Lebech Cover photo: Scanpix Print: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk Copies: 100 Printed in Denmark This publication has been published with financial support by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or recom- mendations of the Nordic Council of Ministers. www.norden.org/nordpub Nordic co-operation Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involv- ing Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
    [Show full text]
  • Verification of a Multimodel Storm Surge Ensemble Around New York City and Long Island for the Cool Season
    922 WEATHERANDFORECASTING V OLUME 26 Verification of a Multimodel Storm Surge Ensemble around New York City and Long Island for the Cool Season TOM DI LIBERTO * AND BRIAN A. C OLLE School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York NICKITAS GEORGAS AND ALAN F. B LUMBERG Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey ARTHUR A. T AYLOR Meteorological Development Laboratory, NOAA/NWS, Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland (Manuscript received 21 November 2010, in final form 27 June 2011) ABSTRACT Three real-time storm surge forecasting systems [the eight-member Stony Brook ensemble (SBSS), the Stevens Institute of Technology’s New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System (SIT-NYHOPS), and the NOAA Extratropical Storm Surge (NOAA-ET) model] are verified for 74 available days during the 2007–08 and 2008–09 cool seasons for five stations around the New York City–Long Island region. For the raw storm surge forecasts, the SIT-NYHOPS model has the lowest root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) on average, while the NOAA-ET has the largest RMSEs after hour 24 as a result of a relatively large negative surge bias. The SIT-NYHOPS and SBSS also have a slight negative surge bias after hour 24. Many of the underpredicted surges in the SBSS ensemble are associated with large waves at an offshore buoy, thus illustrating the potential importance of nearshore wave breaking (radiation stresses) on the surge pre- dictions. A bias correction using the last 5 days of predictions (BC) removes most of the surge bias in the NOAA-ET model, with the NOAA-ET-BC having a similar level of accuracy as the SIT-NYHOPS-BC for positive surges.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal and Diurnal Performance of Daily Forecasts with WRF V3.8.1 Over the United Arab Emirates
    Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1615–1637, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1615-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Seasonal and diurnal performance of daily forecasts with WRF V3.8.1 over the United Arab Emirates Oliver Branch1, Thomas Schwitalla1, Marouane Temimi2, Ricardo Fonseca3, Narendra Nelli3, Michael Weston3, Josipa Milovac4, and Volker Wulfmeyer1 1Institute of Physics and Meteorology, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany 2Department of Civil, Environmental, and Ocean Engineering (CEOE), Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA 3Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 4Meteorology Group, Instituto de Física de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain Correspondence: Oliver Branch ([email protected]) Received: 19 June 2020 – Discussion started: 1 September 2020 Revised: 10 February 2021 – Accepted: 11 February 2021 – Published: 19 March 2021 Abstract. Effective numerical weather forecasting is vital in T2 m bias and UV10 m bias, which may indicate issues in sim- arid regions like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where ex- ulation of the daytime sea breeze. TD2 m biases tend to be treme events like heat waves, flash floods, and dust storms are more independent. severe. Hence, accurate forecasting of quantities like surface Studies such as these are vital for accurate assessment of temperatures and humidity is very important. To date, there WRF nowcasting performance and to identify model defi- have been few seasonal-to-annual scale verification studies ciencies. By combining sensitivity tests, process, and obser- with WRF at high spatial and temporal resolution. vational studies with seasonal verification, we can further im- This study employs a convection-permitting scale (2.7 km prove forecasting systems for the UAE.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Update February 2018
    Investor Update February 2018 NYSE: PSX www.phillips66.com Lake Charles Refinery Cautionary Statement This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements. Words and phrases such as “is anticipated,” “is estimated,” “is expected,” “is planned,” “is scheduled,” “is targeted,” “believes,” “intends,” “objectives,” “projects,” “strategies” and similar expressions are used to identify such forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements relating to the operations of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP (including their respective joint venture operations) are based on management’s expectations, estimates and projections about these entities, their interests and the energy industry in general on the date this presentation was prepared. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in filings that Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP are under no obligation (and expressly disclaim any such obligation) to update or alter these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. This presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures. You can find the reconciliations to comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of the presentation materials or in the “Investors” section of the websites of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP.
    [Show full text]
  • D6.4 Case Study D
    Grant Agreement Number: INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2018/179967 Project acronym: SLAIN Project full title: Saving Lives Assessing and Improving TEN-T Road Network Safety D. 1.0 Due delivery date: 31st March 2021 Actual delivery date: 13th March 2021 Organisation name of lead participant for this deliverable: RSI ‘Panos Mylonas’ D6.4: Activity 6 case studies group D Co-financed by the Connecting Europe Facility of the European Union SLAIN 1 V1.3 Document Control Sheet Version Input by Consortium partners History V1.0 Version for submission to INEA Legal Disclaimer The information in this document is provided “as is”, and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The above referenced consortium members shall have no liability for damages of any kind including without limitation direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials subject to any liability which is mandatory due to applicable law. © 2020 by SLAIN Consortium. Acknowledgement The SLAIN beneficiaries are grateful to EuroRAP and iRAP for the research information provided. The report was coordinated and prepared by RSI Panos Mylonas, supported by iRAP and the Road Safety Foundation, with liaison with INEA by the project coordinator EuroRAP. Individual project partners provided the case studies. Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronym Abreviation SLAIN Saving Lives Assessing and Improving Network Safety TEN-T Trans-European Network - Transport GIS Geographic Information System SRIP Safer Roads Investment Plans RSA Road Safety Audit RSI Road Safety Inspection SLAIN 2 Version 1.0 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 SLAIN project objectives ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Jp-5, Jp-8, and Jet a Fuels
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry March 2017 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS ii DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A Fuels, Draft for Public Comment was released in February 2016. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences Environmental Toxicology Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-57 Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iv This page is intentionally blank. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS v FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines* developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Financing Review for Croatia Protected Areas
    The World Bank Sustainable Financing Review for Croatia Protected Areas October 2009 www.erm.com Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world The World Bank /PROFOR Sustainable Financing Review for Croatia Protected Areas October 2009 Prepared by: James Spurgeon (ERM Ltd), Nick Marchesi (Pescares), Zrinca Mesic (Oikon) and Lee Thomas (Independent). For and on behalf of Environmental Resources Management Approved by: Eamonn Barrett Signed: Position: Partner Date: 27 October 2009 This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk. Environmental Resources Management Limited Incorporated in the United Kingdom with registration number 1014622 Registered Office: 8 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0ER CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 AIMS 2 1.3 APPROACH 2 1.4 STRUCTURE OF REPORT 3 1.5 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SUSTAINABLE FINANCE 3 2 PA FINANCING IN CROATIA 5 2.1 CATEGORIES OF PROTECTED
    [Show full text]
  • A Numerical Case Study of Upper Boundary Condition in MM5 Over
    A CASE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF THE UPPER BOUNDARY CONDITION IN POLAR MM5 SIMULATIONS OVER ANTARCTICA Helin Wei1, David H. Bromwich1, 2 , Le-Sheng Bai1, Ying-Hwa Kuo3, and Tae Kwon Wee3 1Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University 2Atmospheric Sciences Program, Department of Geography, The Ohio State University 3MMM Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 1. Introduction generally applied numerical models because the 1In limited area modeling, the upper boundary vertical wavenumber and frequency of the radiated condition was not addressed extensively until waves must be specified. Second, it also requires nonhydrostatic models became widely available a relatively deep model domain so that the vertical for numerical weather prediction. Ideally, the radiation of gravity wave energy is of secondary boundary condition should be imposed in such importance at the model top, otherwise the way that makes the flow behave as if the spurious momentum flux is not negligible (Klemp boundaries were not there. and Durran, 1983). In the past, the rigid lid upper boundary Another prominent scheme is the absorbing condition was utilized because it purportedly upper boundary condition. It is designed to damp eliminated rapidly moving external gravity waves out the vertically propogating waves within an from the solutions, thereby permitting longer time upper boundary buffer zone before they reach the dp top boundary by using smoothing, filtering or some steps. This condition requires ω = = 0 at the other approach, such as adding frictional terms to dt model momentum equations. model top. The effectiveness of this approach has Previous studies show that the radiation and been demonstrated when the model top is set far absorbing upper boundary conditions reduce the above from the region of interest or the advective wave reflection to a great extent, however little effects are dominant in comparison to the vertical work has been done to investigate how they propogation of internal gravity wave energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Crop Yield Projections Using a Multi-Model Set of Regional Climate Models and a Plausible Adaptation Practice in the Southeast United States
    atmosphere Article Future Crop Yield Projections Using a Multi-model Set of Regional Climate Models and a Plausible Adaptation Practice in the Southeast United States D. W. Shin 1, Steven Cocke 1, Guillermo A. Baigorria 2, Consuelo C. Romero 2, Baek-Min Kim 3 and Ki-Young Kim 4,* 1 Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2840, USA; [email protected] (D.W.S.); [email protected] (S.C.) 2 Next Season Systems LLC, Lincoln, NE 68506, USA; [email protected] (G.A.B.); [email protected] (C.C.R.) 3 Department of Environmental Atmospheric Sciences, Pukyung National University, Busan 48513, Korea; [email protected] 4 4D Solution Co. Ltd., Seoul 08511, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-2-878-0126 Received: 28 October 2020; Accepted: 27 November 2020; Published: 30 November 2020 Abstract: Since maize, peanut, and cotton are economically valuable crops in the southeast United States, their yield amount changes in a future climate are attention-grabbing statistics demanded by associated stakeholders and policymakers. The Crop System Modeling—Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (CSM-DSSAT) models of maize, peanut, and cotton are, respectively, driven by the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) Phase II regional climate models to estimate current (1971–2000) and future (2041–2070) crop yield amounts. In particular, the future weather/climate data are based on the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A2 emissions scenario. The NARCCAP realizations show on average that there will be large temperature increases (~2.7 C) and minor rainfall decreases (~ 0.10 mm/day) with pattern shifts ◦ − in the southeast United States.
    [Show full text]