The spatially explicit GHG inventory for Poland
Emission sources
Using the digital maps of the GHG emission sources/sinks in Poland and the algorithms for activity data disaggregation, a geospatial database was created. The GHG emissions/absorptions were then estimated using appropriate mathematical models of emission processes for the fossil fuel usage in electricity and heat production, the transport, the residential sector, the manufacturing industry, the fossil fuel extraction, and the processing; the industrial, agricultural, and waste sectors; and the forestry and land use change.
We calculated GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, SO2, CF4, C2F6, NOx, and NMVOC) for all categories of activity separately. These results were obtained at the level of elementary objects, i.e., the point-, line-, and area-type sources of emissions. Using them, we calculated the total emissions in CO2-equivalents using the global warming coefficients. As an example, the total GHG emissions in the transport sector by road segment for one Polish province are presented in Fig. 3. We can see there that the segments with the highest emissions (between 756 and 833 Mg/km2) are the national roads E40 and E371. High emissions are also in the Rzeszów agglomeration, which is the capital of this province, while smaller emissions are in the mountainous regions.
To calculate these emissions, we took into account the road categories, the road types, the various types of vehicles, and the traffic intensity factors as described in Sect. 2.1. Also we calculated the emissions caused by combustion of gasoline, diesel, and liquefied petroleum gas used by different types of vehicles, separately for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide for all types of vehicles and each road segment. The total emissions from each road segment were calculated using the global warming potentials of each GHG.
The road transport in Poland, with 15% of the total GHG emissions in the energy sector, is prevailing among all modes of transport, such as railway, domestic aviation, and shipping. Railways in Poland are heavily electrified, so the share of GHG emissions from this type of transport is only 0.11% of the total emissions in the energy sector. The compact configuration of Poland and its relatively small size make the use of civil aviation for domestic transport inefficient—the share of emissions from domestic aviation is only 0.03% of the energy sector emissions. The configuration of the coastline and relatively small rivers from a transport perspective have resulted in a very small share of domestic shipping (emissions from domestic navigation amount to only 0.0004% of the energy sector emissions). Therefore, these categories hardly influence the spatial pattern of total emissions compared to other more powerful emission sources. Moreover, since our approach is devoted to the spatial analysis of GHG emissions at the regional/national level, we have not investigated emissions from the use of bunker fuels for international transportation.
Similar detailed calculations of GHG emissions, as for the road transport, were done for all categories of anthropogenic emissions considered here. As a result, the spatial distributions of the GHG emissions (separately for the different gases as well as the total) at the level of the point-, line-, and area-type emission sources were obtained. These data for each category of emissions can be downloaded from Supplementary Materials.
In the final stage, the point-, line-, and area-type emission sources for each emission category were summed to calculate the total emissions. For this purpose, we used a grid where each grid cell is represented as a polygon feature. The grid cells were also split by administrative boundaries into separate elementary objects as shown in Fig. 4 so that each grid cell retains information about the administrative assignment. For example, an administrative boundary may split some grid cells into separate elementary objects in the GHG spatial inventory (e.g., objects 2 and 3 as well as objects 4 and 5 in Fig. 4). Then we summed the emissions from all sources that are fully or partly situated within a cell or its administrative unit. Therefore, the emissions from cell 1 are the sum of emissions from two point sources, a segment from a line source, and part of an area source. Emissions from elementary object 2 correspond to part of emissions from an area source, and emissions from objects 3, 4, and 5 correspond to segments of line sources, etc. (Fig. 4). The emission from line-type sources is originally calculated per length unit (for example, Mg/km as in Fig. 3), as emission intensity. To calculate the emissions for the grid, the emission intensity is multiplied by the segment length located within the grid cell (the result is given, for example, in Mg). Then, the emissions from road segments are summed together with emissions from other sources within the cell to provide the total emissions, which may also be conveniently presented as the emission intensity per area unit (for example, Gg/cell as in Fig. 5 or Gg/km2 as in Fig. 6).
In this way, the total emissions from all categories can be calculated. Any grid size can be chosen as long as it is larger than 100 m due to the limit of the data used to derive the area-type emission sources. However, for visualization purposes, we used a 2-km grid size.
Figure 5 provides a map of the total GHG emissions for all categories of the energy, industry, agriculture, and waste sectors for Poland and for the Silesian province, which is the most industrialized Polish province. An alternative representation is provided in Fig. 6 for the Silesian province in Poland using a prism map and the square root of the emissions for better visualization of the results. This 3D presentation perfectly illustrates a non-uniform localization of emission sources and the essential differences in the emission magnitudes.
As expected, the results of the calculations showed considerable unevenness in the spatial distribution of GHG emission sources. The largest emissions are caused by point-type sources, including power plants. There are 80 electricity generation plants with power over 20 MW in Poland. In 2010, most of the emissions were caused by Elektrownia Bełchatów SA in Łódź province (abbreviation LDZ in the figures). With an emission of 21,926 GgCO2-eq. per year, it is the biggest power plant using coal in Europe. This is followed by Elektrownia Pątnów II in Greater Poland (WKP) province, with an emission of 17,896 GgCO2-eq., and Elektrownia Rybnik SA in Silesian (SLK) province, with an emission of 11,630 GgCO2-eq.. The emissions for the grid cells with these sources are very large as compared to other grid cells, so it causes substantial difficulties in creating maps of emissions. Hence, we used a non-linear function of the square root for creating these maps. Lower emissions are due to point sources, such as steel mills, oil refineries, and chemical plants. As we can see from Figs. 5 and 6, significant emissions are caused by the agglomerations of Katowice, Warsaw, Kraków, Łódź, Wrocław, and Poznań. Here, the main emission sources are district heat production plants, industrial zones, road and railway networks, and households. The share of line-type emission sources, including road transport, is not large with respect to the total GHG spatial inventory. Major highways and road networks cause emissions in the range of 1–3 GgCO2-eq./km2. But given their considerable length, their share in the aggregated emissions for provinces is significant. Among the major area-type emission sources, households in the residential sector are the most important (e.g., the largest emissions are 32.2 GgCO2-eq./km2).
Municipality/province emissions
As mentioned previously, the total emissions can be calculated for any administrative unit at the level of gmina/municipality, powiat/district, or voivodeship/province without any loss of accuracy. Figure 7 shows the total GHG emissions from fossil fuel use at the level of municipalities in Poland. In 2010, the highest GHG emissions were in Kleszczów municipality in Łódź (LDZ) province (22,081 GgCO2-eq.; 99.3% of these emissions are caused by electricity generation), Konin town in the Greater Poland (WKP) province (18,059 GgCO2-eq.; 99.1% by electricity generation), Warsaw in Masovian (MAZ) province (17,219 GgCO2-eq.; 70.2% by electricity and heat production), Rybnik town in Silesian (SLK) province (12,319 GgCO2-eq.; 94.4% by electricity generation), and Płock town in Masovian (MAZ) province (9957 GgCO2-eq.; 89.5% by refinery).
Figure 8 shows the total GHG emissions by sectors in Poland at a provincial level, while Fig. 9 focuses on emissions in the energy sector, which has the largest influence on total emissions. In 2010, the highest GHG emissions were caused by the most industrialized provinces such as Silesian (SLK, 63,012 GgCO2-eq.), Masovian (MAZ, 55,772 GgCO2-eq.), Greater Poland (WKP, 42,686 GgCO2-eq.), and Lódź (LDZ, 39,282 GgCO2-eq.), and the lowest emissions occurred in Lubusz province (LBU, 6295 GgCO2-eq.). The energy sector (fossil fuel) dominated the emissions of all provinces, with the share exceeding 50%. The largest share of the energy sector is in Łódź province (LDZ, 87.8%), Silesian province (SLK, 86.7%), and Masovian province (MAZ, 85.3%), while the lowest is in Podlaskie province (PDL, 53.9%). In addition to the traditional dominance of the energy sector in the emission profiles of industrialized countries, the energy sector in Poland consists of significant use of coal for electricity generation and heat production, industry, and residential subsectors. In the energy sector, the highest emissions are caused by electricity generation and centralized heat production. The share of these categories of emissions is the largest in Łódź province (LDZ, 65.5%; 25,731 GgCO2-eq.), Greater Poland province (WKP, 55.1%; 23,501 GgCO2-eq.), and Silesian province (SLK, 54.7%; 34,471 GgCO2-eq.).
The shares of emissions from manufacturing industries and the construction sector are the highest in Masovian province (MAZ, 14.7%), from the transport sector in Lubusz province (LBU, 30.8%), and from the building sector in Subcarpathian province (PKR, 30.0%). On the other way, the share of fugitive emissions from fuel extraction and fuel processing is essential only in Silesian province (SLK, 14.6%) and Lublin province (LBL, 7.2%).
The share of the industrial sector (chemical transformation of materials) in all provinces is much lower. The largest share is in Lublin province (LBL, 23.3%), Holy Cross province (SWK, 18.3%), and Lesser Poland province (MLP, 12.8%). The largest shares of emissions from the agriculture sector are in Podlaskie province (PDL, 36.9%), Warmian-Masurian province (WMZ, 23.6%), and Lublin province (LBL, 13.9%). The share from the waste sector is approximately the same in all provinces (2.4−7.3%).
Uncertainty analysis
Factors affecting uncertainty at the GHG source level
The variables and parameters used in the GHG inventory are often highly uncertain (IPCC 2001). These uncertainties are associated with a lack of knowledge about emission processes, inaccurate measuring instruments, etc. (Ometto et al. 2015; White et al. 2011). There are a number of potential uncertainties in the GHG spatial inventory produced here, which can arise from the following factors:
-
(a)
uncertainty in the geolocation of emission sources and sinks;
-
(b)
uncertainty in the aggregated activity/statistical data;
-
(c)
uncertainty in the proxy data representation (uncertainty in the spatial disaggregation of the activity data to the level of the elementary objects using disaggregation algorithms and disaggregation coefficients on the basis of some indicators or proxy data);
-
(d)
uncertainty in the proxy data values;
-
(e)
uncertainty in the proxy data geolocation;
-
(f)
uncertainty in the emission factors.
The uncertainty connected with the geolocation of the sources plays an important role in some applications, especially disaggregation of country emissions to develop a gridded emission dataset, transport model simulations, etc. (Hogue et al. 2016, 2018; Oda et al. 2018; Andres et al. 2016; Singer et al. 2014). However, this factor is not considered in this study because the uncertainty in locating the point- and line-type elementary objects is small, especially for big emission sources since we used Google Earth™ and visual inspection of the sources. We created vector maps of emission sources and determined their geographical coordinates very precisely instead of using a raster grid employed in other approaches. Only power plants with multiple stacks can create some problems, where we represent a group of stacks by an average position. This introduces uncertainty in the geolocation but is considered negligible for the purpose of this study. The uncertainty in the location of the area-type (diffused) emission sources/sinks is a function of the minimum mapping unit of the Corine Land Cover maps (Corine 2006), which is 100 m, where the accuracy of this product is 87.82% (Büttner et al. 2012).
Regarding the uncertainty of the input statistical data such as the uncertainty in the calorific values or emission factors, data from various sources (IPCC 2001; NIR 2012; GUS 2016) and other studies (e.g., Hamal (2009)) have been used. For these variables, we used symmetric and asymmetric (lognormal) distributions and 95% confidence intervals (Bun 2009).
As described previously, the algorithms for disaggregation of the activity data are based on certain proxies, the values of which were mostly fixed using statistical data. Therefore, it was assumed that the uncertainties in the proxy data values are the same as for the statistical data used. It was also assumed that relative uncertainties of disaggregated activity data at the level of emission sources are \( \sqrt{n} \) times higher than those in the coarse base area, where n is the number of emission sources of certain category during disaggregation of activity data, similar to Hogue et al. (2018); see also Holnicki and Nahorski (2015) for an analysis in another problem. Based on these input uncertainties, we estimated the distributions of the emissions at the level of emission sources using the Monte Carlo method and calculated the mean values and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals as uncertainty ranges (as suggested by IPCC (2001)). For point-type sources, we estimated the uncertainty of the results separately for each source.
As we used the activity/proxy data from the lowest administrative level as possible, the depth of disaggregation procedure was low, with essentially rather small values of n, and as a result, it led to much smaller increase of uncertainties at the level of emission sources than in disaggregation from the country level. For some categories of human activities, such as in the residential sector, the uncertainties in the disaggregated data were evaluated by comparison with similar data from other known sources (GUS 2016; BDL 2016). These results are presented in a number of different studies (Topylko et al. 2015; Danylo et al. 2015; Halushchak et al. 2015, 2016; Charkovska et al. 2018a), where the authors also analyzed the sensitivity of the total uncertainty to changes in the separate component uncertainties such as the statistical data, the calorific values, and the emission factors.
Sensitivity analysis of the uncertainty
We used the calculated data on uncertainties at the level of emission sources for estimation of the uncertainty of emissions at grid cell level (as uncertainty of a sum of the emissions from all sources that are fully or partly situated within grid cells). It allowed us to perform additional uncertainty analysis. Figure 10 presents the sensitivity of the uncertainty of GHG emissions from using fossil fuels in Poland as a whole to the uncertainty of the emissions in separate cells, i.e,. the partial derivative \( {k}_{sensit.}=\partial {\overline{U}}_{national}/\partial {\overline{U}}_i \), where ksensit. is the sensitivity factor, \( {\overline{U}}_{national} \) is the relative uncertainty of the national emission, \( {\overline{U}}_i \) is the relative uncertainty of emission in the i-th grid cell.
For this analysis, we used calculated data on emissions and uncertainties at the grid cell level. These results are mainly intended for a qualitative analysis, because there is no methodology available for precise estimating the uncertainty of emission parameters at the level of grid cells, including uncertainty in the activity data. For this reason, we present the results in relative units in Fig. 10. The map shows the cells with the greatest impact on the overall uncertainty in the inventory results. Of the total number of 79,000 cells, less than 300 cells have an impact on total uncertainty, and only less than 30 cells play a key role. These cells include the big point sources of emissions, especially the biggest power plants (due to very high emissions) and four major refineries (due to high emission of CH4 with a high uncertainty). The sensitivity factor is the highest for the cell containing the Elektrownia Bełchatów SA power plant in Łódź (LDZ) province (ksensit. , Belchat. = 0.022). For example, when reducing the relative uncertainty of emissions at this plant by 10%, i.e., from \( {\overline{U}}_{Belchat.} \) to \( 0.9{\overline{U}}_{Belchat.} \), the relative uncertainty in the emissions in the energy sector for Poland will be reduced by 0.2235%, which means a reduction of absolute uncertainty of half of the 95% confidence interval to 16.0 Gg.
Uncertainty at the province level
As the number of elementary objects for line- and area-type sources is large (typically tens of thousands, as in the residential or agriculture sectors), we also evaluated the uncertainties of the results and their sensitivity to changes in the uncertainties of the separate sectors/subsectors using the Monte Carlo method, but at the province level. Figure 11 presents the absolute uncertainty of GHG emissions from the main sectors/subsectors at the provincial level. For this analysis, we used data on emissions at the grid cell level but aggregated to provincial level, as well as data on uncertainty of emission parameters for different sectors/subsectors from the NIR (2012). Although the processes of electricity and heat production dominate the total emissions of almost all provinces, according to this analysis their absolute uncertainties play a key role only in Silesian (SLK; a half of 95% confidential interval is 1167 Gg) and Łódź (LDZ; 871 Gg) provinces, which might seem an unexpected result. Instead, in the provinces with a large population, uncertainty in the waste sector plays a key role (Silesian province, SLK—1049 Gg; Masovian province, MAZ—1039 Gg). Similarly, in the provinces with developed livestock and crop production, the agriculture sector plays a key role (Masovian province, MAZ—1588 Gg; Greater Poland province, WKP—1399 Gg; Kuyavian-Pomeranian province, KPM—1108 Gg). This is due to the fact that in the production of electricity and heat, the emission of carbon dioxide dominates, for which the uncertainty is quite small. Instead, in the agriculture and waste sectors, the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide dominate, which have much greater uncertainty, as well as higher coefficients of global warming. The absolute uncertainty in fugitive emissions from fuel production and processing is essential only in the provinces where there are big mines and refineries (Silesian province, SLK—986 Gg; Masovian province, MAZ—599 Gg; Pomeranian province, POM—191 Gg). The contribution of the uncertainties of emissions from fossil fuel use in the manufacturing industry, transport, commercial, and residential sectors to the overall uncertainty is negligible, because the emissions of carbon dioxide dominate here with low uncertainty and low global warming potential (GWP = 1). The uncertainty in the emissions from industrial processes only plays an essential role in the industrialized Silesian province (SLK, 251 Gg) and provinces with big nitrogen plants (Lublin province, LBL—206 Gg; Lesser Poland province, MLP—141 Gg).
The influence of the abovementioned factors were analyzed separately at the emission sources level for all categories, and then, the results were combined in the grid cells. For the investigation of the dominant components of uncertainty at the grid cell level, the approach presented by Hogue et al. (2018) can be applied. The learning process outlined in Jonas et al. (2018) can also be used for the continual improvement of GHG emission inventories and uncertainties.