Emission levels Poland

In addition to road transport the sources of air pollutions are (KOBiZE 2013) production processes, energy transformation (coal to electricity), non-industry combustion processes, waste management, agriculture. Figure 1 presents emission levels of basic pollutants from road transport in Poland in 2011. 

Proposed mathematical model implemented into PTV Visum environment bases on representation of full railway and road transport network of Poland with appropriate transition points. Model uses complete ODO matrixes for segments of demand for freight transport and uses full structure of vehicles for both modes. These elements allow for testing efficiency of transport system of Poland according to different aspects, like environmentally friendliness resulting from emission patterns. Emission levels are implemented into the model as functional dependences gained from on-board surveys (Merkisz et al. 2014, Mierkish Pielecha 2014). 

Table 7 shows the urban increment (difference between regional and urban background level for a given city) of PM2.5 for the critical and non-critical areas. Large urban increments have been calculated for Sofia, Milan and northern Italy, Athens and southern Poland. A large urban increment may indicate adverse dispersion conditions and/or high local emission densities. 

Most phase I NAPs provide for NE allocations based on a general emission rate and predicted activity level. For example in The Netherlands (NL), new entrants are allocated allowances based on projected output or fixed cap factor multiplied by uniform emission rate in line with that of a combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT). In France, Germany and Poland, C02-intensive power generators, such as coal-fired installations, receive the highest number of allowances per kW installed. The literature highlights the risk that NE provisions can create distortions (Harrison and Radov, 2002). In order to illustrate how these rules can impact electricity prices and C02 emissions in our GB simulations, we focus on two approaches one based on a uniform benchmark and one based on a fuel-specific benchmark. In both cases the forecast capacity factor of new entrants is fixed at 60%. 

In the years 2003-2004 an extensive and detailed study was prepared again to determine the possible and justified scope of emission trading implementation in Poland. It was based on the current environmental legislation in Poland and the EU. General conclusions have shown three possible levels for emission trading ... 

The implementation of emission trading in the cap-and-trade formula requires the definition of a longer-run cap for certain polluters and groups of emission sources. The current legal regulations in Poland and the EU make it possible to implement emission trading at the national level with respect to the following pollutants ... 

Step 2 - Total CO2 emission needs in 2005-2007 Step 3 - Split emissions between existing and new installations Step 4 - Early action and cogeneration bonuses Step 5 - Budget for unidentified installations and other needs. Figure 12.6 represents Poland s NAP preparation process and highlights the main budgets aggregated at the level of all ETS sectors. 

European satellites followed the Soviet leadership and joined the treaty (Darst 2001 Levy 1993). All communist countries except Poland ratified the First Sulfur Protocol (1985), which required 30% reduction of 1980 levels of SOj( emissions, but did little in terms of implementation during the 1980s beyond measures that addressed local air pollution. In 1988, CEE countries became parties to the Protocol on Nitrogen Oxides (NO, ), which required stabilization of NO, at 1987 levels by 1994. 

Table 2 shows that no emission reductions are required anywhere to reduce deposition on the southwest coast of Norway to 1.5 g S m a . To reduce the deposition to 1.0 g S m a , emission reductions are required in the German Democratic Republic, the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark and Poland, in order of national percentage of the total European cost of 3.8 billion DM per year. Substantial percentage emission reductions (from unabated 1995 levels) are required in the German Democratic Republic, Denmark, and Norway the last two because of their relative proximity to the receptor site, the first because of the relatively low marginal costs for sulfur emission control there. Note that emissions in Norway are not lowered to the minimum possible value but only by 45% after that point it is more cost-effective to reduce emissions elsewhere. 

---