Methane emissions from a Californian landfill, determined from airborne remote sensing and in-situ measurements

Abstract

Abstract. Fugitive emissions from waste disposal sites are important anthropogenic sources of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4). As a result of the growing world population and the recognition of the need to control greenhouse gas emissions, this anthropogenic source of CH4 has received much recent attention. However, the accurate assessment of the CH4 emissions from landfills by modeling and existing measurement techniques is challenging. This is because of inaccurate knowledge of the model parameters and the extent of and limited accessibility to landfill sites. This results in a large uncertainty in our knowledge of the emissions of CH4 from landfills and waste management. In this study, we present results derived from data collected during the research campaign COMEX (CO2 and Methane EXperiement) in late summer 2014 in the Los Angeles (LA) Basin. The objective of COMEX, which comprised aircraft observations of methane by the remote sensing Methane Airborne MAPper (MAMAP) instrument and a Picarro greenhouse gas in-situ analyser, was the quantitative investigation of CH4 emissions. Enhanced CH4 concentrations or "CH4 plumes" were detected downwind of landfills by remote sensing aircraft surveys. Subsequent to each remote sensing survey, the detected plume was sampled within the atmospheric boundary layer by in-situ measurements of atmospheric parameters such as wind information and dry gas mixing ratios of CH4 and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the same aircraft. This was undertaken to facilitate the independent estimation of the surface fluxes for the validation of the remote sensing estimates. During the COMEX campaign, four landfills in the LA Basin were surveyed. One landfill has repeatedly shown a clear emission plume. This landfill, the Olinda Alpha Landfill, was observed on four days during the last week of August and first days of September 2014. Emissions were estimated for all days using a mass balance approach. The derived emissions are between 13.0 and 18.2 kt CH4/yr with related uncertainties in the range of 17 % to 46 %. The comparison of the remote sensing and in-situ based CH4 emission rate estimates reveals good agreement within the error bars with an average absolute difference of around 2.3 kt CH4/yr. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported inventory value is 11.5 kt CH4/yr in 2014, on average 3.0 kt CH4/yr (±1.5 kt CH4/yr) lower than our estimates acquired in late Summer 2014. This difference may in part be explained by a possible leak located on the south-western slope of the landfill, which we identified in the observations of the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) instrument, flown contemporaneously aboard a second aircraft on one day.

MERLIN: A French-German Space Lidar Mission Dedicated to Atmospheric Methane

“…During the last years solar absorption spectrometry, using backscattered sunlight detected with a spectrometer on an aircraft [13], was used to estimate CH 4 Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1052 3 of 29 emissions from strong and localized point sources like coal mine [14] ventilation shafts, or landfills [15], for instance.…”

Reduced Methane Emissions from Santa Barbara Marine Seeps

“…The measurement suite comprised the remote sensing instrument MAMAP (Methane Airborne MAPper) [24], a grating spectrometer system operated in the short-wave infrared at about 1.6 µm for airborne column-averaged CH 4 and CO 2 observations. MAMAP has been used in the past for surveying an offshore natural gas blowout site [25], as well as onshore CH 4 from coal mine ventilation shafts [26], landfills [23] and CO 2 from coal fired power plants [27,28]. The instrument optics was mounted on a SOMAG CSM 130 gyro stabilized platform with a preselected viewing angle to capture the solar glint/glitter spot on the sea surface.…”

“…This is achieved by accounting for the time that it takes an air sample after entering the atmospheric in situ sampling boom of the aircraft to reach the actual measurement cell in the cavity of the Picarro instrument. The time lag was estimated at 21 s (±5 s) [23]. Neglecting this time lag would introduce a location error of over 1 km assuming an aircraft speed of around 60 m · s −1 .…”

“…The interpolation relies on a kriging approach (see Krautwurst et al [23] for details), which is used to fill the gaps between the flight legs. To account for the lack of measurements at the sea surface, a pseudo surface track was added.…”

“…It focused on strong CH 4 sources, such as oil fields [21,22] and landfills [23], among other important anthropogenic sources.…”