Methane is a greenhouse gas and identified as a key driver of near-term climate change. Bottom-up approaches estimate annual methane loss from US natural gas production and transport at 6 Tg, but recent studies suggest this may be an underestimate. To investigate this possibility, an equipment-based emissions inventory, using EPA emission factors, was developed to calculate methane emissions from oil and gas operations in the Delaware basin, USA. Emission factors and activity data were then updated using contemporary and region-specific measurement data. The original inventory estimated emissions at 315 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹ (gas production-normalized rate of 0.6% loss), while the updated inventory estimated emissions of 1500 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹ (2.8% loss). The largest changes resulted from large fugitive emissions from oil production (+430 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹), updating maintenance activity emissions (+214 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹), considering flaring inefficiency (+174 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹), and the inclusion of associated gas venting (+136 Gg CH₄ y⁻¹). This study suggests that a systematic underestimate probably exists in current bottom-up inventories and identifies sources currently missing or may be incorrect. We also strongly recommend that emission factors should be validated through direct comparison against measurement campaigns that include long-tail distributions typical of oil and gas activities.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a 25 times higher 100-year warming potential than carbon dioxide and is a target for mitigation to achieve climate goals. To control and curb methane emissions, estimates are required from the sources and sectors which are typically generated using bottom-up methods. However, recent studies have shown that national and international bottom-up approaches can significantly underestimate emissions. In this study, we present three bottom-up approaches used to estimate methane emissions from all emission sectors in the Denver-Julesburg basin, CO, USA. Our data show emissions generated from all three methods are lower than historic measurements. A Tier 1/2 approach using IPCC emission factors estimated 2022 methane emissions of 358 Gg (0.8% of produced methane lost by the energy sector), while a Tier 3 EPA-based approach estimated emissions of 269 Gg (0.2%). Using emission factors informed by contemporary and region-specific measurement studies, emissions of 212 Gg (0.2%) were calculated. The largest difference in emissions estimates were a result of using the Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) for the production and transport of oil and gas in the DJ basin. The MAES accounts for changes to regulatory practice in the DJ basin, which include comprehensive requirements for compressors, pneumatics, equipment leaks, and fugitive emissions, which were implemented to reduce emissions starting in 2014. The measurement revealed that normalized gas loss is predicted to have been reduced by a factor of 20 when compared to 10-year-old normalization loss measurements and a factor of 10 less than a nearby oil and production area (Delaware basin, TX); however, we suggest that more measurements should be made to ensure that the long-tail emission distribution has been captured by the modeling. This study suggests that regulations implemented by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment could have reduced emissions by a factor of 20, but contemporary regional measurements should be made to ensure these bottom-up calculations are realistic.

Advances in power electronics and their use in Miscellaneous Electric Loads (MELs) in buildings have resulted in increased interest in using low-voltage direct current (DC) power distribution as a replacement for the standard alternating current (AC) power distribution in buildings. Both systems require an endpoint converter to convert the distribution system voltage to the MELs voltage requirements. This study focused on the efficiency of these endpoint converters by testing pairs of AC/DC and DC/DC power converters powering the same load profile. In contrast to prior studies, which estimated losses based on data sheet efficiency and rated loads, in this study, we used part load data derived from real-world time-series load measurements of MELs and experimentally characterized efficiency curves for all converters. The measurements performed for this study showed no systematic efficiency advantage for commercially available DC/DC endpoint converters relative to comparable, commercially available AC/DC endpoint converters. For the eight appliances analyzed with the pair of converters tested, in 50%, the weighted energy efficiency of the DC/DC converter was higher, while, for the other 50%, the AC/DC converter was. Additionally, the measurements indicated that the common assumption of using either data sheet efficiency values or efficiency at full load may result in substantial mis-estimates of the system efficiency.

Recently, there has been considerable research interest in the potential for DC distribution systems in buildings instead of the traditional AC distribution systems. Due to the need for performing power conversions between DC and AC electricity, DC distribution may provide electrical efficiency advantages in some systems. To support comparative evaluations of AC-only, DC-only, and hybrid AC/DC distribution systems in buildings, a new modeling toolkit called the Building Electrical Efficiency Analysis Model (BEEAM) was developed and is described in this paper. To account for harmonics in currents or voltages arising from nonlinear devices, the toolkit implements harmonic power flow, along with nonlinear device behavioral descriptions derived from empirical measurements. This paper describes the framework, network equations, device representations, and an implementation of the toolkit in an open source software package, including a component library and graphical interface for creating circuits. Simulations of electrical behavior and device and system efficiencies using the toolkit are compared with experimental measurements of a small office environment in a variety of operating and load configurations. A detailed analysis of uncertainty estimation is also provided. Key findings were that a comparison of predicted versus measured efficiencies and power losses in the validation testbed using the initial toolkit implementation predicted device- and system-level efficiencies with reasonably good accuracy under both balanced and unbalanced AC scenarios. An uncertainty analysis also revealed that the maximum estimated error for system efficiency across all scenarios was 3%, and measured and modeled system efficiency agreed within the experimental uncertainty in approximately half of the scenarios. Based on the correspondence between simulation and measurement, the toolkit is proposed by the authors as a potentially useful tool for comparing efficiency in AC, DC, and hybrid AC/DC distribution systems in buildings.