{
  "id": 132342,
  "title": "Current Emissions Factors Methodologies",
  "url": "/competitions/ds4g-environmental-insights-explorer/discussion/132342",
  "author_name": "",
  "post_date": "2020-02-25T12:54:03.861281200Z",
  "votes": 4,
  "comment_count": 8,
  "views": 0,
  "content": "<p>The overview states:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>The ultimate goal of this challenge is to test if calculations of emissions factors using remote sensing techniques are possible and on par with calculations of emissions factors from current methodologies.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It also links to <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#About%20Emissions%20Factors\">this page</a>, which links to <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/procedures-development-emissions-factors-stationary-sources\">this page</a> which has a PDF \"<a href=\"https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf\">Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Emissions Factor Database - Draft Final (PDF)</a>\" which as actually pretty old (2013).</p>\n\n<p>Has anyone come across any more recent methods? </p>\n\n<p>For example, <a href=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015301291\">this method</a> from 2015 seems to be quite relevant, though they're using a different satellite (from before Sentinel-5P was launched).</p>\n\n<p>Another good one I came across was <a href=\"https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/5283/2016/acp-16-5283-2016.pdf\">this one</a> which deals specifically with wind effects, but discusses the use of remote sensing in general.</p>\n\n<p>These papers also reference many other relevant methods (many by the same authors).</p>\n\n<p>My question is: what are the \"current emissions factors methodologies\" that we are comparing to? It seems like in research the methods are already quite far ahead of what's used in government (obviously), so are we aiming for a more robust method (maybe not so advanced, but applicable in many situations / easy to implement) or furthering the state-of-the-art as seen in the research?</p>\n\n<p>I guess it's the former, but would be nice to clarify to know a little more about the expectations!</p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": "756143",
      "postDate": "02/25/2020 12:54:03",
      "content": "<p>The overview states:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>The ultimate goal of this challenge is to test if calculations of emissions factors using remote sensing techniques are possible and on par with calculations of emissions factors from current methodologies.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It also links to <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#About%20Emissions%20Factors\">this page</a>, which links to <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/procedures-development-emissions-factors-stationary-sources\">this page</a> which has a PDF \"<a href=\"https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf\">Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Emissions Factor Database - Draft Final (PDF)</a>\" which as actually pretty old (2013).</p>\n\n<p>Has anyone come across any more recent methods? </p>\n\n<p>For example, <a href=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015301291\">this method</a> from 2015 seems to be quite relevant, though they're using a different satellite (from before Sentinel-5P was launched).</p>\n\n<p>Another good one I came across was <a href=\"https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/5283/2016/acp-16-5283-2016.pdf\">this one</a> which deals specifically with wind effects, but discusses the use of remote sensing in general.</p>\n\n<p>These papers also reference many other relevant methods (many by the same authors).</p>\n\n<p>My question is: what are the \"current emissions factors methodologies\" that we are comparing to? It seems like in research the methods are already quite far ahead of what's used in government (obviously), so are we aiming for a more robust method (maybe not so advanced, but applicable in many situations / easy to implement) or furthering the state-of-the-art as seen in the research?</p>\n\n<p>I guess it's the former, but would be nice to clarify to know a little more about the expectations!</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "The overview states:\n\n&gt; The ultimate goal of this challenge is to test if calculations of emissions factors using remote sensing techniques are possible and on par with calculations of emissions factors from current methodologies.\n\nIt also links to [this page](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#About%20Emissions%20Factors), which links to [this page](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/procedures-development-emissions-factors-stationary-sources) which has a PDF \"[Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Emissions Factor Database - Draft Final (PDF)](https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf)\" which as actually pretty old (2013).\n\nHas anyone come across any more recent methods? \n\nFor example, [this method](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015301291) from 2015 seems to be quite relevant, though they're using a different satellite (from before Sentinel-5P was launched).\n\nAnother good one I came across was [this one](https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/5283/2016/acp-16-5283-2016.pdf) which deals specifically with wind effects, but discusses the use of remote sensing in general.\n\nThese papers also reference many other relevant methods (many by the same authors).\n\nMy question is: what are the \"current emissions factors methodologies\" that we are comparing to? It seems like in research the methods are already quite far ahead of what's used in government (obviously), so are we aiming for a more robust method (maybe not so advanced, but applicable in many situations / easy to implement) or furthering the state-of-the-art as seen in the research?\n\nI guess it's the former, but would be nice to clarify to know a little more about the expectations!",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "756241",
      "postDate": "02/25/2020 14:44:31",
      "content": "<p>I was asking myself the same question. I'm familiar with some remote sensing techniques, but not really for emissions calculations. I would be curious to know more about it though.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "I was asking myself the same question. I'm familiar with some remote sensing techniques, but not really for emissions calculations. I would be curious to know more about it though.",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "756361",
      "postDate": "02/25/2020 16:51:40",
      "content": "<p>You should aim to produce as robust and accurate of a model as is possible within the computational constraints of one or more Kaggle notebooks.  The competition hosts will compare the pros and cons of your methodology to the pros and cons of multiple competing methodologies and we encourage you to do the same.  The links that you found in the <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#Emissions%20Factors%20Procedures\">getting started document</a> are a great place to get started with your literature review.</p>\n\n<p>You can read more about how the submissions will be evaluated <a href=\"https://www.kaggle.com/c/ds4g-environmental-insights-explorer/overview/evaluation\">here</a>.</p>\n\n<p>```\n<strong>Recommendation</strong></p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Did the author write a compelling and coherent narrative explaining their rationale for the scalability and accuracy of their model and recommendation?</li>\n<li>Does the recommendation include an explanation of what data/assumptions could be substituted to produce the value for another geospatial area or location?</li>\n<li>Is there documentation about the pros and cons of the model, and the geographic nuances that may have impacted the emissions factor?</li>\n<li>Does the explanation convey why/how this model improves current emissions factors calculations? </li>\n<li>Does the recommendation indicate other datasets/factors/assumptions (and why) that could be useful to include to make future emissions factor calculation methodologies more robust?\n```</li>\n</ul>",
      "rawMarkdown": "You should aim to produce as robust and accurate of a model as is possible within the computational constraints of one or more Kaggle notebooks.  The competition hosts will compare the pros and cons of your methodology to the pros and cons of multiple competing methodologies and we encourage you to do the same.  The links that you found in the [getting started document](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#Emissions%20Factors%20Procedures) are a great place to get started with your literature review.\n\nYou can read more about how the submissions will be evaluated [here](https://www.kaggle.com/c/ds4g-environmental-insights-explorer/overview/evaluation).\n\n\n```\n**Recommendation**\n\n* Did the author write a compelling and coherent narrative explaining their rationale for the scalability and accuracy of their model and recommendation?\n* Does the recommendation include an explanation of what data/assumptions could be substituted to produce the value for another geospatial area or location?\n* Is there documentation about the pros and cons of the model, and the geographic nuances that may have impacted the emissions factor?\n* Does the explanation convey why/how this model improves current emissions factors calculations? \n* Does the recommendation indicate other datasets/factors/assumptions (and why) that could be useful to include to make future emissions factor calculation methodologies more robust?\n```",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "756631",
      "postDate": "02/25/2020 22:52:01",
      "content": "<p>Thanks for the response, Paul. So it seems that doing a good literature review and coming up with the current methodologies to compare to is also part of the challenge.</p>\n\n<p>Another question then. Some of the links I shared for current methodologies are behind publisher's paywalls. I don't have access to any of these which means I'm unable to learn about the current methodologies without buying the various articles. For competitions like this which specifically require a literature review, is there any way we can get better access to the research?</p>\n\n<p>I'm not really sure how research licensing works, so thought I'd try my luck. </p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Thanks for the response, Paul. So it seems that doing a good literature review and coming up with the current methodologies to compare to is also part of the challenge.\n\nAnother question then. Some of the links I shared for current methodologies are behind publisher's paywalls. I don't have access to any of these which means I'm unable to learn about the current methodologies without buying the various articles. For competitions like this which specifically require a literature review, is there any way we can get better access to the research?\n\nI'm not really sure how research licensing works, so thought I'd try my luck.",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "756637",
      "postDate": "02/25/2020 23:00:57",
      "content": "<p>I do not have any specific recommendations on how you should proceed but I do think that it is interesting that <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29424689\">sci-hub.tw provides free access to the majority of the world's scholarly literature</a>.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "I do not have any specific recommendations on how you should proceed but I do think that it is interesting that [sci-hub.tw provides free access to the majority of the world's scholarly literature](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29424689).",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "757105",
      "postDate": "02/26/2020 12:47:28",
      "content": "<p>I can see why you wouldn't recommend this or discuss it, but very interesting paper!</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "I can see why you wouldn't recommend this or discuss it, but very interesting paper!",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "757377",
      "postDate": "02/26/2020 17:49:22",
      "content": "<p>I just found a NASA link to <a href=\"https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019770.pdf\">Estimates of power plant NOx emissions and lifetimes from OMI NO2 satellite retrievals</a></p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "I just found a NASA link to [Estimates of power plant NOx emissions and lifetimes from OMI NO2 satellite retrievals](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019770.pdf)",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "758838",
      "postDate": "02/28/2020 08:26:20",
      "content": "<p>Nice suggestions for further reading and understanding some of the mechanisms! Thanks!</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Nice suggestions for further reading and understanding some of the mechanisms! Thanks!",
      "votes": null
    },
    {
      "id": "758887",
      "postDate": "02/28/2020 09:38:28",
      "content": "<p>nice project i would like to know more </p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "nice project i would like to know more",
      "votes": null
    }
  ],
  "comments": [
    {
      "id": 756241,
      "author_name": "maxlenormand",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "02/25/2020 14:44:31",
      "content": "<p>I was asking myself the same question. I'm familiar with some remote sensing techniques, but not really for emissions calculations. I would be curious to know more about it though.</p>",
      "votes": null,
      "replies": []
    },
    {
      "id": 756361,
      "author_name": "paultimothymooney",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "02/25/2020 16:51:40",
      "content": "<p>You should aim to produce as robust and accurate of a model as is possible within the computational constraints of one or more Kaggle notebooks.  The competition hosts will compare the pros and cons of your methodology to the pros and cons of multiple competing methodologies and we encourage you to do the same.  The links that you found in the <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#Emissions%20Factors%20Procedures\">getting started document</a> are a great place to get started with your literature review.</p>\n\n<p>You can read more about how the submissions will be evaluated <a href=\"https://www.kaggle.com/c/ds4g-environmental-insights-explorer/overview/evaluation\">here</a>.</p>\n\n<p>```\n<strong>Recommendation</strong></p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Did the author write a compelling and coherent narrative explaining their rationale for the scalability and accuracy of their model and recommendation?</li>\n<li>Does the recommendation include an explanation of what data/assumptions could be substituted to produce the value for another geospatial area or location?</li>\n<li>Is there documentation about the pros and cons of the model, and the geographic nuances that may have impacted the emissions factor?</li>\n<li>Does the explanation convey why/how this model improves current emissions factors calculations? </li>\n<li>Does the recommendation indicate other datasets/factors/assumptions (and why) that could be useful to include to make future emissions factor calculation methodologies more robust?\n```</li>\n</ul>",
      "votes": null,
      "replies": [
        {
          "id": 756631,
          "author_name": "jyesawtellrickson",
          "author_url": "",
          "post_date": "02/25/2020 22:52:01",
          "content": "<p>Thanks for the response, Paul. So it seems that doing a good literature review and coming up with the current methodologies to compare to is also part of the challenge.</p>\n\n<p>Another question then. Some of the links I shared for current methodologies are behind publisher's paywalls. I don't have access to any of these which means I'm unable to learn about the current methodologies without buying the various articles. For competitions like this which specifically require a literature review, is there any way we can get better access to the research?</p>\n\n<p>I'm not really sure how research licensing works, so thought I'd try my luck. </p>",
          "votes": null,
          "replies": []
        },
        {
          "id": 756637,
          "author_name": "paultimothymooney",
          "author_url": "",
          "post_date": "02/25/2020 23:00:57",
          "content": "<p>I do not have any specific recommendations on how you should proceed but I do think that it is interesting that <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29424689\">sci-hub.tw provides free access to the majority of the world's scholarly literature</a>.</p>",
          "votes": null,
          "replies": []
        },
        {
          "id": 757105,
          "author_name": "jyesawtellrickson",
          "author_url": "",
          "post_date": "02/26/2020 12:47:28",
          "content": "<p>I can see why you wouldn't recommend this or discuss it, but very interesting paper!</p>",
          "votes": null,
          "replies": []
        },
        {
          "id": 757377,
          "author_name": "ajulian",
          "author_url": "",
          "post_date": "02/26/2020 17:49:22",
          "content": "<p>I just found a NASA link to <a href=\"https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019770.pdf\">Estimates of power plant NOx emissions and lifetimes from OMI NO2 satellite retrievals</a></p>",
          "votes": null,
          "replies": []
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 758838,
      "author_name": "tiurii",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "02/28/2020 08:26:20",
      "content": "<p>Nice suggestions for further reading and understanding some of the mechanisms! Thanks!</p>",
      "votes": null,
      "replies": []
    },
    {
      "id": 758887,
      "author_name": "aspalladan",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "02/28/2020 09:38:28",
      "content": "<p>nice project i would like to know more </p>",
      "votes": null,
      "replies": []
    }
  ],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "756143": "The overview states:\n\n&gt; The ultimate goal of this challenge is to test if calculations of emissions factors using remote sensing techniques are possible and on par with calculations of emissions factors from current methodologies.\n\nIt also links to [this page](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#About%20Emissions%20Factors), which links to [this page](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/procedures-development-emissions-factors-stationary-sources) which has a PDF \"[Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Emissions Factor Database - Draft Final (PDF)](https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf)\" which as actually pretty old (2013).\n\nHas anyone come across any more recent methods? \n\nFor example, [this method](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015301291) from 2015 seems to be quite relevant, though they're using a different satellite (from before Sentinel-5P was launched).\n\nAnother good one I came across was [this one](https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/5283/2016/acp-16-5283-2016.pdf) which deals specifically with wind effects, but discusses the use of remote sensing in general.\n\nThese papers also reference many other relevant methods (many by the same authors).\n\nMy question is: what are the \"current emissions factors methodologies\" that we are comparing to? It seems like in research the methods are already quite far ahead of what's used in government (obviously), so are we aiming for a more robust method (maybe not so advanced, but applicable in many situations / easy to implement) or furthering the state-of-the-art as seen in the research?\n\nI guess it's the former, but would be nice to clarify to know a little more about the expectations!",
    "756241": "I was asking myself the same question. I'm familiar with some remote sensing techniques, but not really for emissions calculations. I would be curious to know more about it though.",
    "756361": "You should aim to produce as robust and accurate of a model as is possible within the computational constraints of one or more Kaggle notebooks.  The competition hosts will compare the pros and cons of your methodology to the pros and cons of multiple competing methodologies and we encourage you to do the same.  The links that you found in the [getting started document](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification#Emissions%20Factors%20Procedures) are a great place to get started with your literature review.\n\nYou can read more about how the submissions will be evaluated [here](https://www.kaggle.com/c/ds4g-environmental-insights-explorer/overview/evaluation).\n\n\n```\n**Recommendation**\n\n* Did the author write a compelling and coherent narrative explaining their rationale for the scalability and accuracy of their model and recommendation?\n* Does the recommendation include an explanation of what data/assumptions could be substituted to produce the value for another geospatial area or location?\n* Is there documentation about the pros and cons of the model, and the geographic nuances that may have impacted the emissions factor?\n* Does the explanation convey why/how this model improves current emissions factors calculations? \n* Does the recommendation indicate other datasets/factors/assumptions (and why) that could be useful to include to make future emissions factor calculation methodologies more robust?\n```",
    "756631": "Thanks for the response, Paul. So it seems that doing a good literature review and coming up with the current methodologies to compare to is also part of the challenge.\n\nAnother question then. Some of the links I shared for current methodologies are behind publisher's paywalls. I don't have access to any of these which means I'm unable to learn about the current methodologies without buying the various articles. For competitions like this which specifically require a literature review, is there any way we can get better access to the research?\n\nI'm not really sure how research licensing works, so thought I'd try my luck.",
    "756637": "I do not have any specific recommendations on how you should proceed but I do think that it is interesting that [sci-hub.tw provides free access to the majority of the world's scholarly literature](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29424689).",
    "757105": "I can see why you wouldn't recommend this or discuss it, but very interesting paper!",
    "757377": "I just found a NASA link to [Estimates of power plant NOx emissions and lifetimes from OMI NO2 satellite retrievals](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019770.pdf)",
    "758838": "Nice suggestions for further reading and understanding some of the mechanisms! Thanks!",
    "758887": "nice project i would like to know more"
  },
  "source": "meta"
}