External Cost of Electricity Generation Systems (2)

858 views
754 views

Published on

AACIMP 2010 Summer School lecture by Yoshio Matsuki. "Sustainable Development" stream. "External Cost of Electricity Generation Systems" course. Part 2.
More info at http://summerschool.ssa.org.ua

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
858
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

External Cost of Electricity Generation Systems (2)

  1. 1. External cost of electricity generation systems Y. Matsuki, D.Sc. Professor, Department of Mathematical Method for System Analysis, IASA, NTUU “KPI” August 10, 2010
  2. 2. How can you calculate the externalities?
  3. 3. How to calculate the monetary value of the health impacts D= ∫ ρ(x)·f(x,C(x,Q))·Uv(x) dx impact of Area D: damage cost (Euro, US dollars, UAH) ρ(x): population density (person/m2) f(x,C(x,Q)): Exposure-Response Function cases/(year.person.μg/m3) Uv(x): unit cost (Euro/cases) C(x,Q): Concentration of the pollution (μg/m3) Q: Emission of the pollution (μg/year) x: Distance from the emission source (m)
  4. 4. What’s new on the public health issue? • Loss of life expectancy for chronic mortality from air pollution • [Dockery et al 1993, Pope et al 1995] have found positive correlations between exposure to particles and total mortality
  5. 5. Epidemiology of Acute Health Effects • Table of contents - Introduction - Studies of air pollution episodes - Health effects at low levels of air pollution - Acute Morbidity - Daily time-series mortality studies - Slope of the mortality exposure-response relationship and lead-lag relationships - Acute Morbidity - Hospital usage - Exacerbation of asthma - Respiratory symptoms - Lung function - Restricted activity
  6. 6. Introduction • It’s about human health and pollution. • Where in the world is this story about? • When did this story start? • What changed for the last 10-15 years?
  7. 7. Air pollution episodes • Where the most dramatic episode occurred and when? • What happened? • Mortality and morbidity • How? • Respiratory and cardiovascular • Cardiopulmonary disease • What was the level of particle and SO2? • 500 μg/m3 – 2 mg/m3 • If not old days, where do these levels exist?
  8. 8. Health effects at low level of air pollution • What was the primary interest to air pollution policy among the most developed nations for the last 20 years? • To determine the lowest level • The length of exposure to cause health impacts • Threshold was often assumed.
  9. 9. Health effects at low level of air pollution • With improved air monitoring, is threshold proven? • No threshold, or bellow ambient level in the US in 1996. • Many of the studies suggest linear model. • What is necessary to prove it? • Number of time-series studies
  10. 10. What are the health effects? • Mortality • Hospitalization for respiratory and heart disease • Aggravation of asthma • Incidence and duration of respiratory symptoms • Lung function • Restricted activity
  11. 11. Acute Mortality Daily time-series mortality studies • US EPA reviewed Ostro 1993, Schwartz 1994c, Dockery & Pope 1994, Pope et al. 1995b. • What these studies observed? • Changes in daily death counts associated with short-term changes in particulate air pollution. a near linear function.
  12. 12. What do you see from those table and figures? • Consistency in estimated effects • Statistically significant effect • Estimated Range? • 0.5 percent – 1.6 percent in daily mortality for each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM10 concentration. • Weighted mean? • About 0.8 percent
  13. 13. Percent increase in Mortality per 10 μg/m3 increase in PM10 • Mortality Cases/ μg/m3 ? • 0.5 percent – 1.6 percent in daily mortality for each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM10 concentration. • 5 x 10-4 – 1.5 x 10-3 Cases/ μg/m3 • Weighted mean about 0.8 percent • 8 x 10-4
  14. 14. Mortality by respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease • Large effect on respiratory disease mortality • Also cardiovascular disease causing death
  15. 15. Shape of the mortality exposure-response relationship and lead-lag relationships • PM10 concentration in typical US cities • 10 to 120 μg/m3 • Max 365 μg/m3 in the Utah Valley • How is in Ukraine?
  16. 16. Shape of the mortality exposure-response relationship and lead-lag relationships • What does it say? • Typically near linear or log-linear • Three possibilities: (1) no threshold (2) threshold is bellow existing pollution levels (3) looking more linear than it really is.
  17. 17. Shape of the mortality exposure-response relationship and lead-lag relationships • Increased mortality occurred concurrently or within 1-5 days following an increase in air pollution.
  18. 18. Acute Morbidity Hospital usage • What happened in the Utah Valley during the winter of 1986-1987? • A labor dispute resulted in the closure of the local steel mill, the largest single source of particulate emission. • This winter PM10 ave. 51 μg/m3 , max. 113 μg/m3 • Previous year ave. 90 μg/m3 , max 365 μg/m3 • Children hospital admission for respiratory disease dropped 50 percent.
  19. 19. Acute Morbidity Hospital usage • What was the argument by Lamm et al. (1994)? • Not closure of the steel mill, but Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) • What was the argument by Pope (1991)? • Not by the virus.
  20. 20. Acute Morbidity Hospital usage • What is the exposure-response of the hospital admission of all respiratory diseases? • 0.8 – 3.4 % increase per 10 μg/m3 by PM10 • 8 x 10-4 – 3.4 x 10-3 Cases/ μg/m3 by PM10
  21. 21. Acute Morbidity Hospital usage • Emergency department visit % increase by 10 μg/m3 increase of PM10 • 0.5 – 3.4 (ave. 1.0) % increase/ 10 μg/m3
  22. 22. Exacerbation of asthma Respiratory symptoms • Asthma, Bronchodilator • Cough
  23. 23. Exacerbation of asthma • What is the exposure-response relation of asthmatic attack? • 3 % increase in asthmatic attacks with 10 μg/m3 increase of PM10 • 3 x 10-3 cases/ μg/m3 • What is the exposure-response relation of bronchodilator use? • 1.1 – 12 % (ave. 3.0) increase with 10 μg/m3 increase of PM10 • 3.0 x 10-3 cases/ μg/m3
  24. 24. Respiratory symptoms • Lower Respiratory symptoms – Wheezing, dry cough, phlegm, shortness of breath, chest discomfort/pain • What is the exposure-response relation of lower respiratory symptoms? • Ave. 3.0 % increase in lower respiratory symptoms with 10 μg/m3 increase of PM10 • 3.0 x 10-3 cases/ μg/m3 • Upper Respiratory symptoms – Runny nose, stuffy nose, sinusitis, sore throat, wet cough, head cold, hay fever, red eyes • Statistically insignificant association observed.
  25. 25. Key words • Pneumonia • COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung) disease • Coronary Artery Disease • Disrythmias (such as slow heart rate) • Congestive Heart Failure
  26. 26. Lung function • FEV: forced expiratory volume (a measure of lung function) • FVC: forced vital capacity • PEF: Peak expiratory flow
  27. 27. Epidemiology of Chronic Health Effects • Table of contents - Introduction - Mortality Studies - Population-based (ecologic) mortality studies - Research needs for improved study designs - Prospective Cohort Mortality Studies - Harvard six-cities study - Implication of prospective cohort mortality results - Chronic Health Effects; Morbidity - Chronic differences in lung function - Chronic respiratory symptoms and disease
  28. 28. Introduction • What is the difference between the acute effects and the chronic effects? • Acute: associated with short term (day to day change) • Chronic = long-term: a long time + cumulative effects of repeated exposure • If acute effect exists, is there also chronic effect by the same pollutant? • Not automatically
  29. 29. Mortality Studies Population-based mortality studies • What is the summary of the population-based cross- sectional study? • Average mortality is higher in cities with higher fine particulate and sulfate particulates. • How the other risks were controlled? • Smoking rate, education levels, income levels, poverty rates, housing density, etc were included in the regression models. • What is the coefficients of air pollution related mortality? • About 3 % per 10 μg/m3 • 4 x 10-3 per μg/m3
  30. 30. What are limitations of Population- based Studies? • Systematic and/or analytical bias – Study designs – Data sets – Analytic techniques – Regression analysis – Hypothesis testing – Controlling some other factors • Size of the estimated association – Comparison with the current pollution level to the chronic mortality is not appropriate, – Because now the pollution level is lower than years ago. • Cannot control for individual differences in cigarette smoking, and other risk factors.
  31. 31. What are limitations of Population- based Studies? • Age, poverty, health care, occupations, cigarette smoking, housing quality, cooking fuels vary among cities and potentially could be confounding the apparent air pollution associations.
  32. 32. Improved study designs • What are 2 important issues 1970s – 1980s • Threshold • Study design – what evidence needed? • If threshold, what will become easier? • To establish the acceptable goal for pollution control
  33. 33. Prospective Cohort Mortality Studies • 3 cohort mortality studies • With improved study design
  34. 34. Prospective Cohort Mortality Studies • Not on the data available for the population as a whole, • But, it analyzes the incidence of health effects in a sample of individuals. • Negative aspect: • It relies on community-based air pollution monitoring. • Costly and time-consuming
  35. 35. Harvard six-cities study • 14-16 follow up of 8,111 adults living in 6 cities of the US • TSP, PM10, PM2.5, SO4, H+, SO2, NO2 and O3 levels were monitored. • What is most strongly associated with mortality risk? • Smoking • But, after controlling for individual differences (age, sex, smoking, body mass, education, occupational exposure), • Differences in relative mortality risks across 6 cities were strongly associated with difference in pollution levels in those cities. • PM10, PM2.5, SO4 than TSP and SO2, H+, or ozone.
  36. 36. Shape of the figure • Mortality risk and fine particulate • Nearly linear • No threshold
  37. 37. Implications of prospective cohort mortality results • The increased risk from air pollution bigger or smaller than cigarette smoking? • Small • But, there is a correlation.
  38. 38. Summary • Mortality • Acute exposure Total 0.5-1.5 %/10μg/m3 • 5 x 10-4 – 1.5 x 10-3 (cases/μg/m3) • Chronic exposure 3 – 9 %/10μg/m3 • 3 x 10-3 – 9 x 10-3 (cases/μg/m3)
  39. 39. Exposure-Response Function f(r,C(r,Q)) PM10 and Nitrates Health impact cases/(year.person.μg/m3) Long-term Mortality 2.60E-4 Chronic Bronchitis 7.65E-5 Restricted Activity Days 5.0E-2 Work Days Lost 1.0E-2 Hospital Admissions Cardiovascular, Respiratory 6.00E-5, 2.56E-6 Asthmatic adults Bronchodilator 6.00E-2 Lower respiratory symptoms 1.63E-1 Infant Mortality 2.78E-5 Asthmatic children Cardiovascular, Respiratory 7.8E-2, 1.0E-1
  40. 40. f(r,C(r,Q)) SO2 Health impact cases/(year.person.μg/m3) Short-term Mortality 2.30E-6 Hospital Admissions Admissions 2.84E-6 Source: Rabl 2001
  41. 41. Plant Trypilska Power Station
  42. 42. Trypilska Power Station, Emissions in 2006 Name of the pollutant Emissions, tons/year Total 74 605.000 Metals and their compounds 22.087 Total suspended particles 21 951.116 (TSP): PM10 10 975.560 Nitrogen compounds 11 108.921 Sulfur oxide and other sulfur 40 909.568 compound Carbon oxide 564.363
  43. 43. Technical characteristics of the Trypilska Power Station Parameters Value of the parameters Stack height, m 180 Effective release height, 700 m (because of hot air and gas flow) Diameter of the stack, m 9.6 Flow rate from the stack, 14 m/s Released gas 413 temperature, K
  44. 44. Cities around the Trypilska power plant Name of the Population, persons Down wind distance, Prevailed down city km wind direction Uzyn 26,434 42,500 SSW, SW Obukhiv 32,776 9,500 WSW Vasylkiv 39,722 30,750 W Boyarka 35,968 37,500 WNW Vyshneve 34,465 37,500 NW Kyiv 2,611,327 36,250 NNW Brovary 86,839 29,500 N Boryspil 107,950 28,250 NE,ENE Rzhyschiv 8,447 29,250 SE Kagarlyk 13,757 32,250 SE Note: The down wind distances were measured from the Power Station to the centers of the cities
  45. 45. Concentration of the pollution(μg/m3) C(x,Q): Gaussian Plume Model Q - h2 C = ---------------- exp [--------] 21/2 π3/2 uxσz 2σz2
  46. 46. Some hints for Excel •=SQRT(3.14, 3) •=EXP(-h**2/2*Sigmaz**2) •=POWER(A1;2) •Q in micro gram/sec Q - h2 C = ---------------- exp [--------] 21/2 π3/2 uxσz 2σz2
  47. 47. σz
  48. 48. Atmospheric Stability Day Night Surface Wind Incoming Solar Radiation Thinly Heavy Speed Overcast Cloud (meter/second Strong Moderate Slight or clear ) sky <2 A A-B B 2-3 A-B B C E F 3-5 B B-C C D E 5-6 C C-D D D D >6 C D D D D
  49. 49. Weather observation Day Wind Speed Wind Direction Atmospheric Stability(A, (meter/second) E, ESE, SSE, S….. B… .F) Aug 7 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Aug 8 0600 0700 0800 0900 2100 0900
  50. 50. Unit cost Uv for Long-term Mortality Value of 1 YOLL = v = constant v v v Uv = v + ---- + ----- + ……+ ----- 1+r (1+r)2 (1+r)N r = discount rate of one year N = years of human life
  51. 51. Exposure-Response • PM10 long-term mortality • 2,60 × 10 -4 μg/m3 • (Leksell & Rabl, 2001)
  52. 52. Examples of externality studies
  53. 53. Summary of Cost Estimates in mECU/kWh Canada France Germany Pub. Occ. En G Pu Occ Env. Gw Pub Oc Env. G v. w. b. . . . c. w. Coal 2.3 nq 53 nq 0.5 29 8.4 Lignite 10.5 Oil 69 nq 0.7 16 16.5 Natural 12 nq 0.1 8 3.0 Gas Nuclea 0.01- 2.5 0.07 0 0 3.8 r 0.05 Wind 0.2 Hydro Photo 2.7 Voltaic Pub. public impacts Occ. occupational impacts Env. Environmental (buildings, crops, ecosystems,…), excluding global warming Gw. Global warming nr not reported nq not quantified
  54. 54. Summary of Cost Estimates in mECU/kWh (continued) Greece US Russia Pub. Occ. Env. Gw Pub Occ En G Pu Occ Env Gw. . . . v. w. b. . . Coal 0.52 nr 1.1 Lignite 20 0.30 0.66 38 Oil 10 0.17 0.95 21 0.15 nr 0.21 Natural 2.4 0.17 0.66 5.8 0.01 nr Gas 1 Nuclea 0.17 0.4 r 0.26 -4 Wind 0.84 0.09 1.2 0.2 Hydro 1.2 3.8 0 0.14 Photo Voltaic Pub. public impacts Occ. occupational impacts Env. Environmental (buildings, crops, ecosystems,…), excluding global warming Gw. Global warming nr not reported nq not quantified
  55. 55. Germany 1997 Damages of fossil fuel cycles
  56. 56. Damages of nuclear fuel cycle
  57. 57. External costs of PV cycle
  58. 58. External costs of wind fuel cycle
  59. 59. Damages of biomass fuel cycle
  60. 60. Biomass 2
  61. 61. Biomass 3
  62. 62. External costs for electricity production in the EU (in EUR-cent per kWh) 2002 AUT: Austria, BE: Belgium, DE: Germany, DK: Denmark, ES: Spain , FI: Finland, FR: France, GR: Greece, IE: Ireland, IT: Italy, NL: Norway, NO: Netherlands, PT: Portugal, SE: Sweden, UK: United Kingdom
  63. 63. Monetary values used for economic valuation
  64. 64. Results of the coal fuel cycle before NewExt [€-Cent/kWh]
  65. 65. Results of the oil fuel cycle before NewExt [€-Cent/kWh]
  66. 66. Results of the gas fuel cycle before NewExt [€-Cent/kWh]
  67. 67. • DENOX NOx removal system • FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization • SCR Selective catalytic reduction

×