Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Understanding the Health, Environmental, and Climate Change Consequences of Different Energy Technology Strategies in the United States

34 views

Published on

Presentation by Ines Azevedo (Carnegie Mellon University) at the ORAU 74th Annual Meeting of the Council of Sponsoring Institutions

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Understanding the Health, Environmental, and Climate Change Consequences of Different Energy Technology Strategies in the United States

  1. 1. Understanding the Health, Environmental, and Climate Change Consequences of Different Energy Technology Strategies in the United States Inês Lima Azevedo Professor, Engineering & Public Policy, CMU Director, Climate and Energy Decision Making Center
  2. 2. Energy services are the largest contributor to greenhouse gases Source: http://www.wri.org/chart/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-flow-chart 30% 30%
  3. 3. How do different interventions affect the emissions and damages from the U.S. electric grid?
  4. 4. Should we add more solar in California or in Pennsylvania?
  5. 5. Are we helping the environment more if we choose a battery electric car or an hybrid?
  6. 6. In which states can we have the largest environmental and health benefits from more stringent building codes?
  7. 7. Where can we have the largest environmental and health benefits from increasing wind energy?
  8. 8. Are we helping the environment by increasing storage in our electricity grid?
  9. 9. Could we use different video streaming strategies as a climate mitigation strategy? (i.e., shifting loads data centers)?
  10. 10. The US grid is diverse in its carbon intensity Attribution: figure produced by Nathaniel Horner using data from CEMS and EIA. metric tCO2/MWh State level CO2 emissions factors for total electricity generation 2015
  11. 11. Damages from criteria air pollutants vary tremendously across the country Source: Based on AP2 model from Prof. N. Muller $1000/ton SO2 $15,000/ton SO2
  12. 12. 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MarginalCost ($/MWh) Total Demand (GW) The emissions of CO2 and criteria air pollutants depend on which plant is operating at the margin. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 CO2emissionsfactor (kgCO2/MWh) Total Demand (GW) Figures from Azevedo – this is a schematic only, it does not represent a real system
  13. 13. Modeling strategy 1. Model the U.S. grid. Identify the plants operating at the margin and their characteristics 2. Model the health, environmental and climate change implications of these plants 3. Model how different energy interventions (solar, wind, storage, electric vehicles) change the baseline health, environmental and climate change damages
  14. 14. My group has studied the environmental, health & climate change benefits of… Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Tamayao, M., Michalek, J., Hendrickson, C., Azevedo I.L., (2015). Regional variability and uncertainty of electric vehicle life cycle CO2 emissions across the United States, ES&T . Yuksel, T., Tamayao, M-A., Hendrickson, C., Azevedo, I.L., Michalek, J., (2016). Effect of regional grid mix, driving patterns and climate on the comparative carbon footprint of gasoline and plug-in electric vehicles in the United States, ERL. Azevedo, I. L., Vaishnav, P. Horner, N., (2018). Understanding the costs and benefits of installed solar PV, ERL. Gilbraith, N., Azevedo, I.L., Jaramillo, P., (2014). Regional energy and GHG savings from building codes U.S., ES&T Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2015). Bulk Energy Storage Increases US Electricity System Emissions, ES&T. Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2017). How much renewables do we need to make storage carbon neutral, ES&T. Horner, N., Azevedo I.L., at al., Shifting loads in data-centers as a climate mitigation strategy. Working paper. Min, J., Azevedo, I.L., Hakkarainen, P., (2015). Net carbon emissions savings and energy reductions from lighting energy efficiency measures when accounting for changes in heating and cooling demands: a regional comparison, Applied Energy.
  15. 15. Should we add more solar in California or in Pennsylvania?
  16. 16. Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 1 References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  17. 17. Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: $1000/ton SO2 $15,000/ton SO2 For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 1 References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  18. 18. For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 1 Air Pollution Emissions Experiments and Policy analysis model (AP2) • Estimate the dispersion of pollutants and the resulting concentrations in all US counties • Use dose-response function to estimate physical impacts: - Health effects, reduced crop and timber yield, degradation of materials, reduced visibility, etc… • Monetize impacts: - Value of a statistical life ($6M), market value of lost commodities, etc… Similar framework to the NRC report on “Hidden Costs of Energy” Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  19. 19. For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 1 Results from the AP2 model provide average county dollar-per-ton damages for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) emitted by point sources For CO2, we use $20/tonCO2 US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2010): four values for SCC in 2010 ($2007): $5, $21, $35 and $65 per ton CO2 Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  20. 20. For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 For 1400 plants: location, fuel type, stack height and hourly emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 1 2 Data from: CEMS (2009- 2011), eGRID (2009), NEI (2005) Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) (2009-2011) • Hourly SO2, NOx, CO2, and gross power output for 1400 fossil fuel power plants National Emissions Inventory (NEI) (2005) • Annual PM2.5 emissions, stack heights of generators Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) (2009) • Plant locations, fuel type Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  21. 21. For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 For 1400 plants: location, fuel type, stack height and hourly emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 1 2 For each eGRID sub-region and each pollutant: hourly damages ($/h) = damages ($/ton) x hourly emissions (ton pollutant/h) 3 Data from: CEMS (2009- 2011), eGRID (2009), NEI (2005) Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  22. 22. For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 For 1400 plants: location, fuel type, stack height and hourly emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 1 2 For each eGRID sub-region and each pollutant: hourly damages ($/h) = damages ($/ton) x hourly emissions (ton pollutant/h) 3 For each eGRID sub-region and pollutant, for 20 gross generation bins: Dh+1-Dh = β(Gh+1-Gt) + ε 4 ERCOT, SO2 Data from: CEMS (2009- 2011), eGRID (2009), NEI (2005) ERCOT - SO2 Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits: References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  23. 23. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 CO2emissionsfactor (kgCO2/MWh) Total Demand (GW) 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MarginalCost ($/MWh) Total Demand (GW) Figures from Azevedo – this is a schematic only, it does not represent a real system ∆generation ∆emissions
  24. 24. Then we have estimates of marginal damages ($/MWh) for each demand bin as function of gross generation for each pollutant5 For each county: damages ($/ton) by stack height for each pollutant (CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5) Data from: AP2 For 1400 plants: location, fuel type, stack height and hourly emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 1 2 For each eGRID sub-region and each pollutant: hourly damages ($/h) = damages ($/ton) x hourly emissions (ton pollutant/h) 3 For each eGRID sub-region and pollutant, for 20 gross generation bins: Dh+1-Dh = β(Gh+1-Gt) + ε 4 SO2 MarginalDamage ($/MWh)(=β) Data from: CEMS (2009- 2011), eGRID (2009), NEI (2005) Estimating environmental, health & climate change benefits References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  25. 25. MarginalDamage ($/MWh)(=β) ERCOT, SO2 References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  26. 26. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CF Hour For each wind & solar site and for each hour of the year, we match wind/solar generation with the gross generation that it is displaced. 6
  27. 27. MarginalDamage ($/MWh)(=β) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CF Hour For each wind & solar site and for each hour of the year, we match wind/solar generation with the gross generation that it is displaced. 6 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 $/MWh We finally add all damages avoided for each site for all hours of the year and divide by the total generation or capacity installed from wind/solar in each eGRID sub-region, finding the weighted marginal damages for each site 8 We then Identify the damages associated with gross generation. For each hour, we multiply the associated damages ($/MWh) by the wind/solar output. 7
  28. 28. Solar PV - The locations that provide the largest electricity output are not the ones that have the largest climate, health, and environmental benefits. Best resource: Arizona, New Mexico and southern California. A PV panel in Arizona produces 45% more electricity than a panel in Maine. References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748. Energy Performance
  29. 29. Avoided CO2 per kW (kg & $) …moderate solar resources, but displacing carbon- intensive coal plants. Best regions: Kansas, Nebraska, Dakotas References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748. Energy Performance Solar PV - The locations that provide the largest electricity output are not the ones that have the largest climate, health, and environmental benefits.
  30. 30. Avoided CO2 per kW (kg & $) References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748. Energy Performance Health and environmental benefits A PV in Ohio offers 17x the health & environmental benefits of a PV panel in Arizona… Even though a solar panel in Ohio produces 30% less energy. Coal is at the margin in these areas and they are upwind of major population centers. Solar PV - The locations that provide the largest electricity output are not the ones that have the largest climate, health, and environmental benefits.
  31. 31. Where can we have the largest environmental and health benefits from increasing wind energy? References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  32. 32. Wind - The locations that provide the largest electricity output align with the locations that provide the largest CO2 savings, but not criteria air pollutant savings. Energy Performance Wind turbines perform best in the Great Plains through West Texas (capacity factors ~40%) References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748.
  33. 33. Avoided CO2 per kW (kg & $) Midwest: wind resource is excellent and wind energy primarily displaces coal-fired generators. References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748. Energy Performance Wind - The locations that provide the largest electricity output align with the locations that provide the largest CO2 savings, but not criteria air pollutant savings.
  34. 34. XXXX Avoided CO2 per kW (kg & $) References: (1) Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I. L., Morgan, M.G, Apt, J. (2013). Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind and solar generation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (29), 11768-11773; (2) Siler-Evans. K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G., (2012). Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (9): 4742–4748. Energy Performance Health and environmental benefits 7Oklahoma West Virginia A wind turbine in West Virginia displaces 7x the health effects of a wind turbine in Oklahoma and 27x when compared to California. Wind - The locations that provide the largest electricity output align with the locations that provide the largest CO2 savings, but not criteria air pollutant savings.
  35. 35. Implications for renewable energy subsidies $/MWh Annual Benefits from Wind Farms = $2.6 Billion PM2.5 SO2 CO2 $/MWh PTC Subsidy ($22/MWh) PTC Subsidy ($22/MWh) Annual Cost of PTC Subsidy = $1.6 Billion PennsylvaniaCalifornia 735MW
  36. 36. Are we helping the environment by increasing storage in our electricity grid? Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2015). Bulk Energy Storage Increases US Electricity System Emissions, Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (5), 3203-3210;
  37. 37. Is energy storage “green”? •The Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act (STORAGE) in 2013 proposed changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, so that an energy investment credit would be provided for energy storage connected to the grid. •2010: The CA Senate passed AB2514, directing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to determine appropriate requirements for grid energy storage. •2013. CPUC mandated that the 3 major investor-owned utilities in California must collectively add 1.3 GW of storage by 2020. Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2015). Bulk Energy Storage Increases US Electricity System Emissions, Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (5), 3203-3210;
  38. 38. 1. When used for energy arbitrage, storage charges at night when prices are low (coal at the margin) and discharge during peak afternoon or evening periods (natural gas at the margin). • Using average emissions factors emissions = 0. 2. Storage technologies experience energy losses as they store and recover energy. •extra electricity needed. We developed an revenue maximizing linear programming optimization model for storage operations for energy arbitrage, using LMP data and marginal emissions (under both perfect and inperfect information). Why will storage potentially increase emissions: Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2015). Bulk Energy Storage Increases US Electricity System Emissions, Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (5), 3203-3210;
  39. 39. Key findings: emissions increase in most locations Hittinger, E., Azevedo, I.L., (2015). Bulk Energy Storage Increases US Electricity System Emissions, ES&T. Annual revenue: CO2 emissions: NOx emissions: SO2 emissions:
  40. 40. https://cedm.shinyapps.io/MarginalFactors/
  41. 41. Final notes •A major transition in our energy system is needed. •We want to determine which strategies will provide the intended goals. •Focusing on greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants together makes sense. •Location, temporal patterns, and behavior will determine the health, environmental and climate change effects of these interventions. •Today, we have enormous amounts of data that enables us to understand the consequences of different mitigation strategies. •We are making all our outputs for marginal emissions and damages factors by hour, day, season, year, balancing area, state, egrid region, assumptions about the value of life, and for 2 air quality models, etc available online for other modelers to use.
  42. 42. Ines Azevedo iazevedo@cmu.edu

×