1 / 38

€/kWh of electricity production for policy decisions about choices of technologies

Applications of Damage Cost Estimates TRADD, part 5 Ari Rabl, ARMINES/ Ecole des Mines de Paris , November 2013. €/kWh of electricity production for policy decisions about choices of technologies 1) Get emissions data: CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x , etc in g/kWh upstream and power plant

jared
Download Presentation

€/kWh of electricity production for policy decisions about choices of technologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Applications of Damage Cost Estimates TRADD, part 5Ari Rabl, ARMINES/Ecole des Mines de Paris, November 2013 €/kWh of electricity production for policy decisions about choices of technologies 1) Get emissions data: CO2, SO2, NOx, etc in g/kWh upstream and power plant Difficulty in EU: data are hard to find. They should be on European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) but unfortunately only the tonnes/yr are shown, not the corresponding kWh/yr (or tonnes waste/yr or tonnes cement/yr …) Alternative: assume emission limits of the Directives, but … Results of ExternE [2008] are based on life cycle inventory database ecoinvent 2) Calculate €/kg of pollutant Which location?

  2. UWM for damage cost, €/kg Damage cost rate D [in €/yr] with sum over all impacts i each with unit cost Pi and ERF slope sER,i for emission rate Q [in kg/yr] Therefore Duni/Q = damage cost in €/kg Careful about units: Convert everything to SI units for all calculations! Results good for industrial emissions; for transport emissions, must add correction factors (part 2, p.25), and the results are very approximate

  3. Population density and depletion velocities vdep, in cm/s, selected data for several regions. From Rabl, Spadaro and Holland [2013] (= p.25 of part 2) Parameters for UWM

  4. UWM, PisER,i YOLL = years of life lost LRS = Lower respiratory symptoms

  5. UWM, €/kg, example Exposure cost 38.753 (€/yr)/(person.mg/m3) = sum of PM2.5 and PM10 terms in table UWM, PisER,i= 32.79 + 5.963 (€/yr)/(person.mg/m3) For comparison, Externe [2008] finds 24.6 €/kg for unknown stack height

  6. €/kg for industrial emissions in EU27 Damage costs for LCA applications in EU27, €/kg, from ExternE [2008]. For greenhouse gases 0.021 €/kgCO2eq h = stack height For the toxic metals variation with site is also negligible (ingestion pathway dominates; food is transported over large distances)

  7. €/kWh With numbers of ExternE [2008] for €/kg and for emissions upstream + power plant (emissions from ecoinvent database) Coal = pulverized coal + steam Gas = natural gas combined cycle

  8. Results for Electricity Production Selected results for the costs, both external and private, of current power technologies in the EU27, based on ExternE [2008].

  9. Results for Electricity Production, cont’d Damage costs of current power technologies in the EU27, based on ExternE [2008].

  10. Net impact very dependent on energy recovery. Some examples: Results for Waste Treatment Compare with private costs: Incineration ~ 100€/twaste, Landfill ~ 50€/twaste

  11. Net impact very dependent on energy recovery. Some examples: Results for Waste Treatment, cont’d Energy recovery replaces H = heat E = electricity g= gas o = oil c = coal Compare with private costs: Incineration ~ 100€/twaste Landfill ~ 50€/twaste Trace = toxic metals (mostly Hg and Pb) and dioxins (very small with current regulations)

  12. UWM needs correction factors, very approximate. Instead use this table from CE Delft [2011] €/kg for vehicle emissions a Metropolitan = population > 5 million and Urban = population < 5 million b non-methane volatile organic compounds CE Delft 2011. “External Costs of Transport in Europe: Update Study for 2008”. CE Delft, Oude Delft 180, 2611 HH Delft, The Netherlands. http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/external_costs_of_transport_in_europe/1258

  13. Variation of emissions with vehicle speed Emissions of a diesel bus as function of speed v, based on the curve fits of Hickman et al [1999].

  14. Variation of emissions with vehicle speed Example: CO2 emissions of cars on highway in California (1 mi = 1.609 km, 1 mph = 1.609 km/h)

  15. Evolution of the EURO standards for cars

  16. Results for Cars Example: Compare the damage cost per km for diesel and gasoline vehicles of EURO3 (in force Jan. 2000 to Dec. 2004) and EURO5 (in force Sep. 2009 to Aug. 2014), in large metropolitan areas in France. Solution not quite straightforward because for some pollutants g/km and €/kg don’t correspond. Here is a plausible guess:

  17. Years Of Life Lost (YOLL) per million km due to air pollution emitted by cars and due to accidents Results for Cars accidents • From: JV Spadaro & A Rabl 2001. “Damage Costs due to Automotive Air Pollution and the Influence of Street Canyons”. Atmospheric Environment, vol.35 (28), 4763 – 4775.

  18. Verification of emissions 10% des voitures font ~75% de la pollution Résultat d’une compagne de mesures des concentrations dans les gazd’échappementsen utilisation réelle, avec un dispositif mobile (y compris photo de la plaque d’immatriculation). Exemple : les voitures millésimé 1999 à Los Angeles (rampe d’une autoroute, moteurs chauds). Résultats similaires pour les autres polluants.

  19. Damage costs of transport modes Average damage costs (excluding congestion) of passenger transport in the EU27, in €cent2008/pkm. Adapted from Table 1 of CE Delft [2011]. a data exclude Malta and Cyprus, but include Norway and Switzerland. Data do not include congestion costs. b average occupancy of passenger cars is 1.8 c average occupancy of passenger trains is 126 d only flights within EU included eat 0.025 €/kgCO2eq

  20. Electric vehicle (EV) Paris = most favorable site for EV because large city (10 million with suburbs) and nuclear electricity Funk K & A Rabl 1999. "Electric versus conventional vehicles: Social Costs and Benefits in France". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol.4(6), 397-411. Compare 3 versions of Peugeot 106 (gasoline, diesel and electric), LCA, including production of vehicle and battery Assume utilization 25 km/day gasoline, 45 km/day diesel, for 10 yr. Comparelife cycle cost of €/km, for individual (private cost, including taxes but excluding pollution) and for society (social cost, excluding taxes but including pollution) Conclusion: EV not justified for the high battery costs ~1995 However, this changes with progress of battery technologies (especially Li-ion) Old results (1999), shown here to explain methodology

  21. Electric vehicle, private cost €/km in Paris (1999) 25 km/daygasoline, 45 km/day diesel EV has higherprivatecost

  22. Electric vehicle, social cost €/km in Paris (1999) 25 km/daygasoline, 45 km/day diesel EV has higher social cost, except for diesel But new diesel withparticlefilter has verylow damage cost

  23. Hybrid vehicle, €/km in USA • Studyfor Toyota, by A. Rabl & J.V. Spadaro [2004] • Compare Toyota Camry, Corolla, RAV4 and Prius, and Honda Civic and Insight, all models of 2004 • Hybrid versions: Prius and Insight (onlyhybrid), RAV4, Civic • LCA inventories based on studies by MIT and by Delucchi of UC Davis • For well-to-wheelanalysis use GREET model of Argonne National Lab • LCA stages: • Production of the materials needed for the vehicle • Assembly of the materials • Fuel feedstock • Fuel supply • Utilization of the vehicle • Disposal of the vehicle at the end of its life • (the only significant impacts of disposal are included by accounting for recycling in the production of the materials) • Damage costs of ExternE [2004] but adjusted for lower population density in USA, • in particular 19 €/tCO2

  24. Comparison hybrid car - conventional car

  25. Emissions: hybrid vs conventional car

  26. Hybrid vs conventional car, vehicle production damage cost $/car Comparison conventional and hybrid cars Camry is a little bigger than the Prius; at the same size its production costs would be the same, except for nickel and lead because of differences in the batteries

  27. Hybrid vs conventional car, damage costs ¢/mile Cents/mile, typical conditions USA

  28. Hybrid vs conventional car, damage costs $/car $/car, vehicle production stage

  29. Switching from Car to Bicycling or Walking: How Large Are the Benefits? A. Rabland A. de Nazelle, “Benefits of Shift from Car to Active Transport”. Transport Policy, 19 (2012) 121–131 Active Transport: Instead of car, use bicycle or walk

  30. Health Costs and Benefits: • Typical results, for policy and urban planners, • Benefits and costs per individual who changes from car to bicycling or walking • Effects evaluated: • for general public: reduction of pollution • for the individuals: change of pollution • change of accident risk • benefit of physical activity Active Transport: Instead of car, use bicycle or walk

  31. 1) trajectory: 5 km, 2 times/day, 5 days/wk, 46 wks/yr 2) Emissions (COPERT IV software of EuropCommision) Methods and Assumptions 3) Pollution Exposure: of the public of the individuals (calculations for 7 cities by ExternE) (measured data) 4) Pollution impacts: For the public for the individuals (dose-response functions of ExternE) 5) Beneft of physical activity (software HEAT of WHO) 6) Weighting ofeffects (mainly mortality: 40,000 €/lifeyear or 1.5 million €/death)

  32. Best dose-response functions Simple to compare or convert (40,000 €/lifeyear, 1.5 million €/death) With morbidity: Impacts of pollution about 50% larger; Benefits of physical activity more than 50% larger; Cost of accidents? Health gain from activitysimilar for walking and bicycling Focus on mortality

  33. 2 x 5 km/day, 5 days/wk, 46 wks/yr Typical Results for Large Cities Uncertainty: Error bars = 1 std.dev. confidence intervals small variability for benefit of activity, but very large variability for public gain from reduced pollution (more in large cities; negligible in rural zones); large variability for accidents. Pollution change for individual extremely variable, but negligible Variability with city:

  34. AdditionalEffects(congestion, noise)based on literaturesurvey

  35. Greenhouse gas emissions of different travel modes for long distance travel. Essentially all is due to CO2, the contribution of CH4 and N2O being less than 1 % in all cases. Calculated by LIPASTO [http://www.lipasto.vtt.fi/, accessed 25 July 2011] CO2 emissions for travel modes a gasoline cars, EURO2 and EURO3, also fleet average in 2009, highway driving, fuel consumption 7.1 L/100 km. b 1.9 passengers/car. c electric fast train; tilting train technology (for greater speeds on conventional tracks); 12.5 kWhe/vkm. d 309 seat/train, 40% load factor e CO2 emission factor: 3.169 kg/(kg fuel) f short-distance < 463 km, long-distance > 463 km g 155 for scheduled flights, 84 for charter flights

  36. Conclusions • Externalcosts of pollution are important (for energy, transport and wastetreatment) • Shouldbeinternalized by appropriateregulations (based on cost-benefitanalysis) • For vehicles CO2isvery important • Hybridvehiclesvery clean and fuel efficient (but depends on design and on driving pattern: gain mostly in urbandriving) • Electric vehicle not cost-effective in past, but likely to become interesting with progress in battery technology. Environmental benefit depends on power plants (good if nuclear or renewables) • Active transport (walking or bicycling) reduces pollution, congestion and noise, and brings great improvement of health for individuals who use active transport instead of car

  37. Discussion questions D1. What would be the effect of a 25 €/tCO2 tax on the cost of travelling from Paris to Frankfurt? How high would the tax have to be to change travel choices? Solution: By car the distance is 572 km and the travel time is estimated as 6 hr, as per Google Maps. For travel by a single person the emissions are 572*0.170 kgCO2eq = 97.2 kgCO2eq. By train the travel time is 3:49 hr by high speed train, and the emissions are 572*0.025 kgCO2eq = 14.3 kgCO2eq. By plane the flight time is about 1:10 hr, but one has to add the travel to and from the airport as well as the requirement to arrive well before departure. Since the flight distance, 471 km, is just around the separation between short and long distance in the Table from Lipasto (p.35), we take the average and estimate the emissions as 471*(0.260+0.149)/2 kgCO2eq = 96.3 kgCO2eq.

  38. Discussion questions D2. The current limits for emission of toxic metals by waste incinerators are 0.5mg/Nm3 for the sum of As+Co+Cr+Cu+Mn+Ni+Pb+Sn+Sb+V; 0.05mg/Nm3 for the sum of Cd+Tl; 0.05mg/Nm3 for Hg. How should they be chosen? D3. What technology mix would you recommend for electric power? Coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, …? For which country/region? What criteria should be taken into account?

More Related