# Presentation: 087951

## Environmental Impacts and Costs of Energy How much is clean air worth? 

- Ari Rabl
- Ecole des Mines de Paris
**ExternE** = “External Costs of Energy”
- funded by European Commission DG Research, since 1991
- (until 1995 with ORNL/RFF)
- >200 scientists in all countries of EU
- Series of projects, includ. ExternE Transport, ExternE-Pol, NEEDS (04-08), CASES (06-08) and related projects, e.g. ESPREME, ...
- Major publications **1995**, **1998**, **2000, 2004**
**www.externe.info**
**Methodology**
**Site specific impact pathway analysis **
- (for each pollutant: emissiondispersionimpactcost)
**2) Analysis of fuel chain **(LCA)

## Impact Pathway Analysis

- to calculate damage of a pollutant emitted by a source
- Impacts are summed over entire region that is affected (Europe)
- and all damage types that can be quantified:
- health
- loss of agricultural production
- damage to buildings and materials
**Result: **
**€****/kg of pollutant**
- Multiply by kg/kWh to get €/kWh

## Pathways for Dioxins and Toxic Metals

- For many persistent pollutants (dioxins, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, etc)
**ingestion dose is about two orders of magnitude higher than inhalation**

## Relation impact pathway analysis  LCA

## Key Assumptions

**Local + regional** dispersion models
**Linear dose-response functions for health (no threshold):**
- Mostly PM2.5, PM10, O3
- A few for SO2 and CO
- None for NO2
- Sulfates are treated like PM10, Nitrates like 0.5  PM10
- also As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni and Pb
**Mortality** in terms of LLE (loss of life expectancy) rather than number of deaths
**Monetary valuation** based on Willingness-to-pay (**WTP**) to avoid a loss:
**Value of a Life Year** (VOLY) due to air pollution = **50,000 €**
**Cancers 2M€/cancer**, based on VSL = 1 M€
-  (VSL = “Value of Statistical Life” = WTP to avoid risk of an anonymous premature death; *typical values used in EU and USA ****1-5 M€)***

## CO2 of biological origin

- IPCC and many practitioners of LCA do not count biogenic CO2
- Absurd conclusions, e.g. the burning of tropical forests is no worse for global warming than their preservation,
- No benefit from adding carbon capture to biofuel power plants,
- etc
- Correct method:
- Count each source and each sink
- when and where it occurs
*Rabl A, Benoist A, Dron D, Peuportier B, Spadaro JV and Zoughaib A. 2007. “How to account for CO2 emissions from biomass in an LCA”. Int J LCA 12 (5) 281.*

## Impacts and Technologies evaluated

**Impacts**
- 1) Global warming (CO2, CH4, N2O)
- 2) NOx, SO2, PM etc** **(primary & secondary pollutants)
**Health **(morbidity: ~ 30% of total cost
-  mortality: ~65% of total cost, other than global warming)
**Buildings & materials**
**Agricultural crops**
**Global warming**
- Beginnings of analysis for** acidification & eutrophication**
- Other burdens
**Amenity **(noise, visual impact, recreation)
**supply security**
**Technologies**
**Energy: **coal, lignite, oil, gas, biomass, PV, wind, hydro, nuclear
**Waste treatment: **landfill and incineration
**Transport: **cars, trucks, bus, rail, ship*, (planes)*

## Loss of Life Expectancy (LE) due to Air Pollution

- In EU and USA typical concentrations of PM2.5 around 20 - 30 g/m3  LE loss 8 months
*Reasonable ****policy goal**** during coming decades:*
***reduction by about 50%**** *
*LE ****gain**** about ****4 months***
- To put this in perspective with other public health risks:
**Smokers** lose about 5 to 8 years on average
*Rule of thumb: *
*each cigarette reduces LE by about the duration of the smoke*
- Air pollution (in EU and USA) equivalent to about 4 cigarettes/day

## Damage Cost per kg of Pollutant,(typical values for Central Europe) and uncertainty (error bars and probability distribution)

- Somewhat different numbers in different publications, but within uncertainty bounds
*(progress in the science of impact assessment)*

## Simplified Analysis: the Uniform World Model (UWM)

**D****uni**** = p ******** s****CR****/k = damage cost €/kg**
-  p = unit cost (price) of endpoint
-  = average population density within 500 to 1000 km
-  sCR = slope of concentration-response function
-  k = depletion velocity (wet+dry deposition, transformation or decay)
- Also for secondary pollutants (if k includes transformation rate)
***Exact for uniform distribution**** of sources or of receptors, *by conservation of matter
***Good within a factor of about 2 for stacks height >50 m***
**Correction factors for site and stack height:**
-  no variation for globally dispersing pollutants such as CO2;
-  weak variation for As, Pb and dioxins because non-inhalation pathways dominate: ≈0.7 to 1.5;
-  weak variation for secondary pollutants: ≈0.5 to 2.0;
-  strong variation for primary pollutants: ≈0.5 to 5 for site, ≈0.6 to 3 for stack conditions (up to 15 for ground level emissions in big city).
- UWM and more detailed simple models included in **RiskPoll software**
- [free from _[www.arirabl.org](http://www.arirabl.org/)_]. Use **EcoSense **for “exact”

## Site Dependence: Comparison UWM  detailed model

- For SO2.  	  			           *YOLL = years of life lost*

## Comparison UWM  detailed model, World

## Results for Power Plants

**Typical numbers for Central Europe [ExternE 2004]. **Average price France ~7cents/kWh

## Results for Electricity

*Damage costs of current and advanced systems, ****power plant + rest of energy chain**** *

## Results for Heating Systems

*Damage costs of current and advanced systems, ****boiler + rest of energy chain**** *

## comparison Incineration  Landfill Variation with energy recovery assumptions

- For energy recovery: E=electricity, H=heat, g=gas, o=oil, c=coal

- Cf: private cost ~100€/t

- Cf: private cost ~50€/t

***But costs ***
***are not ***
***the only criterion!***

- Private cost
- Landfill
**~50€/t****waste**

- Private cost
- incinerator
**~100€/t****waste**

## Incineration, some detailed results

- If electricity displaces nuclear (France), like no energy recovery.
- Transport based on hypothetical 100 km.

## Landfill, some detailed results

- If electricity displaces nuclear (France), like no energy recovery.
- Transport based on hypothetical 100 km.

## 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.
**Compare** **life 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**
- remains valid with new results of ExternE and lower emissions of new vehicles:
- diesel with particle filter has very low damage cost

## Hybrid vehicle, €/km in USA

*Recent study for 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 (only hybrid), RAV4, Civic
- LCA inventories based on studies by MIT and by Delucchi of UC Davis
- For **well-to-wheel** analysis 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

## Hybrid vehicle, vehicle production $/car

- Comparison hybrid and conventional cars

- Total about $180/car, no significant difference hybrid  conventional

## Hybrid vehicle, well-to-wheel ¢/mile

- Comparison hybrid and conventional cars

## Can Avoided Damage Justify Cost of Developing PV?

- Cost required to reach break-even (where PV becomes competitive)
- and **cost gap** (**=cost of reaching break-even - production cost at break-even**),
- as function of **progress ratio** (***learning curve***).
- Assumptions: current cumulative production n0 = 1 GWp, current unit cost c0 = 5 $/Wp, break-even unit cost cb = 1.0 $/Wp.

*Ref.: “Prospects for PV: a learning curve analysis”. B van der Zwaan & A Rabl, Solar Energy, Vol.74(1), 19-31 (2003).*

- Log($/Wpk)

- Log(cumul.prod.)

- Break-even

- Cost gap

- Log(c0)

- Log(cb)

## Can Avoided Damage Justify Cost of Developing PV?, cont’d

**Can Avoided Damage Justify Cost of Developing PV?****, cont’d**

**cost gap** (**=cost of reaching break-even - production cost at break-even**),
- as function of **progress ratio** (***learning curve***)
- and **avoided damage**.
*Assumptions: current cumulative production n**0** = 1 GW**p**, current unit cost c**0** = 5 $/W**p**, break-even unit cost c**b** = 1.0 $/W**p**.*

| Progress ratio, pr | 0.7 | 0.75 | 0.8 | 0.85 | 0.9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Break-even cumulative production, nb (GWp) | 23 | 48 | 148 | 957 | 39700 |
| Break-even cumulative production, as % of 3300 GW, the present world capacity | 0.7% | 1.5% | 4.5% | 29.0% | 1200% |
| Cost of reaching break-even, Cb ($ billion) | 37 | 74 | 211 | 1240 | 46800 |
| Cost of producing nb – n0, if unit cost were already at break-even, (nb–n0) cb ($ billion) | 22 | 47 | 147 | 956 | 39700 |
| Cost gap, Cb - (nb–n0) cb ($ billion) | 15 | 27 | 64 | 288 | 7110 |
| Cost gap (% of cost of reaching break-even) | 41% | 36% | 30% | 23% | 15% |
| Avoided damage of nb–n0 (at 0.25 $/Wp, in $ billion) | 5 | 12 | 37 | 239 | 9920 |
| Avoided damage (% of cost gap) | 37% | 44% | 58% | 83% | 140% |

## Conclusions

**Damage costs are significant, **especially for fossil fuels
- Due to** PM, NO****x****, SO****2**** & O****3****, **and** global warming**
**Applications**
**Energy policy**: e.g. nuclear, gas or coal? Subsidies for renewables?
**Transport policy**: e.g. how large is benefit of reducing traffic in cities?
**Waste treatment**: incineration or land fill?
- 		How much recycling of what?
**Regulations**: optimal emission limits for power plants, vehicles, factories, agriculture, ...
- Optimal level of **pollution taxes**
- Optimal level of **tradable permits**
***Significant premium for clean energy!***