The 27th AIM International Workshop

An Alternative Co-Benefit Framework Prioritizing Health Impacts: Potential Air Pollution and Climate
Change Mitigation Pathways through Energy Sector Fuel Substitution in South Korea
Dafydd Phillips and Tae Yong Jung
Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University

Background•Scenario Name

30
25o Coal and LNG dispatch proportionally to effective capacities of the 9th Basic Plan.

20o Renewable energy dispatches according to full effective capacity of the 9th Basic Plan.

Baseline

15o Nuclear power capacity and electricity generation decrease from 2022 in accordance with 9th Basic Plan.

10o From 2022 all coal electricity generation ceases and is replaced by LNG.

LNG2022502015

2016

South Korea

201720182019

o 2022 nuclear capacity is maintained, and its use maximized.

MaxNuc_9thplano Coal and LNG dispatch proportionally to effective capacities of the 9th Basic Plan.

OECD avearge

Alternative co-benefit framework

where z is the level of PM2.5 and ‫ݖ‬௖௙ is the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (assigned a uniform distribution of2.4–5.9 μg/m³ of PM2.5) below which no additional risk is assumed, withif z is greater than ‫ݖ‬௖௙ and zero otherwise. 1 + α is the maximum risk, β is the ratio of the IER at low to highconcentrations, and γ is the power of PM2.5 concentration.

Diseases rates by gender and five year age category for ischemic heart disease, stroke,lung cancer, COPD and ALRI from base year 2019, with change in mortality calculated:o From 2022 all coal electricity generation ceases and is replaced by LNG.

Results
Avoided MTCO2e per year compared tobaseline

Avoided years of life lost per year comparedto baseline

Methodology

2500
Avoided years of life lost

2022-2050 scenario analysis utilizing the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP)
and its Integrated Benefits Calculator (IBC).
• The benefits of replacing coal electricity generation with liquefied natural gas (LNG) andnuclear power are estimated using electricity demand and energy capacities from South
Korea’s 9th Basic Plan for Power Supply and Demand.
• Health benefits are calculated in avoided premature deaths and avoided years of life lost,and climate benefits are calculated in avoided million tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e).
• National PM2.5 and GHGs emissions are estimated from this research’s created model,
with rest of world emissions taken from the IIASA GAINS ECLIPSE scenario.
• Total emissions are translated into population-weighted concentrations in the target
country based on GEOS-Chem adjoint model [see Kuylenstierna et al. for full detailed
methodology: doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106155].
• Annual premature mortality and years of life lost are calculated using integrated
exposure-response functions (IERs) from Cohen et al. analysis of 2015 Global Burden of
Disease study data [doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6].
• The IERs have the mathematical form:o 2022 nuclear capacity is maintained, and its use maximized.

MaxNuc_LNG2022

This study utilizes an alternative co-benefit framework, which views air pollution reduction
as the primary goal and climate change mitigation as a secondary objective, for three primaryreasons:- Air pollution is the top environmental concern of Korean citizens.
- The negative impacts of air pollution are more near-term than climate change.
- Policies framed with focus on local benefits are more likely to be supported and implemented.

•Description

140
120

2000

Avoided MTCO2e•Exposure to PM2.5 causes various adverse healthimpacts including increasing the relative risk forischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and acutelower respiratory infections (ALRI).
Ambient PM2.5 exposure attributable premature deaths
from these five diseases were 4.2 million globally in2015, and 11,523 in South Korea in 2012.
As South Korea is a rapidly aging society, the negative
impacts of ambient PM2.5 are becoming more severe.

Mean population exposure toambient PM2.5PM2.5 exposure μg/m3•

Scenarios

1500
1000
500

100
80
60
40
2000
2022

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2022

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Policy implications
••
•
•
•
•

There are major health and climate benefits of using LNG and nuclear power as alternatives to coal.
Traditional co-benefit frameworks, which view climate change as the main goal and other goals as secondary, have beenineffective in inducing large scale mitigation policy implementation.
By focusing on reducing air pollution, South Korea can also reduce its greenhouse emissions.
As nuclear power is currently the cheapest energy source in South Korea, increased use of nuclear energy has thelargest benefits to cost ratio.
Given the health and climate benefits of nuclear energy, the South Korean government should reconsider it plan tophase out nuclear energy.
LNG is currently a more expensive fuel for electricity generation than coal, but the health and climate benefits of LNG
use should be considered when calculating overall cost.

Here ‫ݕ‬଴ is the baseline mortality rate for each disease category, and Pop is the exposed population for each age category.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported the LEAP development team of the Stockholm
Environment Institute (SEI) through their development and provision of the LEAP-IBC.

Phillips, Dafydd, and Tae Y. Jung 2021. "An Alternative Co-Benefit Framework Prioritizing Health Impacts: Potential Air Pollution and Climate
Change Mitigation Pathways through Energy Sector Fuel Substitution in South Korea" Climate 9, no. 6: 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9060101.