Literature DB >> 28167772

Spatially resolved air-water emissions tradeoffs improve regulatory impact analyses for electricity generation.

Daniel B Gingerich1, Xiaodi Sun1, A Patrick Behrer2, Inês L Azevedo1, Meagan S Mauter3,4.   

Abstract

Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) generate air, water, and solids emissions that impose substantial human health, environmental, and climate change (HEC) damages. This work demonstrates the importance of accounting for cross-media emissions tradeoffs, plant and regional emissions factors, and spatially variation in the marginal damages of air emissions when performing regulatory impact analyses for electric power generation. As a case study, we assess the benefits and costs of treating wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater at US CFPPs using the two best available treatment technology options specified in the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs). We perform a life-cycle inventory of electricity and chemical inputs to FGD wastewater treatment processes and quantify the marginal HEC damages of associated air emissions. We combine these spatially resolved damage estimates with Environmental Protection Agency estimates of water quality benefits, fuel-switching benefits, and regulatory compliance costs. We estimate that the ELGs will impose average net costs of $3.01 per cubic meter for chemical precipitation and biological wastewater treatment and $11.26 per cubic meter for zero-liquid discharge wastewater treatment (expected cost-benefit ratios of 1.8 and 1.7, respectively), with damages concentrated in regions containing a high fraction of coal generation or a large chemical manufacturing industry. Findings of net cost for FGD wastewater treatment are robust to uncertainty in auxiliary power source, location of chemical manufacturing, and binding air emissions limits in noncompliant regions, among other variables. Future regulatory design will minimize compliance costs and HEC tradeoffs by regulating air, water, and solids emissions simultaneously and performing regulatory assessments that account for spatial variation in emissions impacts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Effluent Limitation Guidelines; benefit–cost analysis; coal-fired power plants; emissions tradeoffs; spatially resolved marginal damages

Year:  2017        PMID: 28167772      PMCID: PMC5338367          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1524396114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  4 in total

1.  Marginal emissions factors for the U.S. electricity system.

Authors:  Kyle Siler-Evans; Inês Lima Azevedo; M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation.

Authors:  Kyle Siler-Evans; Inês Lima Azevedo; M Granger Morgan; Jay Apt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Public Health Costs of Primary PM2.5 and Inorganic PM2.5 Precursor Emissions in the United States.

Authors:  Jinhyok Heo; Peter J Adams; H Oliver Gao
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?

Authors:  K J Arrow; M L Cropper; G C Eads; R W Hahn; L B Lave; R G Noll; P R Portney; M Russell; R Schmalensee; V K Smith; R N Stavins
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-04-12       Impact factor: 47.728

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.