Literature DB >> 29713111

Estimating environmental co-benefits of U.S. low-carbon pathways using an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution.

Yang Ou1,2, Wenjing Shi1, Steven J Smith3, Catherine M Ledna3, J Jason West2, Christopher G Nolte1, Daniel H Loughlin1.   

Abstract

There are many technological pathways that can lead to reduced carbon dioxide emissions. However, these pathways can have substantially different impacts on other environmental endpoints, such as air quality and energy-related water demand. This study uses an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution of the energy system to compare environmental impacts of alternative low-carbon pathways for the United States. One set of pathways emphasizes nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage, while another set emphasizes renewable energy, including wind, solar, geothermal power, and bioenergy. These are compared with pathways in which all technologies are available. Air pollutant emissions, mortality costs attributable to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm in diameter, and energy-related water demands are evaluated for 50% and 80% carbon dioxide reduction targets in 2050. The renewable low-carbon pathways require less water withdrawal and consumption than the nuclear and carbon capture pathways. However, the renewable low-carbon pathways modeled in this study produce higher particulate matter-related mortality costs due to greater use of biomass in residential heating. Environmental co-benefits differ among states because of factors such as existing technology stock, resource availability, and environmental and energy policies.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29713111      PMCID: PMC5920560          DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Energy        ISSN: 0306-2619            Impact factor:   9.746


  14 in total

1.  21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating.

Authors:  Mohamad I Hejazi; Nathalie Voisin; Lu Liu; Lisa M Bramer; Daniel C Fortin; John E Hathaway; Maoyi Huang; Page Kyle; L Ruby Leung; Hong-Yi Li; Ying Liu; Pralit L Patel; Trenton C Pulsipher; Jennie S Rice; Teklu K Tesfa; Chris R Vernon; Yuyu Zhou
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  GLIMPSE: a rapid decision framework for energy and environmental policy.

Authors:  Farhan H Akhtar; Robert W Pinder; Daniel H Loughlin; Daven K Henze
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  Differences between magnitudes and health impacts of BC emissions across the United States using 12 km scale seasonal source apportionment.

Authors:  Matthew D Turner; Daven K Henze; Amir Hakami; Shunliu Zhao; Jaroslav Resler; Gregory R Carmichael; Charles O Stanier; Jaemeen Baek; Adrian Sandu; Armistead G Russell; Athanasios Nenes; Gill-Ran Jeong; Shannon L Capps; Peter B Percell; Rob W Pinder; Sergey L Napelenok; Jesse O Bash; Tianfeng Chai
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Characterizing the PM₂.₅-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.

Authors:  Neal Fann; Kirk R Baker; Charles M Fulcher
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 9.621

5.  A Techno-Economic Assessment of Hybrid Cooling Systems for Coal- and Natural-Gas-Fired Power Plants with and without Carbon Capture and Storage.

Authors:  Haibo Zhai; Edward S Rubin
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation.

Authors:  Anil Markandya; Ben G Armstrong; Simon Hales; Aline Chiabai; Patrick Criqui; Silvana Mima; Cathryn Tonne; Paul Wilkinson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-12-12       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.

Authors:  Neal Fann; Charles M Fulcher; Bryan J Hubbell
Journal:  Air Qual Atmos Health       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.763

Review 8.  Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation.

Authors:  Michelle L Bell; Devra L Davis; Luis A Cifuentes; Alan J Krupnick; Richard D Morgenstern; George D Thurston
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 5.984

9.  Co-benefits of Global Greenhouse Gas Mitigation for Future Air Quality and Human Health.

Authors:  J Jason West; Steven J Smith; Raquel A Silva; Vaishali Naik; Yuqiang Zhang; Zachariah Adelman; Meridith M Fry; Susan Anenberg; Larry W Horowitz; Jean-Francois Lamarque
Journal:  Nat Clim Chang       Date:  2013-10-01

10.  Estimating State-Specific Contributions to PM2.5- and O3-Related Health Burden from Residential Combustion and Electricity Generating Unit Emissions in the United States.

Authors:  Stefani L Penn; Saravanan Arunachalam; Matthew Woody; Wendy Heiger-Bernays; Yorghos Tripodis; Jonathan I Levy
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  12 in total

1.  Air Quality and Health Cobenefits of Different Deep Decarbonization Pathways in California.

Authors:  Bin Zhao; Tianyang Wang; Zhe Jiang; Yu Gu; Kuo-Nan Liou; Nesamani Kalandiyur; Yang Gao; Yifang Zhu
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Evolution of the United States Energy System and Related Emissions under Varying Social and Technological Development Paradigms: Plausible Scenarios for Use in Robust Decision Making.

Authors:  Kristen E Brown; Troy A Hottle; Rubenka Bandyopadhyay; Samaneh Babaee; Rebecca S Dodder; P Ozge Kaplan; Carol S Lenox; Daniel H Loughlin
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  The quest for improved air quality may push China to continue its CO2 reduction beyond the Paris Commitment.

Authors:  Jia Xing; Xi Lu; Shuxiao Wang; Tong Wang; Dian Ding; Sha Yu; Drew Shindell; Yang Ou; Lidia Morawska; Siwei Li; Lu Ren; Yuqiang Zhang; Dan Loughlin; Haotian Zheng; Bin Zhao; Shuchang Liu; Kirk R Smith; Jiming Hao
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Contribution of Offshore Wind to the Power Grid: U.S. Air Quality Implications.

Authors:  Morgan S Browning; Carol S Lenox
Journal:  Appl Energy       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 9.746

5.  Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges.

Authors:  Toon Vandyck; Kimon Keramidas; Alban Kitous; Joseph V Spadaro; Rita Van Dingenen; Mike Holland; Bert Saveyn
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Air pollution control strategies directly limiting national health damages in the US.

Authors:  Yang Ou; J Jason West; Steven J Smith; Christopher G Nolte; Daniel H Loughlin
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  State-level drivers of future fine particulate matter mortality in the United States.

Authors:  Yang Ou; Steven J Smith; J Jason West; Christopher G Nolte; Daniel H Loughlin
Journal:  Environ Res Lett       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 6.793

8.  Incorporating upstream emissions into electric sector nitrogen oxide reduction targets.

Authors:  Samaneh Babaee; Daniel H Loughlin; P Ozge Kaplan
Journal:  Clean Eng Technol       Date:  2020-12-01

9.  Integrating Air Quality and Public Health Benefits in U.S. Decarbonization Strategies.

Authors:  Ciaran L Gallagher; Tracey Holloway
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-11-19

Review 10.  How will air quality effects on human health, crops and ecosystems change in the future?

Authors:  Erika von Schneidemesser; Charles Driscoll; Harald E Rieder; Luke D Schiferl
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.