Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Spatially resolved air-water emissions tradeoffs improve regulatory impact analyses for electricity generation.
Gingerich, Daniel B; Sun, Xiaodi; Behrer, A Patrick; Azevedo, Inês L; Mauter, Meagan S.
Afiliação
  • Gingerich DB; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
  • Sun X; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
  • Behrer AP; Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
  • Azevedo IL; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
  • Mauter MS; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; mauter@cmu.edu.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 114(8): 1862-1867, 2017 02 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28167772
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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article