Considering health when switching to cleaner electricity

Date:
June 10, 2020
Source:
American Chemical Society
Summary:
Power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels emit not
only planet- warming carbon dioxide, but also pollutants linked
to breathing problems and premature death. Policies proposed to
mitigate climate change, however, often fail to fully account for
the health benefit of switching to cleaner technologies. Researchers
show that emphasizing health concerns in such policies can alter
the optimal locations of these upgrades.



FULL STORY ========================================================================== Power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels emit not only
planet-warming carbon dioxide, but also pollutants linked to breathing
problems and premature death. Policies proposed to mitigate climate
change, however, often fail to fully account for the health benefit
of switching to cleaner technologies. In a new study published in ACS' Environmental Science & Technology, researchers show that emphasizing
health concerns in such policies can alter the optimal locations of
these upgrades.


========================================================================== Location matters little for carbon dioxide emissions -- no matter
where the gas is emitted, it eventually mixes into the atmosphere
and contributes to global climate change. However, location makes a
big difference for air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides, since those emissions tend to concentrate near their source
and can impact the health of people living nearby. Studies have been
exploring the connection between reducing climate- warming emissions
and healthier air, and how that plays out at a local level.

But Brian Sergi, Ine^s Azevedo and colleagues wanted to take an even more granular, county-by-county approach to assess how a combined climate-and- health-driven strategy for the U.S. electricity system might play out
compared to one prioritizing only climate.

In the study, the researchers started out with a goal of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions by 30%. Using computer models, they examined
the effects of two approaches: one in which reducing carbon dioxide
is the only goal, and another in which reducing both carbon dioxide
and local air pollution are prioritized equally. These two scenarios
produced markedly different results for some states. When undertaken
with only climate implications (carbon dioxide levels) in mind, the
transition to cleaner power required retiring many coal- powered plants
in the West and Southwest. However, when health (pollution levels) was
also considered, it was better to retire more coal-powered plants in
the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. The combined approach could help
states better determine how to prioritize upgrades for power plants
within their borders, the researchers say.


========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by American_Chemical_Society. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. Brian J. Sergi, Peter J. Adams, Nicholas Z. Muller, Allen
L. Robinson,
Steven J. Davis, Julian D. Marshall, Ine^s L. Azevedo. Optimizing
Emissions Reductions from the U.S. Power Sector for Climate and
Health Benefits. Environmental Science & Technology, 2020; DOI:
10.1021/ acs.est.9b06936 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200610120955.htm

--- up 20 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 34 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1337:3/111)