Simulating the Health Benefits of Low-Carbon Energy Policy

.

Renewable electricity projects and energy efficiency measures could have health benefits worth millions of dollars a year, according to a study co-authored by a School of Public Health researcher.

The study, published online in Nature Climate Change, found that the value of such projects varies greatly depending on the type of projects and where they are located. Generating electricity from low-carbon energy sources and cutting energy demand reduces the need for fossil fuel power generation, decreasing emissions of harmful gases such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide.

The research team created an assessment tool to calculate the monetized public health and climate benefits of a wind and solar energy project and two strategies aimed at reducing energy usage in the Mid-Atlantic and Lower Great Lakes region of the United States for 2012.

The team, which included Jonathan Levy, professor of environmental health, found that while all the low-carbon energy projects reduced greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions, the results varied dramatically by location. For example, a wind installation near Cincinnati was twice as beneficial as one in Virginia, largely because of Cincinnati’s higher downwind population density and greater reduction in coal-fired electricity, magnifying the effects on human health.

Meanwhile, a solar installation near Cincinnati was nearly three times as beneficial as one near Chicago, because it displaced more coal with greater sulfur dioxide emissions.

The authors, led by Jonathan Buonocore of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, conclude that the benefit of implementing such strategies ranged from $5.7 million to $210 million a year, depending on the project type and location. They suggest that their tool could be used to make decisions about which energy and environmental policies to implement across the US.

—Lisa Chedekel

Explore Related Topics:

Low-carbon fuels refer to materials that, when burned, provide thermal energy with fewer emissions than fossil fuels. This thermal energy is often used to generate electricity for industrial facilities, such as in combined heat and power systems.

Fossil fuels have traditionally been the main source of thermal energy in American manufacturing. They are energy-dense, meaning they store a significant amount of energy per unit of volume or mass, which makes them easy to store and transport. Releasing the energy stored in these fuels through combustion has historically been be the most economic way to produce the large amounts of heat needed for industrial processes. However, combustion releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants that negatively impact the health of local communities.

Alternatives to fossil fuel combustion for industrial applications potentially include zero-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or ammonia, and low-carbon fuels, such as biofuels made from plant waste or algae, paired with carbon capture to prevent any released carbon from escaping into the atmosphere. Biofuels are potentially a promising alternative to fossil fuels in processes, such as steel making, where both energy and a sustainable source of carbon–which is incorporated into the final product–are necessary to create a zero-carbon product.

There is also an opportunity for industrial sites to replace fuels entirely with cost-effective low- and zero-carbon energy sources. Rather than burning fuels, industrial sites can directly use nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal power, and a variety of other clean energy sources.