US could save billions in health costs if it changed wind energy strategy
(2022/12/05)
- Reference: 1670268605
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/12/05/wind_power_mit_study/
- Source link:
The health benefits of replacing fossil fuel-burning power plants with wind energy are quantifiable, says the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but if the US got more choosy about which plants it switches off in favor of wind, those benefits could quadruple.
Traditional power plants are regularly scaled down when wind energy is plentiful, but the researchers behind [1]the study said picking which of them to turn off is often based on cost effectiveness, not which plants produce the most pollution.
The MIT team examined historical data on hourly wind turbine activity and emissions reports from fossil fuel-based power plants across the US from between 2011 and 2017. Based on their analysis, they concluded that wind power associated with state-level policies generally improved air quality, resulting in approximately $2 billion in health benefits (through cost savings) across the US.
[2]
According to the study, models that swapped out known-curtailed power plants for ideal curtailment made that number jump considerably, leading to $8.4 billion in health benefits across the US. "Prioritizing health is a great way to maximize benefits in a widespread way across the US, which is a very positive thing," [3]said MIT professor and study co-author Noelle Selin.
[4]
[5]
Unfortunately, Selin also pointed out another thing the team found across the course of its study: No matter how they tried to adjust their models, racial, ethnic and economic disparities in air pollution benefits persisted.
Easy, breezy, pollution-filled climate map
Using historic data, the MIT team developed a climate model that used atmospheric chemistry to model wind patterns and the distribution of emissions across the country, with a focus on fine particulates and ozone. US census data was added to the model in order to show how pollution affected different populations.
Scenarios in which plants were curtailed in favor of wind energy were adjusted in three ways: To turn down plants that produce the most sulfur dioxide, those that produce the most carbon dioxide, and those that were generally considered "the most health-damaging." All three scenarios showed an improvement, but the latter was where the quadrupled health savings appeared.
Unfortunately, low-income and minority communities didn't benefit as much; just like in the original data that showed only 30 percent of health benefits reaching disadvantaged communities, discrepancies remained.
[6]
"We got to the end of the road and said, there's no way we can address this disparity by being smarter in deciding which plants to displace," Selin said.
It's unreasonable to expect such a model to achieve perfection, and MIT's definitely does not. What it does do is offer a path forward that accounts not just for cost savings, but also for health benefits when considering power plant curtailment as renewables become more central to the grid.
[7]US Department of the Interior seeks $1b single-vendor cloud contract
[8]Hardware makers criticized for eco double standards
[9]NASA AI shows slashing sulfur in shipping fuel cut air pollution at sea
[10]Save the whales – with, uh, artificial intelligence?
[11]Waxworm's spit shows promise in puncturing plastic pollution
"Our role is to figure out the strategies that are most impactful in addressing those challenges," Selin said. The study doesn't have any specific recommendations to make, outside of saying "more targeted measures are needed" to avoid disparities.
It does provide a target, as soft as it may be, in noting that the US government said in January 2021 that "40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments, including investments in the areas of clean energy, should flow to disadvantaged communities."
That's just a 10 percent difference in what the study noted versus what the government's target was stated to be, and Selin has an idea where to find some of those sources: Outside of the electricity sector.
[12]
"In order to address air pollution disparities … look at other air pollution sources, as well as the underlying systemic factors that determine where plants are sited and where people live," Selin said. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn8762
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://news.mit.edu/2022/wind-health-impact-1202
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/14/cloud_contract_doi/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/20/sustianability/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/ai_model_reveals_new_policy/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/28/ai_whale_protection_salesforce/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/05/wax_worms_plastic_paper/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Traditional power plants are regularly scaled down when wind energy is plentiful, but the researchers behind [1]the study said picking which of them to turn off is often based on cost effectiveness, not which plants produce the most pollution.
The MIT team examined historical data on hourly wind turbine activity and emissions reports from fossil fuel-based power plants across the US from between 2011 and 2017. Based on their analysis, they concluded that wind power associated with state-level policies generally improved air quality, resulting in approximately $2 billion in health benefits (through cost savings) across the US.
[2]
According to the study, models that swapped out known-curtailed power plants for ideal curtailment made that number jump considerably, leading to $8.4 billion in health benefits across the US. "Prioritizing health is a great way to maximize benefits in a widespread way across the US, which is a very positive thing," [3]said MIT professor and study co-author Noelle Selin.
[4]
[5]
Unfortunately, Selin also pointed out another thing the team found across the course of its study: No matter how they tried to adjust their models, racial, ethnic and economic disparities in air pollution benefits persisted.
Easy, breezy, pollution-filled climate map
Using historic data, the MIT team developed a climate model that used atmospheric chemistry to model wind patterns and the distribution of emissions across the country, with a focus on fine particulates and ozone. US census data was added to the model in order to show how pollution affected different populations.
Scenarios in which plants were curtailed in favor of wind energy were adjusted in three ways: To turn down plants that produce the most sulfur dioxide, those that produce the most carbon dioxide, and those that were generally considered "the most health-damaging." All three scenarios showed an improvement, but the latter was where the quadrupled health savings appeared.
Unfortunately, low-income and minority communities didn't benefit as much; just like in the original data that showed only 30 percent of health benefits reaching disadvantaged communities, discrepancies remained.
[6]
"We got to the end of the road and said, there's no way we can address this disparity by being smarter in deciding which plants to displace," Selin said.
It's unreasonable to expect such a model to achieve perfection, and MIT's definitely does not. What it does do is offer a path forward that accounts not just for cost savings, but also for health benefits when considering power plant curtailment as renewables become more central to the grid.
[7]US Department of the Interior seeks $1b single-vendor cloud contract
[8]Hardware makers criticized for eco double standards
[9]NASA AI shows slashing sulfur in shipping fuel cut air pollution at sea
[10]Save the whales – with, uh, artificial intelligence?
[11]Waxworm's spit shows promise in puncturing plastic pollution
"Our role is to figure out the strategies that are most impactful in addressing those challenges," Selin said. The study doesn't have any specific recommendations to make, outside of saying "more targeted measures are needed" to avoid disparities.
It does provide a target, as soft as it may be, in noting that the US government said in January 2021 that "40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments, including investments in the areas of clean energy, should flow to disadvantaged communities."
That's just a 10 percent difference in what the study noted versus what the government's target was stated to be, and Selin has an idea where to find some of those sources: Outside of the electricity sector.
[12]
"In order to address air pollution disparities … look at other air pollution sources, as well as the underlying systemic factors that determine where plants are sited and where people live," Selin said. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn8762
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://news.mit.edu/2022/wind-health-impact-1202
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/14/cloud_contract_doi/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/20/sustianability/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/ai_model_reveals_new_policy/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/28/ai_whale_protection_salesforce/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/05/wax_worms_plastic_paper/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y454FrumdSG-fk-fcMOTYgAAAEc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Are the writers having a larf?
Steve Davies 3
Changing to green energy - guaranteed to piss off BIG OIL who just happen to donate billions to Politicians of all types.
Less spending on Healthcare - guaranteed to piss off BOTH big pharma and the health insurers.
While the proposals make sense they have little chance of being implemented. Money Talks and money donated to the perpetual election campaigns that the USA has will ensure that this dies a death.
We might hate our government here in the UK but the amount of money sloshing around in bribes... sorry campaign contributions are several orders of magnitude less than across the pond.
The USA spends so much on elections that, that spending alone is greater than the GDP of at least 30 countries. That is stupidity at its best.
Where is the Bag of loot icon?
Oh, and bring back Dabsy or at least move this site back to the UK where it belongs.
Saved by whom?
theOtherJT
According to the study, models that swapped out known-curtailed power plants for ideal curtailment made that number jump considerably, leading to $8.4 billion in health benefits across the US
But healthcare in the USA is a private industry, as is power generation. What incentive does one company have to interfere in the profitability of another? And why would the government, who's election campaigns are financed by both, have any interest in doing anything that might upset either of them?
Re: Saved by whom?
Yet Another Anonymous coward
The same party that told its core voters not to take a life saving vaccine ?
Air pollution in the home
That is good, but unsurprising news, that a fourfold improvement can be made in pollution by choosing carefully which power stations to take offline. And also depressing that poor and deprived people lose out however carefully decisions are made.
You can do things at home to help too. An article in the "i" newspaper recently claimed that the pm 2.5 count in the atmosphere was highest in the kitchen when frying food (meat is worse than vegetables) or when snuffing out candles. Outside was ok-ish:
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/used-pollution-monitor-worst-offenders-stir-fries-scented-candles-tube-2003651
Although I do remember that on a holiday to North Wales once I climbed Pen yr Ole Wen, Carnedd Dafydd, Carnedd Llewellyn, Snowden, and Cader Idris before I realised that I had gone four days without taking either of my asthma inhalers because the air was so much cleaner than in my 'home' town of Reading, Berkshire.