Results for power plants

Ari Rabl; Joseph V. Spadaro; Mike Holland

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107337831.015

13 - Results for power plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014

Ari Rabl ,

Joseph V. Spadaro and

Mike Holland

Show author details

Ari Rabl: Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro: Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland: Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses damage cost estimates for electric power. The damage cost of the power plant itself is straightforward, if one has the required data for the emission of pollutants (and other burdens) per kWhe. But for many policy applications one needs to compare different technologies (e.g. coal versus nuclear or wind) that have very different life cycles. This necessitates an analysis of the entire fuel chain, including fuel extraction, plant manufacture and construction, and so on, as well as the power generation phase. For that reason we begin this chapter with the methodology of fuel chain analysis. To illustrate how the practice of fuel chain analysis has evolved over time and how the issues of concern (priority impacts) have been changing, we present a review of the main fuel chain studies that have been carried out in the last 25 years. Finally, we present current assessments of the most important power production technologies. Fossil fuels, especially coal, oil and lignite, have the largest damage costs due to greenhouse gases and health impacts of the classical air pollutants. The damage costs are low for the renewables and for the normal operation of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Scope of the analysis

Boundaries of the analysis

When calculating the damage costs of electric power, one has to begin by defining the boundaries of the analysis. This depends on the objective. If one wants to evaluate the benefits of different technologies for reducing the SO2 emissions of coal fired plants, it suffices to consider the SO2 damage costs of the plants in question (since SO2 abatement does not appreciably alter the efficiency). If the objective is to compare different coal fired plants (e.g. pulverized coal, fluidized bed and integrated gasification combined cycle), one has to evaluate the burdens for each of these plant types, and, to the extent that the efficiencies are different, one also has to account for the fact that the relative contribution of the upstream impacts is different. After all, the comparison should be made per kWhe that is produced (i.e. useful output), not per unit of fuel that is consumed.

Type: Chapter
Information: How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
, pp. 519 - 559

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337831.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abt 2000. The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions. October 2000. Prepared for EPA by Abt Associates Inc., 4800 Montgomery Lane, Bethesda, MD20814–5341.Google Scholar

Abt 2004. Power Plant Emissions: Particulate Matter-Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios. Prepared for EPA by Abt Associates Inc. 4800 Montgomery Lane. Bethesda, MD20814–5341.Google Scholar

Ball, D. J., Roberts, L. E. J. and Simpson, A. C. D. 1994. An analysis of electricity generation health risks: a United Kingdom perspective. Research report 20. ISBN 1 873933 60 6. Centre for Environmental and Risk Management, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.Google Scholar

Brode, R. W, and Wang, J. 1992. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Model. Vols.1–3, EPA 450/4-92-008a, EPA 450/4-92-008b, and EPA 450/4-92-008c. US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC27711.Google Scholar

Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. and Cazzoli, E. 2008. Final report on quantification of risk indicators for sustainability assessment of future electricity supply options. NEEDS Deliverable n° D7.1 – Research Stream 2b. NEEDS project “New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability”, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar

Cardis, E., Krewski, D., Boniol, M. et al. (2006) The Cancer Burden from Chernobyl in Europe. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer Briefing Document, April 20. Google Scholar

Derwent, R. G. and Nodop, K. 1986. Long-range transport and deposition of acidic nitrogen species in north-west Europe. Nature 324: 356–358.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dreicer, M., Tort, V. and Margerie, H. 1995. Nuclear fuel cycle: implementation in France. Final report for ExternE Program, contract EC DG12 JOU2-CT92-0236. CEPN, F-92263 Fontenay-aux-Roses. This report is included in Rabl et al. (1996). These reports by can be downloaded at

EC 1988. Performance Assessment of Geologic Isolation Systems for Radioactive Waste, Summary, DIR11775 EN, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar

EC 2001. Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

EdF 1990. Etude probabiliste de sûreté des REP de 1300 MWe. EPS 1300. Electricité de France.Google Scholar

Ehrhardt, J. and Jones, J. A. 1991. An outline of COSYMA, a new program package for accident consequence assessments. Nuclear Technology. 94: 196–203.CrossRef Google Scholar

EIA 2012. Levelized cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2012. US Energy Information Administration.

ExternE 1995. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. ISBN 92-827-5210-0. Vol.1: Summary (EUR 16520); Vol.2: Methodology (EUR 16521); Vol.3: Coal and Lignite (EUR 16522); Vol.4: Oil and Gas (EUR 16523); Vol.5: Nuclear (EUR 16524); Vol.6: Wind and Hydro Fuel Cycles (EUR 16525). Published by European Commission, Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, L-2920 Luxembourg.Google Scholar

ExternE 1998. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. Vol.7: Methodology 1998 Update (EUR 19083); Vol.8: Global Warming (EUR 18836); Vol.9: Fuel Cycles for Emerging and End-Use Technologies, Transport and Waste (EUR 18887); Vol.10: National Implementation (EUR 18528). Published by European Commission, Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, L-2920 Luxembourg. Results are also available at Google Scholar

ExternE 2008. With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004–2008) and CASES (2006–2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity we cite the numbers of the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya, A., Bigano, A. and Porchia, R. in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).Google Scholar

Friedrich, R. and Voss, A. 1993. External Costs of Electricity Generation, Energy Policy 21: 114–121.

Gagnon, L. and van de Vate, J. F. 1997. Greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower: the state of research in 1996. Energy Policy 25: 7–13.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garwin, R. L. 2005. Chernobyl’s real toll. EUROPE FEATURES United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries.

Garwin, R. L. 2012. Evaluating and Managing Risk in the Nuclear Power Sector, JSPS-USJI Risk-Management Symposium, Washington. DC, March 9, 2012 Google Scholar

Hirschberg, S., Heck, T., Gantner, U. et al. 2004a. Health and environmental impacts of China’s current and future electricity supply, with associated external costs. Special Issue on China’s Energy Economics and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Wei, Y. M., Tsai, H. T., Chen, C. H., Guest Editors, Volume 22 (2/3/4), InterScience Publishers 2004.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hirschberg, S., Burgherr, P., Spiekerman, G. and Dones, R. 2004b. Severe accidents in the energy sector: comparative perspective. In: Journal of Hazardous Materials 111: 57–65.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hohmeyer, O. 1988. Social Costs of Energy Consumption: External Effects of Electricity Generation in the Federal Republic of Germany. New York: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Holland, M. 1996. Quantifying the externalities of fuel cycle activities outside the European Union. Maintenance Note 1 for the ExternE CORE Project. Energy Technology Support Unit, B 156 Harwell Laboratory, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RA, UK.Google Scholar

IAEA 2005. Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident. International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organization, and United Nations Development Programme. 2005. accessed 07 Jan.2012Google Scholar

IAEA 2006. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and Their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience. Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group ‘Environment’. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

ICRP 1991. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Report 60, Annals of the ICRP, Pergamon Press, UK, 1991.Google Scholar

ILO 1995. Recent developments in the coal mining industry. International Labor Organization, International Labor Office, Geneva.

IRSN 2011. Assessment on the 66th day of projected external doses for populations living in the north-west fallout zone of the Fukushima nuclear accident: outcome of population evacuation measures. Report DRPH/2011-10. Directorate of Radiological Protection ond Human Health, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, France.Google Scholar

Krewitt, W., Trukenmueller, A., Mayerhofer, P. and Friedrich, R. 1995. EcoSense – an integrated tool for environmental impact analysis. in: Kremers, H., Pillmann, W. (Ed.): Space and Time in Environmental Information Systems. Umwelt-Informatik aktuell, Band 7. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg 1995.Google Scholar

Levy, J. I., Hammitt, J. K.Yanagisawa, Y. and Spengler, J. D. 1999. Development of a new damage function model for power plants: methodology and applications. Environmental Science & Technology 33(24): 4364–4372.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levy, J. I., Baxter, L. K. and Schwartz, J. 2009. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States. Risk Anal. 29(7): 1000–1014.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

NCRP 1993. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP report No.116. Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar

NRC 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Available from National Academies Press.Google Scholar

NRC 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Available from National Academies Press. Google Scholar

Ontario Hydro. 1993. Full Cost Accounting for Decision Making. Toronto: Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave. H18 J18 Toronto, Ontario. December 1993.Google Scholar

OECD 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies, OECD Publishing. Google Scholar

ORNL/RFF 1994. External Costs and Benefits of Fuel Cycles. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Resources for the Future. Edited by Lee, Russell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831.Google Scholar

Ottinger, R. L. et al. 1991. Environmental Costs of Electricity. Oceana Publications, New York.Google Scholar

Pearce, D. W., Bann, C. and Georgiou, S. 1992. The social costs of fuel cycles, report for the UK Department of Trade and Industry, CSERGE, University College London.Google Scholar

Pope, C. A., Thun, M. J., Namboodri, M. M. et al. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of US adults. Amer. J. of Resp. Critical Care Med 151: 669–674.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rabl, A. and Dreicer, M. 2002. Health and environmental impacts of energy systems. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 18(2/3/4): 113–150.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rabl, A., Curtiss, P. S., Spadaro, J. V. et al. 1996. Environmental Impacts and Costs: the Nuclear and the Fossil Fuel Cycles. Report to EC, DG XII, Version 3.0 June 1996. ARMINES (Ecole des Mines), 60 boul. St.-Michel, 75272 Paris CEDEX 06.Google Scholar

Rabl, A., Spadaro, J., Bickel, P. et al. 2004. ExternE-Pol. Externalities of Energy: Extension of accounting framework and Policy Applications. Final Report contract N° ENG1-CT2002-00609. EC DG Research. Available at

Rabl, A. and Rabl, V. A. 2013. External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives?Energy Policy 57: 575–584.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reis, S., Grennfelt, P., Klimont, Z. et al. (2012) From Acid Rain to Climate Change. Science, 30 November 2012: 1153–1154.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rowe, R. D., Lang, C. M., Chestnut, L. G. et al. 1995. The New York Electricity Externality Study. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, New York.Google Scholar

Spadaro, J. V. and Rabl, A. 1999. Estimates of real damage from air pollution: site dependence and simple impact indices for LCA. International J. of Life Cycle Assessment 4 (4): 229–243.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ten Hoeve, J. E. and Jacobson, M. Z. 2012. Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Energy and Environmental Science 5: 8743–8756.CrossRef Google Scholar

UNSCEAR 2000. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, Volume I: Sources.

USDOE 1994. Radiation in the Environment. Brochure published by Office of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy.Google Scholar