Estimating environmental co-benefits of U.S. low-carbon pathways using an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution

• Published in: Applied energy 2018-04, Vol.216 (C), p.482-493
• Main Authors: Ou, Yang, Shi, Wenjing, Smith, Steven J., Ledna, Catherine M., West, J. Jason, Nolte, Christopher G., Loughlin, Daniel H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air pollution health impacts; Energy-related water demand; GCAM-USA; Integrated assessment modeling
• ISSN: 0306-2619; 1872-9118
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.122

[Display omitted] •GCAM-USA is modified to include water and PM-related health impact factors.•Three technology pathways are evaluated for 50% and 80% CO2 reduction targets.•Technology pathways include Reference, Renewable, and Nuclear and CCS.•The Renewable pathway has the lowest water use but highest PM health impacts.•PM from wood combustion offsets some of the health benefits of low carbon pathways. There are many technological pathways that can lead to reduced carbon dioxide emissions. However, these pathways can have substantially different impacts on other environmental endpoints, such as air quality and energy-related water demand. This study uses an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution of the energy system to compare environmental impacts of alternative low-carbon pathways for the United States. One set of pathways emphasizes nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage, while another set emphasizes renewable energy, including wind, solar, geothermal power, and bioenergy. These are compared with pathways in which all technologies are available. Air pollutant emissions, mortality costs attributable to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter, and energy-related water demands are evaluated for 50% and 80% carbon dioxide reduction targets in 2050. The renewable low-carbon pathways require less water withdrawal and consumption than the nuclear and carbon capture pathways. However, the renewable low-carbon pathways modeled in this study produce higher particulate matter-related mortality costs due to greater use of biomass in residential heating. Environmental co-benefits differ among states because of factors such as existing technology stock, resource availability, and environmental and energy policies.