We've updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data.

We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. You can read our Cookie Policy here.

Advertisement
Health Benefits Require More Emphasis in Push for Cleaner Energy
News

Health Benefits Require More Emphasis in Push for Cleaner Energy

Health Benefits Require More Emphasis in Push for Cleaner Energy
News

Health Benefits Require More Emphasis in Push for Cleaner Energy

Credit: Pixabay.
Read time:
 

Want a FREE PDF version of This News Story?

Complete the form below and we will email you a PDF version of "Health Benefits Require More Emphasis in Push for Cleaner Energy"

First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Country*
Company Type*
Job Function*
Would you like to receive further email communication from Technology Networks?

Technology Networks Ltd. needs the contact information you provide to us to contact you about our products and services. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For information on how to unsubscribe, as well as our privacy practices and commitment to protecting your privacy, check out our Privacy Policy

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, Inês 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. 

Reference
Optimizing Emissions Reductions from the U.S. Power Sector for Climate and Health Benefits. Brian J. Sergi, Peter J. Adams, Nicholas Z. Muller, Allen L. Robinson, Steven J. Davis, Julian D. Marshall, and Inês L. Azevedo. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, May 11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06936.

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Advertisement