Energy Use and Pollution
The Central Challenge of Our Time
Eng Phys EP 3ES3
Energy Modes
• Electricity Generation
• Transportation
• Direct Heating
• Industrial Use
Energy Production and Use -Impacts by Environmental Medium
• Air –Thermal/Meteorological, Chemical, Radioactive
• Water – Chemical, Thermal/Aquatic, Radioactive
• Land – Radioactive, Chemical, Bulk Wastes
Air Impacts
“Air Pollution”
Direct chemical impacts - short and long term
“Climate Change”
Indirect impacts – long term, global warming/meteorological instability
Air Pollution
• SOx
• NOx
• O 3
• CO• Particulate matter, total, inhalable, respirable• Organics• Metals• Toxics
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percenta
ge R
esponse (
%)
Not at allA littleSomewhatVeryExtremelyLevel of Concern
Odours BlackFalloutVisibility Health Effects
Concerns About Air Quality
How Does Poor Air Quality Affect Us?
• Human Health Impacts• Odors and Eye Irritation• Poor Visibility and Haze• Property Damage• Community Perception Issues• Direct and Indirect Economic Costs• Damage to Natural Ecosystems
The Problem
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Deaths Resp Cardio
Deaths
Hospital Admissions
Sahsuvaroglu & Jerrett 2003
Health Impacts of Air Pollutants in Hamilton
Health Impacts in Hamilton – by Air Pollutant
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Deaths Resp Cardio
O3
NO2
SO2
P10
CO
Sahsuvaroglu & Jerrett 2003
(Higher Impacts on Women and Over 60s) Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction,
A. Peters et al, NEJM, Oct 21, 2004
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Odds Ratio
TrafficAdjusted
BicycleAdjusted
GettingUp
Outside
Augsburg
Traffic Exposure and Myocardial Infarction
Level of Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter and the Risk of Death from Cardiovascular Causes in Women
Miller KA et al. N Engl J Med 2007;356:447-458
Electricity Generation
• Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants
Air Emissions by Electricity Generation Method
Lbs/
MWh
Coal Oil Gas Municipal Waste
Nuclear/
Renewables
CO2 2249 1672 1135 2988 0
SO2 13 12 0.1 0.8 0
NOx 6 4 1.7 5.4 0
Fossil Fuel Power Plants % of U.S. Total Emissions
• 67 % of sulfur dioxide emissions
• 23 % of nitrogen oxide emissions
• 40 % of man-made carbon dioxide emissions
Ontario Coal Fired Generating Stations – Health Impacts in Ontario
• 668 premature deaths, • 928 hospital admissions • 1,100 emergency room visits per year
Why don’t we just add a few more nuclear stations?
Risk Management
• Hazard
• Risk = Hazard x probability
• Outrage = Risk perception x hazard
• Risk Analysis, including ranking
• Risk Management, education/marketing, prioritized actions, review
Ontario's Electricity Generation Mix
Fuel Type - Ontario % of Total
Nuclear 48
Hydro 25
Coal 17
Gas 8
Other 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nuclear Hydro Coal Gas Other
Ontario Clean Air Plan for Electricity Generation
Close coal-fired generating stations • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by
up to 30 megatonnes a year • Equivalent to taking seven million cars off the
road or removing every car and small truck in Ontario
• Meets half of the province’s greenhouse-gas-reduction contributions under the Kyoto Protocol .
Ontario Clean Air Plan for Electricity Generation
• Nuclear - Bruce Power refurbish two laid- up nuclear reactors, 1,500 megawatts.
• OPG to refurbish existing nuclear facilities at Pickering B.• Limiting the future use of nuclear power to today's
installed capacity level of 14,000 megawatts. • Cleaner (Gas Fired) - 7,500 megawatts of cleaner, more
diversified power. • Doubling the amount of electricity drawn from renewable
sources, bringing the total to 15,700 megawatts by 2025. • Adding $400 M to double the conservation efforts for a
total of $550 M, targeting to reduce electricity demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025.
• Expanding the transmission capacity from Bruce County and surrounding area to facilitate the transmission of electricity from several new wind farms and the Bruce facility to Ontario homes and businesses.
Smart Electricity Meters
• 800,000 smart meters by December 31, 2007, all Ontario customers by December 31, 2010.
• Cost $1Bn
• Cost per customer $3-4 per month
Air Pollution Exposures in Hamilton
• Long Range Transport + Local Sources
• Mobile Monitoring Study to Identify and Rank Local Sources 2005 - 2007
Mobile Command Centre
###
#
###
#
#
##
### ###########
###
##
#
##
#####
#########
#
##
###
#
##
#
##
#
##
###########
##
########
#
#
#########
##
###
#########
##
#
#
##
#
########### #
#
# ###
##
########
####################################
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
##
########
##
##
########
###
#
###
###########
###########
#
##
#
##
#
#
##
###############
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
## #
### #
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
##
####
##
###
###
##
#####
### ###
No
December 8, 2005
1 0 1 2 Kilometers
Wind
NO ppb
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Time
P10
ug/
m3
NO
ppb SO2
CO
NO
PM10Mohawk and Upper James
Barton and Centennial Pkwy
= idling impact
--NO Residential
--PM10 Residential
Stoplight Idling – Concentrations Downwind
Burlington St. Upwind Downwind
10:5
210
:54
10:5
610
:58
11:0
011
:02
11:0
411
:06
11:0
811
:10
11:1
211
:14
11:1
611
:18
11:3
011
:32
11:3
411
:36
11:3
8
NO
NO2
P2.5
P10
Downwind
Upwind
High Pollution Triangle
High Pollution Triangle, Samples of Modeled Impacts of Traffic Pollutants, (Julie Wallace, Ph.D. Centre for Spatial
Analysis, McMaster University)
NOMarch 9th 2007
Traffic
Traffic
Traffic
Industry
High Pollution TriangleMcMaster Model – Rotek Mobile Data
Monitoring/Modeling Interaction
Health Impacts in Hamilton – by Air Pollutant
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Deaths Resp Cardio
O3
NO2
SO2
P10
CO
Sahsuvaroglu & Jerrett 2003
(Higher Impacts on Women and Over 60s) Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction,
A. Peters et al, NEJM, Oct 21, 2004
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Odds Ratio
TrafficAdjusted
BicycleAdjusted
GettingUp
Outside
Augsburg
Traffic Exposure and Myocardial Infarction
Vehicle Idling outside Schools
“Natural Experiment”
Morning – Idling Vehicles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
8:59
9:05
9:11
14:0
0
14:0
6
14:1
2
14:1
8
14:2
4
14:3
0
14:3
6
14:4
2
14:4
8
14:5
4
15:0
0
15:0
6
15:1
2
15:1
8
15:2
4
15:3
0
15:3
6
15:4
2
15:4
8
15:5
4
NO (ppb)
MorningStudent Dropoff
AfternoonStudentPickup
Natural Experimentpp b
Monitoring Vehicle at School
Afternoon – Vehicle Engines Off
Transportation
Transit (7.00%)Walking/Cycling (7.00%)
Other (4.00%)
Autodriver (66.00%)
Auto Rider (16.00%)
Transportation By Modein Hamilton - Wentworth (1991)
63.6%
% increase
1991-2021 Current Trends
30%
New Roads
10%
-30%New Roads+ 25%Transit
New Roads+ TechImprovement
Transportation Trends
CO averageSimilar Trends forHC and NOx
An Evaluation of Hybrid Vehicle Use in a Canadian Fleet Environment
Honda Insight
Toyota Prius
Denis Corr, Michael ChoEngineering Physics, McMaster U.Ontario Ministry of Environment
Fuel consumption statistics
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Insight Prius Fleet avg
fuel
eco
nom
y (L
/100
km
)
MOEHHHSR
City of Hamilton Analysis Lifetime Cost Comparison
5 yr total costs, including lease and fuel
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Insight
Prius
Taurus
LuminaMalibu
Cavalier
Fuel Economy, Actual, vs. Manufacturer’s Projections
• Honda projected Insight to have 50% better fuel economy than Prius, however over 1 year normal fleet operation, fuel economies were comparable.
Manufacturer's efficiency vs. Actual efficiency
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Manufacturer Actual
Fu
el E
ffic
ien
cy (
L/1
00
km
)
Honda InsightToyota Prius
Drive Clean Emission Testing
• MOE Fleet average Drive Clean Test results.
• Honda Insight and Toyota Prius Drive Clean Test results.
0
50
100
150
200
250
MOE Insight
HC
/NO
pp
m
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
HC ppm
NO ppm
CO %
CO
%
Prius
NuVehicle Program Trend 2002
• Vehicle purchases by organizations, MOE, City of Hamilton, Hamilton Hydro
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2002 2007
Vehicles Planned
NuVehicle Program Trend 2006
• Vehicle purchases by organizations, MOE, City of Hamilton, Hamilton Hydro
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2002 2007
Vehicles Planned
Climate Change
• Doesn’t matter where CO2 is released
• NOAA index has increased 20% since 1990
• U.S. refuses to sign on to Kyoto agreement
• Coal is most abundant/cheapest fossil fuel available
Global Warming - Solutions• Conservation• Aggressive introduction of new renewable
generation worldwide, including wind, solar and local geothermal
• Enhanced interest in nuclear• Investment in LPG facilities• Research investment in Clean Coal Technology,
including CO2 recovery and sequestration (Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Clean Power Coalition
• Hybrid/fuel cell vehicles• Alternative fuels
Good Intentions+
Good Science+
Good Process
=
Real Progress