Sustainable Energy Futures for Michigan: Challenges,

Opportunities and the Role you Play

Gregory A. Keoleian Director, Center for Sustainable Systems

Peter M. Wege Professor of Sustainable SystemsProfessor of Environmental Engineering

University of MichiganWolverine CaucusJanuary 27, 2016

Agenda

• Energy Sustainability Issues– Supply– Demand

• Life Cycle Analysis Perspective• Sectors

– Transportation– Buildings– Food

2

Sustainability

• Sustainable Development definition: “… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

– United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) = Brundtland Commission

• Tools for measuring sustainability performance– Life cycle assessment– Life cycle cost analysis

Dr. Gro BrundtlandFormer Prime Minister of Norway

Former Executive Director of the World Health Organization

Energy Sustainability Issues in Michigan

• Energy Supply– Heavily non-renewable– High carbon intensity

• Energy Demand– Inefficiency of stock– Affordability and insecurity for low

income households

4

• Michigan renewable mix was only 6.8%

• MI has no new RPS target to drive renewable energy

Renewable Portfolio Standard Policieswww.dsireusa.org / June 2015

WA: 15% x 2020*

OR: 25%x 2025* (large utilities)

CA: 33% x 2020

MT: 15% x 2015

NV: 25% x 2025* UT: 20% x

2025*†

AZ: 15% x 2025*

ND: 10% x 2015

NM: 20%x 2020 (IOUs)

HI: 100% x 2045

CO: 30% by 2020 (IOUs) *†

OK: 15% x 2015

MN:26.5% x 2025 (IOUs)

31.5% x 2020 (Xcel)

MI: 10% x 2015*†WI: 10%

2015

MO:15% x 2021

IA: 105 MW IN: 10% x 2025†

IL: 25% x 2026

OH: 12.5% x 2026

NC: 12.5% x 2021 (IOUs)

VA: 15% x 2025†

KS: 20% x 2020

ME: 40% x 2017

29 States + Washington DC + 3 territories have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (8 states and 1 territories have renewable portfolio goals)

Renewable portfolio standard

Renewable portfolio goal Includes non-renewable alternative resources* Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables

†

U.S. Territories

DC

TX: 5,880 MW x 2015*

SD: 10% x 2015

SC: 2% 2021

NMI: 20% x 2016

PR: 20% x 2035

Guam: 25% x 2035USVI: 30% x 2025

NH: 24.8 x 2025VT: 75% x 2032

MA: 15% x 2020(new resources) 6.03% x 2016 (existing resources)

RI: 14.5% x 2019CT: 27% x 2020

NY: 29% x 2015

PA: 18% x 2021†

NJ: 20.38% RE x 2020 + 4.1% solar by 2027

DE: 25% x 2026*

MD: 20% x 2022

DC: 20% x 2020

http

://w

ww

.dsi

reus

a.or

g/su

mm

arym

aps

/RPS has been the most influential mechanism for

transforming the US grid

COP 21 pledges expected to exceed 2.5C

Clean Power Plan• US EPA rule that would require each state to reduce

carbon emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants– calls for the state to reduce the emissions rate by 39.4%,

• Reduce carbon dioxide emission rate from 1,928 pounds per megawatt hour of energy generated as of 2012 to 1,169 pounds per megawatt hour, by 2030

• Least cost plan by UM Study (EIA gas price projection)– Cost-effective energy efficiency corresponds to utility energy

efficiency resource standard of about 1.5% per year. Implementing sufficient renewable generation to comply with EPA’s draft rule for the Clean Power Plan corresponds to a Renewable Portfolio Standard of approximately 28% by 2030 as well as aggressive improvements in the heat rates of the remaining coal plants.

Turnover of many systems is slow which impacts the rate of transformation

High efficiency standards are critical

Purchase and policy decisions can have long term consequences

MaterialProcessing

Use

Manufacture& Assembly

Retirement& Recovery

ServiceDisposal

Raw MaterialAcquisition

recycling

reuse

Life Cycle Assessment

Primary Materials (e.g., ores, biotic resources)

Recycled Materials (open loop recycling)

Primary Energy(e.g., coal)

Air pollutants(e.g., Hg)

Water pollutants(e.g., BOD)

Solid waste(e.g., MSW)

Products(e.g., goods, services)

Co-products(e.g., recyclables, energy)

remanufacture

• metrics for evaluating environmental sustainability

System: Mid-sized 1995 Sedan

Sponsors: US Consortium for Automotive Research• Chrysler • American Iron and Steel Institute• Ford • Aluminum Association• GM • American Plastics Council

Life Cycle Inventory of a Generic Vehicle

identify a set of metrics to benchmark the environmental performance

Life cycle energy(6 GJ = 1 barrel of crude oil)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Mtl. Prd. Mfg. &Assembly

Fuel Use Maint. E-o-L Total

life cycle stages

life

cycl

e en

ergy

(GJ)

all highway

all city

Alternative vehicle technology

13

RenewableElectricity

CV

HEV

Petroleum

Electricity

ElectricalGrid

PHEV

CO2

CO2

TA6 Project 3: Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions Labeling and Standards for EVs

from a Life Cycle Perspective

MacPherson, N.D., G.A. Keoleian, and J.C. Kelly, “Fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions labeling for plug-in hybrid vehicles from a life cycle perspective” Journal of Industrial Ecology (2012) 16(5): 761-773.

NERC Region

Map

Increased utilization of electric mode for the Volt

Key Sustainability Drivers: IPAT Equation

I = P x A x T

I = total environmental impact from human activities

P = populationA = affluence or per capita

consumptionT = environmental damage from

technology per unit of consumptionSource: Ehrlich and Holdren (1971)

Impact of Automobiles in U.S. I1 =

(impact) P x

(population)

A x (affluence)

T (technol.)

gallons (billion)

pop. (million)

vmt/ capita

gallons/mile

1970 80.1 204 5098 1/13.0

2009 133.1 307 8833 1/20.4

change +66% +51% +73% -36%

Source data from TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 30–2011

2025 Fuel Economy Standards: 54.5 mpg

Personal Transportation Modes

Auto

Bus

Car/Vanpool

Most Efficient?

Concrete overlay

ECC overlay

HMA overlay

Overlay length is 10 km. Traffic flow is 70000/day (four lanes). Annual traffic growth rate is 0% in the baseline model. Truck percentage is 8%.

Reconstruction Overlay structure

Preservation timeline

Concrete

Overlay

2006

2016

2026

2036

2046

HMA

Overlay

ECC

Overlay

Overlay Construction

Minor Maintenance

Major Maintenance

1.2 m 3.6 m

Existing Reinforced Concrete Pavement

175mm Concrete Overlay25mm Asphalt Pre-Overlay

100mm ECC Overlay

40mm Top Course

90mm Base Course60mm Leveling Course

Sustainable Pavement Asset Management Based on Life Cycle Models and Optimization Methods

Sustainable Mobility Drivers• Use phase dominates life cycle impacts• More efficient modes are underutilized • Vehicle electrification advantages require shift toward

greater renewables deployment• Life cycle framework useful for road infrastructure

management and policy• Inexpensive fuel

– Challenge for OEMs to sell efficient vehicles– Opportunity for tax revenues to improve roads and other low carbon

policies

Life Cycle Analysis of a Residential Home in Michigan

Keoleian, G.A., S. Blanchard, and P. Reppe “Life Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a Single Family House” Journal of Industrial Ecology (2000) 4(2): 135-156.

Energy Efficient Strategies Utilized

• Increase wall insulation (R-35 double 2x4) Use-phase• Reduce air infiltration (Caulking) Use-phase • Increase ceiling insulation (R-60 cellulose) Use phase • Insulation in basement (R-24) Use-phase• High perfomance windows (lowE-coating, argon fill) Use-phase• Energy-efficient electrical appliances Use-phase• All fluorescent lighting Use-phase• Building-integrated shading (overhangs) Use-phase• Waste hot water heat exchanger Use-phase• Air-to-air heat exchanger Use-phase• Recycled-materials roof shingles Embodied Energy • Wood foundation walls/cellulose insulation Embodied Energy

Summary of Life Cycle Results

Life Cycle Inventory of:

Unit Standard Home

Energy Efficient Home

MASS Metric Tons

306 325

ENERGY GJ 16,000 6,400

GLOBAL WARMING

GASES

Metric Tons

1,010 370

Figure 3. Life cycle energy consumption for SH and EEH

31

34

1,6691,509

4,725

14,493

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

SH EEH

GJ

demolition

use / maintenance

fabrication / construction

Initial construction/total life cycle energy 9% 26%

?

100%

Zero Energy Home

Life Cycle Costs1998 Energy Prices

Mortgage$546,314

Price = $240,000 Mortgage = 30 years, 7%10,130 kWh Annual Electricity Usage

141,554 kBtu Annual Gas Heating UsageCost of Energy Constant over 50 years

Maintenance$180,828

Electricity$40,520

Natural Gas$32,699

Standard HomeTotal Cost = $800,361

Mortgage$598,216

Price = $262,800 Mortgage = 30 years, 7%4,1730 kWh Annual Electricity Usage

30,400 kBtu Annual Gas Heating UsageCost of Energy Constant over 50 years

Maintenance$177,049

Electricity$16,692

Natural Gas$7,029

Energy Efficient HomeTotal Cost = $798,986

Life Cycle Costs2012 Energy, Home, Mortgage Prices

Mortgage$545,528

Price = $338,650 Mortgage = 30 years, 4%10,130 kWh Annual Electricity Usage

141,554 kBtu Annual Gas Heating UsageCost of Energy Constant over 50 years

Maintenance$255,156

Electricity$63,081

Natural Gas$50,959

Standard HomeTotal Cost = $914,724

Mortgage$597,354

Price = $370,822 Mortgage = 30 years, 4%4,173 kWh Annual Electricity Usage

30,400 kBtu Annual Gas Heating UsageCost of Energy Constant over 50 years

Maintenance$249,824

Electricity$24,829

Natural Gas$10,954

Energy Efficient HomeTotal Cost = $882,962

Status of Code Adoption: Residential Overview of the currently adopted residential energy code in each state

as of November 1, 2011

Affordability• Weatherization Assistance leads to lower operating

and life cycle costs• Low Income Home Energy Assistance is short term

fix

Average Size of a New U.S. Single-Family House

Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2015. “Residential Buildings Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS01-08. October 2015 CSS Factsheet Collection

19% decrease

persons per household

3.14 2.54

Sustainable Building Drivers• Use phase dominates life cycle impacts• Consumption patterns unsustainable• Large existing stock should be focus• Technology exists for transformations

– Initial cost for adoption of new technology a barrier• Incentives and policy mechanisms are not aggressive

enough– Codes are lacking for improving existing stock– Government programs should emphasize weatherization

The Food System Life Cycle

Origin of (genetic) resource

Agricultural growing and production

Food processing, packaging

and distribution

Preparation and

consumption

End of life

production consumption

total systemHeller, M. and G. Keoleian “Assessing the sustainability of the U. S. food system: A life cycle perspective” Agricultural Systems (2003) 76: 1007-1041.

fossil energy in food energy out0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

trill

ion

BTU

s

7.3 units of energy consumed to produce 1 unit of food energy

3900 calories made available/person/day

Agricultural Production

Processing

Packaging

Transport

Household Storage and Preparation

CommercialRetail

Optimal Replacement Policy

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Cost

GHG

Energy Energy

GHG

Cost

• Replace refrigerators that consume more than 1000 kWh/year of electricity (typical mid-sized 1994 models and older – original study) – would be an efficient strategy both cost and

energy standpoint. Kim, H.C., G.A. Keoleian, Y.A. Horie, “Optimal household refrigerator replacement policy for life cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost” Energy Policy (2006) 34(15): 2310-2323.

Obesity prevalence in 2014

Overeating: Body Mass IndexBMI = Weight in kilograms ÷ [Height in meters]2

Obesity

Underweight BMI less than 18.5Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9Obese BMI of 30.0 or more

Carbon intensity of US Diet and Losses

M.C. Heller and G.A. Keoleian, 2014 “Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, in press.

Food Drivers• Food security vs obesity epidemic

– Food deserts in urban areas• Greatest leverage point in life cycle lies with

reducing consumption and waste– Reduction by one third is not unrealistic

• Diet shifts in addition to reduction in calories• Agricultural policy and markets are not focused

on delivery the greatest nutritional value

Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, W.C. Willett. “Toward a Life Cycle-Based, Diet-level Framework for Food Environmental Impact and Nutritional Quality Assessment: A Critical Review.” Environmental Science & Technology (2013) 47(22): 12632-12647.

Thank You!

• Additional resources – http://css.snre.umich.edu/

Go Blue Think Green

Program Specializations

Carbon Emissions by State

“Use phase” dominates life cycle energy for many durables

Product System (functional unit)

Total Life Cycle Energy (GJ)

Average Life Cycle Energy (GJ)/ Year

Use Phase (%)

Mixed Use Commercial Building (75 years, 78,500ft2)

2,300,000 3,100 98%

Residential Home (50 years, 2450 ft2)

16,000 320 91%

Passenger Car (120,000 miles, 10 years)

1,000 100 85%

Household Refrigerator (20 ft3, 10 years)

110 11 94%

Desktop Computer (3 years, 3300 hrs)

17 5.6 34%

Office File Cabinet (one cabinet, 20 years)

2.4 0.12 0%

Source: Center for Sustainable Systems

EU households:

• Smaller size homes

• Lower occupancy = 2.4 in 2010

Home size

Food Waste Across the Supply Chain