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