From the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Reduction in U.S. carbon emissions attributed to cheaper natural gas
Lower emission from power plants in 2009 was driven by competitive pricing of natural gas versus coal
Cambridge, Mass. – February 27, 2012 – In 2009, when the United States fell into economic recession, greenhouse gas emissions also fell, by 6.59 percent relative to 2008.
In the power sector, however, the recession was not the main cause.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have shown that the primary explanation for the reduction in CO2 emissions from power generation that year was that a decrease in the price of natural gas reduced the industry’s reliance on coal.
According to their econometric model, emissions could be cut further by the introduction of a carbon tax, with negligible impact on the price of electricity for consumers.
A regional analysis, assessing the long-term implications for energy investment and policy, appears in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
In the United States, the power sector is responsible for 40 percent of all carbon emissions. In 2009, CO2 emissions from power generation dropped by 8.76 percent. The researchers attribute that change to the new abundance of cheap natural gas.
“Generating 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal releases twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as generating the same amount from natural gas, so a slight shift in the relative prices of coal and natural gas can result in a sharp drop in carbon emissions,” explains Michael B. McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies at SEAS, who led the study.
“That’s what we saw in 2009,” he says, “and we may well see it again.”
Patterns of electricity generation, use, and pricing vary widely across the United States. In parts of the Midwest, for instance, almost half of the available power plants (by capacity) were built to process coal. Electricity production can only switch over to natural gas to the extent that gas-fired plants are available to meet the demand. By contrast, the Pacific states and New England barely rely on coal, so price differences there might make less of an impact.
To account for the many variables, McElroy and his colleagues at SEAS developed a model that considers nine regions separately.
Their model identifies the relationship between the cost of electricity generation from coal and gas and the fraction of electricity generated from coal.
“When the natural gas prices are high, as they were 4 years ago, if the gas prices come down a little bit, it doesn’t make any difference,” explains lead author Xi Lu, a postdoctoral associate at SEAS. “But there’s a critical price level where the gas systems become more cost-effective than the oldest coal-fired systems.
“If the gas price continues to drop, you’ll continue to go down this curve so that you’ll knock out not just the really ancient coal-fired power plants, but maybe some of the more recent coal-fired plants.”
The model also predicts that a government-imposed carbon tax on emissions from power generation would drive a move away from coal.
“With a relatively modest carbon tax—about $5 per ton of CO2—you could save 31 million tons of CO2 in the United States, and that would change the price of electricity by a barely noticeable amount,” says McElroy.
The initial model was developed by Jackson Salovaara ’11, an applied mathematics concentrator at SEAS. His work was recognized as the “best senior thesis” in the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, earning him the Stone Prize in May 2011.
Since then, the model has been “souped up,” incorporating more sophisticated regional data analysis, and producing not just the findings on 2009 but also predictions for more recent years.
“While the data from 2011 are not yet available, based on the gas prices, we’re making a confident prediction that there should be a continued shift from coal to natural gas in 2011 as compared to 2008,” says McElroy.
“That’s good news for the atmosphere.”
###
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So – a question: if “the Pacific states and New England barely rely on coal” and their emissions dropped 5.4 and 12.1% – what is driving the reduction in those states – and how is it demonstrated that those same factors don’t apply in coal-powered regions?
In addition – if the CO2 has been reduced due to switching- has that been revealed in the Mauna Loa data?
28 Feb: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: EPA Plans to Keep Carbno (sic) Rules Limited to Top Polluters
The proposal, posted on the agency’s website on Feb. 24 without notification, would maintain standards established in 2010 for new or revamped plants…
The plan was posted by the agency as the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington plans to start hearing arguments tomorrow from states and industries arguing in part that the EPA’s so- called tailoring rule, which limits the businesses covered by its standards, violates the law.
“This weakens the argument that there is an inexorable push from EPA to regulate every hot dog stand in the country,” David Doniger, policy director for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, said in an interview…
The EPA is advancing plans to regulate carbon emissions after Congress failed to pass climate-change legislation…
Those regulations are overdue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/epa-proposes-keeping-carbon-regulation-limited-to-top-polluters.html
According to their econometric model, emissions could be cut further by the introduction of a carbon tax, with negligible impact on the price of electricity for consumers………………
===============================================
…and the first stimulus worked
7 Feb: Montreal Gazette: Lynn Moore: Quebec to kick in $24 million to help companies determine carbon content of products
The pilot project — described as the first of its kind in North America — will focus first on selecting a certification program to measure total carbon dioxide emissions for the life cycle of products and services….
The companies participating in the project are Bell, Rio Tinto Alcan, Alcoa, Aluminerie Alouette, Interplast, Fibrek, Aliments Ultima, Enerkem, Laboratoire M2 and Chantiers Chibougamau.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Quebec+kick+million+help+companies+determine+carbon+content+products/6216991/story.html
27 Feb: Business Week: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon Market May Be Too Focused on Short-Term, Delbeke Says
Investors in the European Union emissions trading system may be overconcentrating on the short- term perspective, said Jos Delbeke, director general for climate at the European Commission. He made the comments at a conference organized by Eurelectric in Brussels today…
On short-term focus in the market:
“Perhaps there’s overconcentration on the next 3-6-12-15 months. The question for policy makers is what’s beyond those months. That’s why we’re monitoring the situation and we’re not following in line immediately with those who say we intervene in the market. We’re very much cautious about the fact how we will see the impact of many different dilemmas: there’s the recession, we see a massive redesign of the industrial sector worldwide. Once we’re going out of the recession, what is going to stay in terms of emission patterns?”…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/carbon-market-may-be-too-focused-on-short-term-delbeke-says.html
27 Feb: Reuters: China’s Duan to chair UN carbon executive board
Maosheng Duan of China was on Monday named chairman of the executive board for the Clean Development Mechanism, becoming the first person from the world’s top polluter to oversee the UN-backed carbon market for developing nations.
Duan succeeds Britain’s Martin Hession, who will now serve as vice-chair of the CDM executive board, said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in a statement from Bonn. Both positions run through early next year…
At the same time, demand for the carbon credits has suffered because of a debt crisis in the European Union, the biggest buyer of CERs.
Benchmark CERs were trading just over 5 euros a tonne on Monday.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8DRA1C20120227
Ah, so the CO2 reductions explain the cold?? (/sarc off!)
27 Feb: Eastern Daily Press: UK base for Global Carbon Project at UEA
The Global Carbon Project provides scientific data to both policy-makers and the public on the latest trends in CO2 emissions around the world. It already has offices in Australia, Japan, France, US, China and South Korea but is set to add another at the University of East Anglia.
Its UK office is located at the UEA-led Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and funded by the Natural Environment Research Council…
Corinne Le Quéré, co-chair of the Global Carbon Project and Tyndall Centre director, said: “Without accurate, up-to-date information, policy-makers lack the tools to plan effective future strategy in this vitally important field. Establishing the Global Carbon Project’s first UK office is a significant step in improving the quality of the data and reducing uncertainty in the science.”
The new office at UEA will pave the way for an International Carbon Office that would compile, analyse, report and archive global CO2 statistics, and monitor CO2 “sinks”.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/uk_base_for_global_carbon_project_at_uea_1_1221226
reminder:
Archant Board: Richard Jewson, Chairman
He is HM Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and also Chairs the Council for the University of East Anglia.
Richard chairs the remuneration and nominations committees
http://www.archant.co.uk/about_board.aspx
Well in a logical world this would makes the CO2 is evil crowd happy, but since it is not their precious “green” tech this study will be marginalized.
This report proves that market forces are causing substantial CO2 emissions reductions. It follows that there is no need whatsoever for CO2 mitigation or taxes thereon.
Aside from the facts that there is no measurable benefit to be obtained from further emission reductions and that carbon taxes will ruin the economy, what else is there to do but observe the ongoing reduction of CO2 emissions?
…did they really just say that we can solve the problem by making natural gas cheaper
/snark
Sincehuman CO2 reduction in the USA had reached the levels of the mid 1990s emissions, by the later half of the 2000 decade, did this further reduction in human CO2 emission, by switching to Natural Gas further reduce the emissions and let the USA meet the 1990 Kyoto targets?
It must be very close to doing so, making the USA, a Treaty non participant, the only large country to actually meet the Kyoto targets.
We know the 1990 target levels were carefully rigged to show full East Bloc emissions, rather then the large reduction that came on the collapsing East bloc economies ,and the closure of lots of very dirty, uneconomic, Communist facilities This was done to give Europe a leg up on meeting the targets, without having to do much ,or even anything, to achieve them.
Of course it is all academic an academic exercise, since the accounting is totally lopsided ,merely including human emnissions, and not the natural emissions and absorbtion by Nature that consists of 97% of the world flux while man only contributes a tiny 2-3% of the annual flux, either way.
North American Flora consumes more than 100% of what North American Man and Nature comvined emits, so it is a NET CO2 Sink; and actually absorbs a considerable amount from Eurasia
Since human CO2 reduction in the USA had reached the levels of the mid 1990s emissions, by the later half of the 2000 decade, did this further reduction in human CO2 emission, by switching to Natural Gas further reduce the emissions and let the USA meet the 1990 Kyoto targets?
It must be very close to doing so, making the USA, a Treaty non participant, the only large country to actually meet the Kyoto targets.
We know the 1990 target levels were carefully rigged to show full East Bloc emissions, rather then the large reduction that came on the collapsing East bloc economies, and the closure of lots of very dirty, uneconomic, Communist facilities This was done to give Europe a leg up on meeting the targets, without having to do much, or even anything, to achieve them.
Of course it is all academic; an academic exercise, since the accounting is totally lopsided, merely including human emissions, and not the natural emissions and absorbtion by Nature that consists of 97% of the world flux, while man only contributes a tiny 2-3% of the annual flux, either way.
North American Flora consumes more than 100% of what North American Man and Nature combined emits, so it is a NET CO2 Sink; and actually absorbs a considerable amount from Eurasia too.
We don’t need a carbon tax. We need a Federal Government that gets out of the way of developing our natural resources. The data presented here shows the economy is naturally moving away from coal and towards natural gas, why do they presume that process won’t continue on it’s own?
Natural gas power plants have many advantages over coal, such as being relatively quick to bring online when demand ramps up. Coal and nuclear can’t as quickly be brought online and taken offline when demand fluctuates. Solar and wind are unreliable and need not even be discussed in this context.
“This research was supported by the National Science Foundation”
——-
So I already Paid for this stupid study with my taxes, that’s proposing to add another f$%#ing tax on my back, and if I want the privelidge of reading it I have to pay for it (paywalled)!
/rant
Q: How hid you get interested in the climate change hoax?
A: I opened my wallet one day and there it was.
Tell me again why are carbon (sic) emissions a problem?
As there is no demonstrable problem why should they be taxed?
Is this a welcome to the ‘fur lined mousetrap’?
From the article: ““Generating 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal releases twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as generating the same amount from natural gas, so a slight shift in the relative prices of coal and natural gas can result in a sharp drop in carbon emissions,” explains Michael B. McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies at SEAS, who led the study.”
————————————————————–
This shows the Professor doesn’t understand the electric power generation industry. To a great extent, coal fired plants and nukes provide the base load and natural gas plants fill in the peaks. This is because coal is the cheapest fuel and coal burners cannot be throttled up and down and remain efficient, whereas gas burners can efficiently and rapidly respond to load changes. Also, 20% of US electricity is from nuclear plants and these have been increasing power output in recent years. For example, US nukes generated 799 billion KWh in 2009 and 807 billion KWh in 2010. This 8 billion KWh reduced CO2 emissions by about 10 million tons compared to coal. I don’t see any reference to this increase in nuke power in the Harvard document.
Including indirect emissions, such as the diesel engines in mining and transportation equipment, coal fired plants emit 1.3 kg CO2 per KWh, natural gas burners emit 0.7 kg CO2 per KWh, and nukes emit .02 Kg/KWh. Put into perspective, a typical coal burning power plant produces about 20,000 tons CO2 per day.
And in response to future posters decrying the safety of nuclear power I point out there were zero injuries or fatalities related to radiation around the Fukushima nuke power plants. Of the 16,000 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami, there were two power plant workers drowned and one crushed, and one heart attack a few days later in a cleanup worker. Future cancer cases? Probably a negative number; here’s a reference on that health issue: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html?LNT%20Myth
Stas Peterson says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“North American Flora consumes more than 100% of what North American Man and Nature combined emits, so it is a NET CO2 Sink; and actually absorbs a considerable amount from Eurasia too.”
My comment> Most of the increase in CO2 absorption is due to the shift to low or no till farming practices and the extensive landscaping in suburban neighborhoods, that seems to be unique to the USA. In other areas of the world urban concentration of peoples results in the total destruction of the plants that sheep and goats can browse on, with in a days walk of the local villages.
In the USA this adaption of suburban Lifestyle changes has enhanced the viability of the local environment in regard to local biodiversity of both flora and fauna, because of the direct expenditure of some of the household income on supporting the plant life abundance and diversity by landscaping for the natural augment it gives to health and positive climate enhancement as the plant density increases instead of being destroyed by over grazing.
Just my 2 cents as an organic gardener.
I’m always fascinated by new studies written under false premises. But their posit is laughable….. they’re saying the market drove the conversion to gas….. well, it did sort of , but the prices didn’t drop that much back in 2009.http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/why-using-nat-gas-for-base-load-electricity-is-a-bad-idea/
Dan in California says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
This shows the Professor doesn’t understand the electric power generation industry. To a great extent, coal fired plants and nukes provide the base load and natural gas plants fill in the peaks. This is because coal is the cheapest fuel and coal burners cannot be throttled up and down and remain efficient, whereas gas burners can efficiently and rapidly respond to load changes.
==============================================================
Thank you Dan…… I believe the increase use of gas was to backup the increase in renewables.
Yeah but ….when you have shipped all your nice clean manufacturing to smoky China …. Maybe the decline in CO2 is being hidden. Hiding-the-decline seems to apply to both ends of the climate science spectrum.
So. A miserable life(major recession-no jobs, no money) leads to glorious CO2 reductions. Is if just me, or am I missing something here?
A model created by a Collage senior in an Environmental Economics Program? I am dubious to say the least. If the kid had the brains to do this he’d be making big splashes in more valuable area of math and be wasting his time in the bogus field of Environmental Economics.
If men reduce their CO2 emissions, then Mother Nature who is in charge of 96% of ~CO2 emissions only has to nudge her output up a 1/24 th. smidgin to keep levels going on up just as she wants them and as the Mauna Loa record shows!
and NOT be wasting his time
ooops
According to their econometric model, emissions could be cut further by the introduction of a carbon tax, with negligible impact on the price of electricity for consumers. “With a relatively modest carbon tax—about $5 per ton of CO2—you could save 31 million tons of CO2 in the United States, and that would change the price of electricity by a barely noticeable amount,” says McElroy.
Oh, so this is a public policy paper not a scientific research project. Seems to me that the institution should be renamed the Harvard School of EcoEngineering and Applied Political Science (SEAPS).
Natural gas should be used because it’s inexpensive. As for CO2, its output should be maximized. I suggest a negative Carbon tax.