Presentation on theme: "External Costs of Air Pollution"— Presentation transcript:
1External Costs of Air Pollution Ari Rabl, ARMINES/Ecole des Mines de ParisandOctober 2014External Costs= cost that are not taken into account by the markete.g. damage costs of pollution, if polluter does not pay,= costs imposed on othersperspective of society perspective of individualNeed government regulations to internalize external costs(make polluter take into account the external cost,i.e. act as if polluter and victims were the same)Part of the damage costs are already internalized by current regulations, and some economists define external cost as only that part of the damage cost that still remains to be internalized (but that is difficult to determine and very uncertain). In practice most people now refer to the entire damage cost of pollution as “external cost”.
2Combustion of fossil fuels: Sources of PollutionMost air pollution,(and a large part of all pollution)is directly or indirectly linked to energy (electricity, heat, transport)Combustion of fossil fuels:CO2 ( global warming)NOx ( acid rain, tropospheric O3, health impacts)SOx ( acid rain, health impacts)black smoke, particles ( health impacts)other:nuclear wasteCFCs (insulation, refrigeration) ( stratospheric O3 hole)land use (power plants, mines, wastes, ...)accidents (mines, Chernobyl, ...)Noiseetc …
3How much is clean air worth? Difficult choices(high costs):e.g.pay extra for clean energy?photovoltaics?"zero emission" vehicles?fuel cell car?improved flue gas treatment?e.g. catalytic reduction of NOxclose a factory with high pollution?cancers or jobs?Excessive spending for environmental protection takes money away from other worthy causes, such as education and public healthCost-benefit analysis (CBA)can help optimize allocation of scarce resources,i.e. compare costs and benefits of pollution abatementpollution abatement = measures to reduce pollution
4Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) = Ranking of abatement measures in terms of their result/cost ratio.Example: CO2 abatement in EU by 2020 (reference: IIASA, GAINS model)Each segment of the curve represents marginal cost (€/tCO2) and contribution to abatement (GtCO2/yr) of a particular abatement measure, e.g. replacement of incandescent lighting by fluorescent.CEA does not tell us how far we should abate;for that we need to know also the benefits (cost-benefit analysis)
5Criteria for Determining Optimal Level of Pollution 1) Zero pollution: Unrealistic, our economy could not function2) Stay below threshold of harmful impacts:OK if there is such a threshold (often the case for ecosystem impacts)but for many pollutants/impacts there is no such threshold,e.g. greenhouse gases, health impacts of NOx, PM, SO2, O3, carcinogens, …3) Precautionary principle: no useful guidance4) Minimize the total social cost Ctot(E) = Cdamage(E) + Cabatement(E)as function of pollution emission E Marginal damage cost = - marginal abatement cost
6The Precautionary Principle only a general guideline (“Think before you act!”),no advice for specific problemsMust be used with a great deal of precaution,to avoid unexpected consequencese.g. Overestimating risks of nuclear implies increased global warming and conventional pollutionOverestimation of mortality costs of pollution implies increased mortality through indirect impacts (“poverty kills”)Whose risks, whose precaution? We need expectation value of damage costs,except for cases where valuation is very non-linear function of damage (e.g. very large accident, or irreversible damage)
7Optimal level of pollution, cont’d Example: costs of CO2General case (almost always):Marginal abatement cost decreases with ETypical case for classical air pollutants: Marginal damage cost = constantfor CO2: Marginal damage cost increases with EAt optimum
8Information Needs of Policy Makers Environmental policies need to target specific pollution sourcesGeneral policies, e.g. ambient air quality standards, are not sufficientPolicy makers must tell each polluter how much to reduce the emission of each pollutant (e.g, NOx from cars = precursor of O3 and PM10) They need to know impact (cost) of emitted pollutantFor some decisions the also need LCA results, e.g.choice between nuclear and coal,electric or fuel cell vehicles (“pollution elsewhere vehicles”),hydrogen economy
9Towards an answer: the ExternE Project Series of the EC ExternE = “External Costs of Energy”Series of research projectsfunded by European Commission DG Research, since 1991(until 1995 with ORNL/RFF)>200 scientists in all countries of EU(A. Rabl is one of the key participants)Major publications 1995, 1998, 2000, 2004,and 2008 (definitive results)Methodology1) Life Cycle Assessment of process or product chain (LCA)2) Site specific Impact Pathway Analysis (IPA)
10Impact Pathway Analysis to calculate damage of a pollutant emitted by a sourceImpacts are summed over entire region that is affected (Europe)and all damage types that can be quantified:healthloss of agricultural productiondamage to buildings and materialsResult:€/kg of pollutantMultiply by kg/kWh to get €/kWh
11Pathways for Dioxins and Toxic Metals For many persistent pollutants (dioxins, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, etc)ingestion dose is about two orders of magnitude higher than inhalation
12Life cycle analysis (LCA) Relation between impact pathway analysis and current practice of most LCA, illustrated for the example of electricity production.LCA should include site-specific IPA with realistic exposure-response functionsand monetary valuation - but that’s usually not done in current practice.
13Comparison LCIA ExternE Impact 2002+ExternEMonetary valuationnoyesPollutants consideredAll for which emissions data availableCO2,CH4,N2O,PM,SO2,NOx,VOC,As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb,dioxins, benzene, radionuclidesImpact categoriesHuman toxicityXGlobal warmingIonizing radiationPhotochemical oxidationTerrestrial acid/eutrophLand useOzone layer depletionAquatic ecotoxicityTerrestrial ecotoxicityAquatic acidificationAquatic eutrophicationNon-renewable energyMineral extractionAgricultural lossesBuildings and materialsAccidentsEnergy supply securityAmenity impactsImpact is the most complete LCIA(life cycle impact assessment)Impact 2002+,like most LCA:no monetary valuation,and tries to include everything (even if the ERFs are dubious)whereas ExternE focuses on items with the largest damage cost, trying to be as realistic as possible
14Comparison LCIA ExternE Impact 2002+ExternEMonetary valuationnoyesPollutants consideredAll for which emissions data availableCO2,CH4,N2O,PM,SO2,NOx,VOC,As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb,dioxins, benzene, radionuclidesImpact categoriesHuman toxicityXGlobal warmingIonizing radiationPhotochemical oxidationTerrestrial acid/eutrophLand use
16Comparison of tools for evaluating environmental policy options Very limited and simplified listToolDescriptionMonet.valuationLife Cycle Assessment (LCA)LCA Inventory (material flows, pollutants): crucial for evaluating products or processesLCA Impact Assessment: dubious methodology because no realistic dispersion models and exposure-response functionsUse IPA instead!noCost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)Costs and results (quantity of pollution that is avoided) of options are quantified and ranked according to ratio result/costImpact Pathway Analysis (IPA)Analysis of the chain emission dispersion dose-response function costyesCost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)Evaluate and compare costs and benefits of options
17Monetary valuation For non-market goods: based on Willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid a losse.g.VSL = “Value of Statistical Life”(a better name VPF = value of prevented fatality)= WTP to avoid risk of an anonymous premature deathtypical values used in EU and USA 2-5 M€Value of a Life Year (VOLY) due to air pollution = 40,000 €Methods for valuation of non-market goods:Contingent valuation (survey of individuals)analysis of consumer choices (e.g. lower rent for noisy apartments, travel cost, higher wage for higher risk, etc)
18Storage of waste (nuclear and conventional): Land use, waste storageLand use:Serious impact on ecosystems and biodiversity(biodiversity decreases if size of an ecosystem is reduced, e.g. if it is cut by a road)Very site-specific.Storage of waste (nuclear and conventional):Difficulty: damage depends on future management of storage,with new technologies leakage during the operation of the facility is negligible, but what will happen in the future?need scenariosExternE: assessment of waste storage for nuclear, but so far not for fossil fuel chains
19Nuclear power ExternE 1995 and 1998: Very low damage costs but … (lowest of all except wind, solar and for some sites hydro)but …Risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism:Temptation to increase profit and economies of scale by selling the technology to countries that lack sufficient safeguards(the link nuclear power -> military is undeniable)Risks of major nuclear accident:ExternE 1995: Extremely small with new technologies, but public perception?Long term storage of waste:No problem as long as storage site is supervised. But is our society stable enough in the long term?Risks imposed on future generations:nuclear waste vs. CO2
20Health impacts of pollution Primary PollutantSecondaryPollutantImpactsparticles(BS, PM10, PM2.5)MortalityCardio-vascular and respiratory morbidity:reduction of lung capacity, lung cancer, asthma, bronchitis(hospitalization, sick leave, doctor visits, …)SO2Direct effects of SO2?Cardio-vascular and respiratory morbiditysulfateslike particles?NO2direct effects of NO2?Mortality and morbidity?NOxnitratesAre the observed impacts due to particles or due to NO2 or SO2?
21Health impacts of pollution, cont’d Primary PollutantSecondaryPollutantImpactsNOx+VOCozonemortalityrespiratory morbidityVOC(volatile organic compounds)little or no direct effects at typical ambient concentrations (except PAC)Benzene, PAC(polycyclic aromatic compounds)cancersCOcardio-vascular morbiditydioxinsCancers, other morbidityAs, Cd, Cr, NiHg, Pbmorbidity (neurotoxic, other)
22Health effects of air pollution Healthy individuals have sufficient reserve capacity not to notice effects of pollution,but the effects become observable at times of low reserve (during extreme physical stress, severe illness, or last period of life)Pollution reduces reserve capacity Mortality impact is not the loss of a few months of misery at the end but the shrinking of the entire quality of life curve (“accelerated aging”)In large population there are always some individuals with very low reserve capacity impacts observable
23Approaches to measure health impacts Epidemiology:comparing populations with different exposures.2) Laboratory experiments with humans:exposure in test chambers with controlled concentration of air pollutants (but this approach is very limited because of ethical constraints).3) Toxicology:a) Expose animals (usually rats or mice) to a pollutant; sample sizes are usually very small compared to epidemiological studies, and the animals are selected to be as homogenous as possible (unlike real populations). Extrapolation to humans???b) Expose tissue cultures to pollutants. Extrapolation to real organism???
24Approaches to measure health impacts, cont’d Epidemiology: can measure impacts on real human populations, by observing correlations (“associations”) between exposure and impact. But in most cases the uncertainties are very large. Is the impact due to the pollutant or due to other variables that have not been taken into account (the problem of “confounders”, especially smoking)?Toxicology: can identify mechanisms of action of the pollutants. For many substance tests with animals are the only way to identify carcinogenic effects. Toxicology can also suggest new questions to be investigated by epidemiology.The two approaches are complementary.
25Dose-response functions (DRFs) (for air pollutants also known as exposure-response functions or concentration response functions)Crucial for calculating impacts of a pollutant.Note:a) most epidemiological studies do not report explicit DRFs but only a relative risk (= increase in occurrence of a health impact due to increase of exposure). To obtain DRF one also needs data on background rates of occurrence.b) Watch out for consistency of DRF with the specification of exposure (calculated by dispersion models) and with monetary valuation. E.g. is exposure specified as hourly peak or as 24 hr average?
26Linearity without threshold Form of exposure-response functions (ERF) at low doses (also known as dose-response function)Possible functional forms at low dosesLinearity without thresholdis the most plausible assumption for NO2, PM, O3, SO2, and carcinogens (including radiation)Difference between ERFs for individuals and for populationsToxicology: small samples of identical individuals thresholdEpidemiology: real populations with large variations of sensitivity often no threshold
27Importance of Mortality In terms of costs, the most important emitted pollutants(apart from greenhouse gases) arePM,SO2 (precursor of sulfate aerosols),NOx and VOC (precursors of O3).About 65% of their total damage cost is due to mortality!About 15% due to chronic bronchitis,About 15% due to other health impacts,Only a few % due to agricultural losses, and damage to buildings
28Loss of Life Expectancy due to Air Pollution In EU and USA typical concentrations of PM2.5 around g/m3 LE loss 8 monthsReasonable policy goal during coming decades:reduction by about 50%Life expectancy (LE) gain about 4 monthsOther countries, e.g. China: concentrations ~2 to 3higher total LE loss ~2 to 4 yearsTo put this in perspective with other public health risks:Smokers lose about 5 to 8 years on averageRule of thumb:each cigarette reduces LE by about the duration of the smokeAir pollution (in EU and USA) equivalent to about 4 cigarettes/day
29How to measure the impacts and costs of air pollution mortality Key issue for environmental policy because most of total damage cost of pollution is due to mortalityLoss of life expectancy VOLYVOLY = Value of a Life YearorNumber of deaths VPFVPF = Value of Prevented Fatality (=VSL = “Value of Statistical Life”)= “willingness-to-pay to avoid an anonymous premature death”??????2hr (lecture+ discussion), use Princeton, add intro on % of cost due mort, also uncertaintyVPF used for accidents, Loss of LE for public health
30Number of deaths VPF: mediagenic but wrong VPF based on accidents (large LE loss/death) air pollution2) True number of air pollution deaths is not knowable (at current state of science):“air pollution death” = death advanced by air pollutionnot a primary cause of deathCohort studies cannot distinguish if observed mortality due to everybody losing a little or a few a lotif everybody loses some LE, all deaths are “air pollution deaths”The calculation of number of deaths from cohort studies is wrong because it does not take into account change in age structure during future yearsNumber of deaths from conventional time series studies includes only acute effects (very small LE loss compared to total)3) LE loss due to air pollution can be determined
31Other Effects of Air Pollutants Primary PollutantSecondaryPollutantImpactsNOx+VOCozoneDamage to plants and ecosystems,damage to some materialsNOxDamage to ecosystems(Acidification, eutrophication)SO2acid rainDamage to plants and ecosystems damage to some materialsparticlesSoiling of buildingsCO2, CH4, N2O,CFCsGlobal warmingDestruction of stratospheric O3
34Scenarios and temperature change SRES = Special Report on Emission ScenariosFrom:
35Predicted changes in precipitation For the A1B scenario and comparing the period 2080 to 2099 with the control period1980 to 1999From:
36Physical impacts of global warming Ref: (Table.TS-1)Pre-industrial concentration = 280 ppmChanges of heating and coolingChanges of agricultural productionIncreased incidence of tropical diseases (malaria, dengue fever, …)Migrations of displaced populationsExtreme weather events (costs = ??)Ecosystem impacts: species extinction, … (costs = ????)Social and political problems, especially in poor countries (costs = ????)Changes in ocean circulation (could be abrupt, ~years)Some will gain but most will lose
37Monetary valuation of global warming Various estimates for 2xCO2loss on the order of 1 to 3 % of gross world productCost per ton of CO2depends on discount rate and other controversial assumptionsespecially “value of life” in developing countries (where most of the damage will occur)mainstream estimates are around of 20 €/t of CO2(but is it agreement by imitation?)Valuations by ExternEExternE 1998:Calculations by ExternE team: €/tCO218-46 €/tCO2 (“restricted range”, geometric mean 29 €/tCO2 )ExternE 2000: 2.4 €/tCO2ExternE 2008: 21 €/tCO2
38Global warming cost, recent estimates by UK Studies in 2004 and 2005(literature review and detailed modeling)Report by Stern et al in 2006Damage cost around 85 $/tCO2 (65 €/tCO2)
39Current emissions and implications of a CO2 tax Germany 10 tCO2/yrFrance 6 tCO2/yrIf tax = 20 €/tCO2:for 6 tCO2/yrper per personcost = 120 €/yrper person (France)Implication for electricity (note current average price~11 cents/kWh):gas (combined cycle)0.4 kg/kWh0.8 cents/kWhcoal (steam turbine)0.9 kg/kWh1.8 cents/kWhStabilization at 550 ppm
40What do to about global warming? Reduce emissionsShift to renewables or nuclearIncrease efficiency of fossil energy usecarbon sequestration (storing CO2 in depleted reservoirs of natural gas or oil, in aquifers, deep ocean, …)Life style changes, e.g. eat less red meat, more vegetarian foodAdaptive measures to reduce impacts, e.g.develop drought resistant cropschange cropsbuild dikes
41Impacts and Technologies evaluated by ExternE 1) Global warming (CO2, CH4, N2O)2) NOx, SO2, PM etc (primary & secondary pollutants)Health (morbidity: ~ 30%, mortality: ~65% of total cost of these pollutants)The rest is only a few %:Buildings & materialsAgricultural cropsacidification & eutrophication3) Other burdensAmenity (noise, visual impact, recreation)supply securityTechnologiesEnergy: coal, lignite, oil, gas, biomass, PV, wind, hydro, nuclearWaste: incineration, landfillTransport: cars, trucks, bus, rail, ship, (planes)
42Key Assumptions of ExternE Local + regional dispersion modelsLinear dose-response functions for health (no threshold):Mostly PM2.5, PM10, O3A few for SO2 and NO2Sulfates are assumed like PM10, Nitrates like 0.5 PM10also As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni and PbMortality in terms of LLE (loss of life expectancy) rather than number of deathsMonetary valuation based on Willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid a loss:Value of a Life Year (VOLY) due to air pollution = 40,000 €Cancers 2M€/cancer, based on VSL = 1 M€(VSL = “Value of Statistical Life” = WTP to avoid risk of an anonymous premature death; typical values used in EU and USA 1-5 M€)
43Damage Cost per kg of Pollutant, and uncertainty (error bars), according to ExternE  h = stack heightPMco = 2.5 – 10 mm21 €/tCO2Note: somewhat different numbers in different publications (due to progress in methodology)
44Results for Power Plants Typical numbers for EU27 [ExternE 2008]. Market price ~11cents/kWh (France 2011)
45Results for Waste Treatment Net impact very dependent on energy recovery. Some examples:Energy recovery replacesH = heatE = electricityg= gaso = oilc = coalCompare with private costs:Incineration~ 100€/twasteLandfill~ 50€/twasteOther = toxic metals (mostly Hg and Pb) and dioxins (very small with current regulations)
46Atmospheric models for damage costs There are many different models for atmospheric dispersion and chemistry, with different objectives: e.g.microscale models (street canyons),local models (up to tens of km),regional models (hundreds to thousands of km),short term models for episodes,long term models for long term (annual) averages.For damage costs of air pollution, note that the dose-response functions for health (dominant impact) are linear only the long term average concentration mattersFor agricultural crops and buildings they are nonlinear, but can be characterized in terms of seasonal or annual averages only the long term average concentration is neededDispersion of most air pollutants is significant up to hundreds or thousands of km need local + regional models for long term average concentrations(they tend to be more accurate than models for episodes)
47Dispersion of Air Pollutants Depends on meteorological conditions:wind speed and atmospheric stability class (adiabatic lapse rate, see diagrams at left)
48Gaussian plume model for atmospheric dispersion (in local range < ~50 km)
49concentration c at point (x,y,z) Gaussian plume modelconcentration c at point (x,y,z)Underlying hypothesis: fluid with random fluctuations around a dominant direction of motion (x-direction)c=concentration, kg/m3Q=emission rate, kg/sv= wind speed, m/s,in x-directiony=horizontal plume widthz=vertical plume widthhe=effective emission heightSource at x=0,y=0Plume width parameters y and z increase with x
50Gaussian plume width parameters There are several models for estimating y and z as a function of downwind distance x,for example the Brookhaven modelwhereTo use model one needs data for wind speed and direction,and for atmospheric stability (Pasquill class);the latter depends on solar radiation and on wind speed.
51Gaussian plume with reflection terms When plume hits ground or top of mixing layer, it is reflected
53Effect of stack parameters Plume rise:fairly complex, depends on velocity and temperature of flue gas, as well as on ambient atmospheric conditions
54Removal of pollutants from atmosphere Mechanisms for removal of pollutants from atmosphere:1) Dry deposition(uptake at the earth's surface by soil, water or vegetation)2) Wet deposition(absorption into droplets followed by droplet removal by precipitation)3) Transformation(e.g. decay of radionuclides, orchemical transformation SO2 NH4)2SO4).They can be characterized in terms of deposition velocities,(also known as depletion or removal velocities)vdep = rate at which pollutant is deposited on ground, m/s(obvious intuitive interpretation for deposition)vdep depends on pollutantdetermines range of analysis: the smaller vdep the farther the pollutant travels)Typical values 0.2 to 2 cm/s for PM, SO2 and NOxGaussian plume model can be adapted to includeremoval of pollutants
55Regional Dispersion, a simple model,1 Far from source gaussian plume with reflections implies vertically uniform concentrationsTherefore consider line source for regional dispersion(point source and line source produce same concentration at large r)Assume wind speed is always = v, uniform in all directions fthe pollutant spreads over an area that is proportional to r
56Regional Dispersion, a simple model,2 Consider mass balance as puffs move from r to r+rmass flow v c(r) H r across shaded surface at r= mass flow v c(r+r) H (r+r) across shaded surface at r+r+ mass vdep c(r +r/2) r (r+r/2) deposited on ground between r and r+rTaylor expand c(r+r) = c(r) + c’(r) r and neglect higher order terms Differential equation c’(r) = - ( + 1/r) c(r) with = vdep/(v H)Solution c(r) = constant × exp(- r)/r with constant to be determined
57Regional Dispersion, a simple model,3 Determination of constant by considering integral of flux c(r) v over cylinder of height H and radius r in limit of r 0This integral must equal to emission rate Q [in kg/s].orFinal resultwithThis model can readily be generalized(i) To case where wind speeds in each direction are variable with a distribution f(v(), )(ii) To case where trajectories of puffs meander instead of being straight lines:then exp(- r) is replaced by exp(- t(r)) where t(r) = transit time to r.
58If cutoff rmax for integral Impact vs cutoff rmaxTotal impact I = integral of sER c(r)with = receptor density and sER = slope of exposure-response functionSimple case: and sER independent of r and withwithIf cutoff rmax for integralRange 1/ = v H/vdep = 800 kmformixing layer height H = 800 mwind speed v = 10 m/sdepletion velocity vdep = 0.01 m/s
59Chemical Reactions Primary pollutants (emitted) secondary pollutants aerosol formation from NO, SO2 and NH3 emissions.Note: NH3 background,mostly from agriculture
60light, NOx and VOC O3 Ozone formation Very simplified:light, NOx and VOC O3(VOC = volatile organic compounds)Really many complex nonlinear processes.A few of the most important reactionsNO2 + h O + NO and O + O2 + M O3 + Mwhere M is a molecule such as N2 or O2 (participation is necessary because of the law of conservation of energy).VOCs prevent the ozone formed from being immediately consumed by NO to produce NO2NO + O3 O2 + NO2VOCs enable the transformation of NO into NO2 without consuming ozone.
61Nonlinearity of ozone formation Approximately linear with VOC, but nonlinear with NOxNonlinearity depends on VOC concentration optimal strategy for reducing O3 production depends on climateand on existing levels of VOC and NOx
62UWM: a simple model for damage costs Product of a few factors (dose-response function, receptor density, unit cost, depletion velocity of pollutant, …),Exact for uniform distribution of sources or of receptorsUWM (“Uniform World Model”) for inhalationverified by comparison with about 100 site-specific calculations by EcoSense software (EU, Eastern Europe, China, Brazil, Thailand, …);recommended for typical values for emissions from tall stacks, more than about 50 m (for specific sites the agreement is usually within a factor of two to three; for ground level emissions damage much larger; apply correction factors).UWM for ingestion is even closer to exact calculation, because food is transported over large distances average over all the areas where the food is produced effective distributions even more uniform.Most policy applications need typical values (people tend to use site specific results as if they were typical precisely wrong rather than approximately right)
63UWM: derivationTotal impact I = integral of sER c(x) over all receptor sites x = (x,y)withc(x) = c(x,Q) = concentration at surface due to emission Q Q(x) = density of receptors (e.g. population)sER = slope of exposure-response functionTotal depletion flux (due to deposition and/or transformation)F(x) = Fdry(x) + Fwet(x) + Ftrans(x)Define depletion velocity vdep(x) = F(x)/c(x) [units of m/s]Replace c(x) in integral by F(x)/k(x)If world were uniform withuniform density of receptors and uniform depletion velocity vdepthenBy conservation of mass “Uniform World Model” (UWM) for damage
65UWM and Site Dependence, example dependence on site and on height of source for a primary pollutant:damage D from SO2 emissions with linear dose-response function, for five sites in France, in units of Duni for uniform world model (the nearest big city, 25 to 50 km away, is indicated in parentheses). The scale on the right indicates YOLL/yr (mortality) from a plant with emission 1000 ton/yr. Plume rise for typical incinerator conditions is accounted for.
66Validation of UWM, for primary pollutants Comparison with detailed model (EcoSense = official model of ExternE)Factor of two
67Unit costs Pi (“price”) and ERF slopes sER,i YOLL = years of life lostLRS = Lower respiratory symptoms
68UWM for damage cost, €/kg Damage cost rate D [in €/yr]with sum over all impacts ieach with unit cost Pi and ERF slope sER,ifor emission rate Q [in kg/yr]Therefore Duni/Q = damage cost in €/kgCareful about units:Convert everything to SI units for all calculations!Results good for industrial emissions;for transport emissions, must add correction factors,and the results are very approximate
69Population density and depletion velocities vdep, in cm/s, Parameters for UWMPopulation density and depletion velocities vdep, in cm/s,selected data for several regions.From Rabl, Spadaro and Holland 
70UWM, €/kg, example Damage cost per kg PM2.5 €/kg Exposure cost (€/yr)/(person.mg/m3) = sum of PM2.5 and PM10 terms in table UWM, Pi sER,i = (€/yr)/(person.mg/m3)customary unitsSI unitsrho112person/km2person/m2depletion velocity kp, PM2.50.57cm/s0.0057m/sExposure cost PM2.5 = Sum(Pi Serf,i)38.753(€/yr) per (person·µg/m3)(€/yr)/(person·kg/m3)emission rate mdot1kg/yrE-08kg/sdamage cost rate Ddot,UWM24.13€/yrSince this damage cost rate is for an emission rate of 1 kg/yr, the damage cost per kg isDamage cost per kg PM2.5€/kgFor comparison, Externe  finds 24.6 €/kg for unknown stack height
71Correction factors for UWM for dependence on site and stack height Example: the cost/kg of PM2.5 emitted by a car in Paris is about 15 times Duni.
72Conclusions, 1Methodology for calculation of external costs of pollution is well-established(IPA + inventory of LCA)In principle should be same as LCIA (life cycle impact assessment) but current practice of most LCIA is inconsistent with IPA of ExternEResults for the most important air pollutants are availablewith applications to almost all important technologies forElectricity productionTransportWaste treatmentExternal costs were very large;now reduced thanks to new environmental directives,but still significant, especially due to CO2Can be used for identifying the most cost-effective policies for reducing pollution
73Conclusions, 2 Uncertainties are large External cost of classical air pollutants mostly due to mortality (~65%)Valuation of air pollution mortality of adults must be based on LE change, not number of deathsVOLY (value of a life year) = 40,000 €LE (life expectancy) change can be determined with sufficient accuracy from long term studies ( >10 years)LE loss from permanent exposure to 10 g/m3 of PM2.5 ~ 0.4 year(in US and EU typically g/m3 of PM2.5 like 4 cigarettes/day)Uncertainties are largefactor of about 3 for the classical air pollutantsfactor of about 4 for toxic metalsfactor of about 5 for greenhouse gasesMajor sources of uncertaintyModeling of environmental fateDose-response functions for healthMonetary valuation of mortality
74Conclusions, 3 1) Better 1/3 x to 3 x than 0 to Some people think that the uncertainties of ExternE estimates are too large to be usefulHowever:1) Better 1/3 x to 3 x than 0 to 2) What matters is not the uncertainty itself, but the socialcost of a wrong choice:a) Without cost estimates such costs can be very large, but with ExternE they can be remarkably small in many if not most cases.b) For many yes/no choices the uncertainty is small enough not to affect the answer.3) Uncertainties can be reduced by a) research and b) guidelines by decision makers on monetary values(purpose of cost-benefit analysis:make public choices more consistent)
75Glossary1 ppb O3 = 2.00 g/m3 of O3, 1 ppb NO2 = 1.91 g/m3 of NO2, 1 ppb SO2 = 2.66 g/m3 of SO2, 1 ppm CO = 1.16 mg/m3 of CO (all at 20C)BS = black smoke (fumées noires)c = concentrationCBA = cost-benefit analysisCFC = chlorofluorcarbonCV = contingent valuationERF= dose-response function (also known as exposure-response function or concentration-response function CRF)EC = European CommissionECU = European currency unit (before 1999) = Euro (since 1999)GWP = global warming potential (kg of substance with same radiative forcing as 1 kg of CO2)IPA = impact pathway analysisIPCC = international panel on climate changeLCA = life cycle assessment (ACV = analyse de cycle de vie)LE = life expectancy (espérance de vie)LLE = loss of life expectancyMorbidity impacts = impacts on healthMortality impacts = increased number of deathsNMVOC = non-methane volatile organic compoundsNOx = unspecified mixture of NO and NO2PMd = particulate matter, with subscript d indicating that only particles with aerodynamic diameter below d, in m, are included (PSd = poussières en suspension)rdis = discount rate (taux d’actualisation) = rate at which one is neutral between a payment P0 todayand a payment Pn = P0 (1+rdis)-n in n years from nowsER = slope of ERF (also called sDR = slope of dose-response function)UWM = uniform world model for simplified approximate calculation of typical impacts and damage costsvdep = deposition velocity of pollutant (also called k = removal or depletion velocity) [m/s]VOC = volatile organic compounds (COV = composantes organiques volatiles)VOLY = value of a life yearVPF = value of prevented fatality (= VSL = “value of statistical life”)YOLL = years of life lost
76ReferencesRabl, A, Sparado JV, Holland M “How Much is Clean Air Worth: Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control”. Cambridge University Press, to be published in 2014.ExternE ExternE – Externalities Of Energy: Methodology 2005 Update. Available atExternE With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004 – 2008) and CASES (2006 – 2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity we cite the numbers of the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya A, Bigano A and Porchia R in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).NRC “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Available from National Academies Press.Rabl “Pathway Analysis for Population-Total Health Impacts of Toxic Metal Emissions”. Risk Analysis, vol.24(5),Rabl A, J. V. Spadaro & B. van der Zwaan “Uncertainty of Pollution Damage Cost Estimates: to What Extent does it Matter?”. Environmental Science & Technology, vol.39(2), (2005).Rabl A, Spadaro JV and Zoughaib A “Environmental Impacts and Costs of Municipal Solid Waste: A Comparison of Landfill and Incineration”. Waste Management & Research, vol.26, (2008).Spadaro JV & A Rabl “Estimating the Uncertainty of Damage Costs of Pollution: a Simple Transparent Method and Typical Results”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 28 (2), 166–183.SoftwareEcoSense = software of ExternE for detailed site-specific calculations. Available atRiskPoll = software for simplified calculation of typical impacts and damage costs. Available at