Estimation of theEstimation of theExternalities in CubaExternalities in Cubausing Simplifiedusing SimplifiedMethodologiesMethodologies

Workshop on the use of the SIMPACTS model for estimating human healthand environmental damages from electricity generation

ICTP, TriesteMay 12-23, 2003

Prepared by Leonor Turtos Carbonell, CUBAENERGIA,leonort@cien.energia.inf.cu

Cuba For a sustainable energy

development

Why?Why?

•• Calculations of the external costs of current andCalculations of the external costs of current andcandidates power plants in Cubacandidates power plants in Cuba

•• Integration of the external costs in energy planningIntegration of the external costs in energy planningstudiesstudies

•• Evaluation of mitigation strategies:Evaluation of mitigation strategies:

–– abatement technologies abatement technologies

–– alternatives energy sourcesalternatives energy sources

–– dispatching decisionsdispatching decisions

Installed capacity structure andgeneration

Gas Turbine Natural Gas

4 %

Gas Turbine-Diesel2 %

Hydro1 %

Industrial Co-generation

17%

Isolated plants2 %

Oil Steam Boiler74%

Studies Cases: Current plantsStudies Cases: Current plants

•• Oil Steam Boiler Oil Steam Boiler with capacity of 50 MW orwith capacity of 50 MW ormoremore–– 95.7 % of all OSB in our NES95.7 % of all OSB in our NES

–– 71.3% of the national electricity generation71.3% of the national electricity generation

–– 29 units grouped in 14 stacks and 9 power plants29 units grouped in 14 stacks and 9 power plants

•• Combustion TurbinesCombustion Turbines

•• Two Oil Steam BoilerTwo Oil Steam Boiler

•• Combined Cycle of GasCombined Cycle of Gas

•• Biomass facilitiesBiomass facilities

•• Nuclear Power PlantNuclear Power Plant

Studies Cases: CandidatesStudies Cases: Candidates

FuelsFuels•• Fossil FuelsFossil Fuels

–– Fuel Oil: 3.5 % SFuel Oil: 3.5 % S

–– Domestic Crude Oil: 6.65 % SDomestic Crude Oil: 6.65 % S

–– Mix: 4.64 % SMix: 4.64 % S

–– GasGas

•• RenewalRenewal–– BagasseBagasse

•• Nuclear FuelNuclear Fuel

Combustion Turbine

Biomass

Oil Steam Boiler

Hydro

100M, 50M

64T764R4 300, V330

35En, CCgas

125, 64DO, 50DO

250

100R, 50R

158

100H, HB4

Nuclear

Facilities LocationFacilities Location

Impact PathwayImpact Pathway

•• Public HealthPublic Health

•• Agricultural CropsAgricultural Crops

•• Air PollutionAir Pollution •• Water pollutionWater pollution

•• QualitativeQualitativeassessmentassessment

Source term: updated DECADESSource term: updated DECADESSystemSystem

Dispersion ModelsDispersion Models QueriQueri Best Best EstimatEstimat..

ISCST2ISCST2BerlyandBerlyand: : NC 39: 1999NC 39: 1999

ISCLT2ISCLT2

Meteorological DataMeteorological Data• In an entire year of typical behavior in 8

Meteorological Station– wind speed and direction

– ambient air temperature

Bahia-Honda

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%0

22.5

45

67.5

90

113

135

158

180

203

225

248

270

293

315

338

Morón

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%0

22.5

45

67.5

90

113

135

158

180

203

225

248

270

293

315

338

Santiago de Cuba

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%0

22.5

45

67.5

90

113

135

158

180

203

225

248

270

293

315

338

North CoastNorth Coast InlandInland South CoastSouth Coast

Exposure Response FunctionsExposure Response Functions

•• ExternE_1995ExternE_1995

•• QueriQueri

•• ExternE_2000ExternE_2000

MortalityMortalityMorbidityMorbidity

• baseline incidence rate:– in AM: 0.71

– in CM in adults older than30 years: 14.2

• loss of life:– AM: 9 months

– CM: 9 years

• Adults 79

• Children 21

• Adults + 30 years old 56

• Elder 9

Monetary Damage: transfer

STUDY REF

CUBA

GNP PPPGNP PPP

Damage ∝ E=1E=1

SensitivitiesSensitivitiesstudiesstudies

• A/M YOLL 34518.50

• RHA 1752.65

• CM (adults +30years) 18780.28

• Cough 1.55

• LRS; wheezing 1.67

• Symptom days 1.67

US$/case

Rajt=0.17

Regional population density: 15

Local Population: 10 X 10Local Population: 10 X 10

SUWM vs RUWM vs QUERI vs URBANSUWM vs RUWM vs QUERI vs URBAN100H100H

0

20

40

60

80

ID=0 10 55 40 22 52 51 39

ID=5 10 55 40 22 65 56 39

SUWMRUWM Interm

RUWM Best

URBAN

Queri Est.1

Queri Est.2

Queri Est.3

SUWM vs RUWM vs QUERI vs URBANSUWM vs RUWM vs QUERI vs URBAN64T764T7

0

5

10

15

20

25

ID=1 2 11 11 11 12 20

ID=3 2 11 11 11 14 20

SUWM

RUWM Est.

RUWM Est.

Queri Est.1

Queri Est.2

Queri Est.3

ρρlocallocal andand ID siteID site

Power Plants Local density ρloc / ρreg ID teor ID

Mariel 241.7 16 3 0Santa Cruz 245.6 16 3 0

Antonio Guiteras 56.8 4 1 0C.M. de Céspedes 59.6 4 1 0

Nuevitas 24.9 2 1 0Felton 66.9 4 1 0Renté 97.8 7 2 0

Tallapiedra 275.5 18 3 1Regla 273.7 18 3 1

Energas 52.6 4 1 0Bio 69.7 5 1 0

External Costs(US$/ton), ISCLT2

model

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450 SOx, NOx ($/ton)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500Part. ($/ton)

SOx 159 165 159 159 158 158 148 254 252 164 162 163

NOx 358 361 358 358 358 358 334 404 403 361 360 0

Part. 465 685 469 462 423 414 408 4130 4087 0 0 610

Mariel Sta Crz Guit. Césp. Nuev. Feltón Rente Tallap Regla 35En CCG Bio

69.6 MM US$/yr

External Costs(US$/ton),

Berlyand model

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SOx, NOx ($/ton)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000Part. ($/ton)

SOx 186 245 189 175 165 168 171 1707 1251 213 188 200

NOx 372 400 373 366 361 363 345 1108 887 384 372 0

Part. 1516 3789 1630 1103 707 813 1235 60432 42770 0 0 2043

MarielSta Crz

Guit. Césp. Nuev. Feltón Rente Tallap Regla 35En CCG Bio

110 MM US$/yr

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mariel

Sta Cruz

Guit.

Césp.

Nuev.

Felton

Rente

Tallap

Regla

35En

CCGas

Bio

¢/Kwh

ISCLT Berly.

Berly. 0.86 0.81 0.42 0.4 0.44 0.5 0.8 5.38 4.53 0.21 0.14 5.9

ISCLT 0.7 0.51 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.67 0.72 0.82 0.17 0.13 1.8

MarielSta

CruzGuit. Césp. Nuev. Felton Rente Tallap Regla 35En CCGas Bio

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SOx

Yield Loss %

BakerLinearizedAirpacts

CROPS IMPACTS OF AIR POLLUTION

CROPS IMPACTS OF AIRPOLLUTION

Y = 0.74(SO2) - 0.055(SO2)2 (from 0 to 13.6 ppb)

Y = -0.69(SO2) + 9.35 (over de 13.6 ppb)

kRQ

C SOxSOx 2π

= PYI =

WhereWhere

QQ: emission rate, ton/yr: emission rate, ton/yr RR: Impact domain ratio, km: Impact domain ratio, km

KK: depletion velocity, m/s: depletion velocity, m/s Y: Yield loss, %Y: Yield loss, %

P: P: production per yearproduction per year, ton/, ton/yryr

Benefits? of SOx emissions on cropBenefits? of SOx emissions on crop

CropCrop P P CostCost Damage cost Damage cost (ton/yr) (US$/ton) (MM$/year)(ton/yr) (US$/ton) (MM$/year)

Sugar caneSugar cane 16274411627441 201.74201.74 -4.93-4.93

BananaBanana 7827778277 424424 --0.500.50

CoffeeCoffee 28562856 16061606 -0.07-0.07

RiceRice 9831498314 177.05177.05 -0.26-0.26

TotalTotal -5.75-5.75

JuraguJuraguáá Nuclear Power Project Nuclear Power Project• normal operation: health impact of atmospheric

releases,– stack parameters: radionuclides inventory,

– population data,

– agricultural crop data: Density of agricultural product(ton/km2), % of total land area given to product

• accidents

• solid waste disposal

Impacts of atmospheric releases, resultsImpacts of atmospheric releases, results

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000Cases/yr

Fatal cancer (VOSL) 7.23E+03 1.28E+03 2.02E+04 2.87E+04

Fatal cancer (YOLL) 3.68E+03 6.50E+02 1.40E+04 1.83E+04

Non fatal cancer 2.49E+03 4.39E+02 6.95E+03 9.88E+03

Severe hereditary effect 1.45E+03 2.55E+02 4.00E+03 5.71E+03

Local Impact Regional Impact Global Impact Total Impact

0.000219¢/kWh

Nuclear AccidentsNuclear Accidents

• Accident: Principal project failure (instantaneous rupture ofthe principal circulation pipe DU-500 mm) when the reactoris working at 100 % of nominal potency

• Local dose: 0.005 Sv and 7169.7 man Sv

• Regional dose:12800 man Sv

Cost category Local costMM US$

Regional costMM US$

Total CostMM US$

Food ban 43.3 1687.4 1730.7Evacuation 0.034 0 0.034Indirect costs 109.2 0 109.2Fatal effects 304.7 544.2 849.0Non fatal effects 88.672 158.42 247.1Total 545.9 2390.1 2936.0

Total Costs Total Costs 2936.0 MN US$ 2936.0 MN US$

Total Cost Expected Total Cost Expected 0.0294 MN US$ 0.0294 MN US$

External cost of accident External cost of accident 0.00510.0051¢¢/kWh/kWh

External cost of accid. including risk aversion External cost of accid. including risk aversion 0.1103 0.1103 ¢¢/kWh/kWh

Nuclear Accidents, resultsNuclear Accidents, results

Radioactive waste disposal

1. The ingestion of radionuclides incontaminated water

2. The ingestion of radionuclides inagricultural product irrigated/wateredby contaminated water

3. Inhalation of re-suspendedradionuclides in the air

4. External irradiation fromradionuclides in contaminated soil Transferring data from

the AUBE repositoryresults

Studies on NationalRepository ofNuclear Waste

•• Local dose: 2.494E-3 SvLocal dose: 2.494E-3 Sv

•• Local population: 22.323 in 5 KmLocal population: 22.323 in 5 Km

•• Local Collective dose: 55.7 man SvLocal Collective dose: 55.7 man Sv• Regional collective dose: 2.387e-3 man Sv (Transferring

data from the AUBE repository results according electric energyproduced from wastes in repositories)

Radioactive waste disposal,assumptions

Scale Fatal Cancers Non fatal cancers Severe hereditaryeffects

Local 2.79 6.68 5.57 E-01Regional and global 1.19 E-04 2.86 E-04 2.39 E-05

Scale Fatal cancer costs(MM US$)

No fatal cancer costs(MM US$)

Severe hereditary effectscosts (MM US$)

Local 2.003220 0.688040 0.399926Regional 0.000085 0.000029 0.000017

Sub. Total 2.003305 0.688069 0.399943

3.09133 MM US$.

0.0021 0.0021 ¢¢/kWh/kWh if energy produced is 145.95 TWh.

Radioactive waste disposal, results

For 5.8 TWh/yr, Total External Costs are at least 26times greater generated with a fossil fuel plant in thesame zone than NPP, from 0.16 or 0.77 taking in accountor not risk aversion respectively, to 20.648 MM US$.

Scenario Cost per unit of energy produced (¢/kWh)CTE 1CTE 1ª

0.3560.402

Juraguá NPP Not including riskaversion

Including riskaversion

Total 0.00283 0.01335 Normal Operation 0.000219 0.000219 Accidents 0.00051 0.01103 Solid waste disposal 0.0021 0.0021

JuraguJuraguáá Nuclear Nuclear Power Power Project Project

Qualitative assessment of waterQualitative assessment of waterpollutionpollution

•• Impacts of the power plant on water quality are dueImpacts of the power plant on water quality are dueto:to:

�Thermal pollution of the cooling water (seawater)

�Acids and alkaline residual of the Water ChemicalTreatment Plant (WCTP)

�Washing residuals of the Air Heaters and boilers

�Oleaginous residuals

�Domestic residuals

DAM_Project 1, Guiteras ?DAM_Project 1, Guiteras ?

•• F300: F300: Current unit, without AT, Fuel OilCurrent unit, without AT, Fuel Oil

•• F330R: F330R: Unit rehabilitated, Fuel OilUnit rehabilitated, Fuel Oil

•• C330: C330: Unit rehabilitated and modified, CrudeUnit rehabilitated and modified, Crude

•• D330: D330: Unit rehabilitated, CrudeUnit rehabilitated, Crude

•• FGD: FGD: C330+Wet C330+Wet FGD SOx ATFGD SOx AT

•• FSI: FSI: C330+FSI C330+FSI SOx ATSOx AT

•• ESP: ESP: C330+ESP AshC330+ESP Ash SOx AT SOx AT

•• FGD+ESP:FGD+ESP:C330+Wet C330+Wet FGD SOx AT and ESP Ash ATFGD SOx AT and ESP Ash AT

•• FSI+ESP: FSI+ESP: C330+FSIC330+FSI SOx AT and ESP Ash AT SOx AT and ESP Ash AT

DAM_Project 1, Trade-offsDAM_Project 1, Trade-offs

F300 C300 RangeISC Berlyand ISC Lower Bound Upper Bound

SOx 159 186 159 150 200NOx 358 372 358 350 400Ash 465 1516 473 450 1600

DAM_Project 1, ResultsDAM_Project 1, Results

•• Pareto Dominance: F330R dominates to F330Pareto Dominance: F330R dominates to F330

•• Potentially optimal: C330 and ESPPotentially optimal: C330 and ESP

–– C330, lower bounds of trade-offsC330, lower bounds of trade-offs

–– ESP, if Ash damage costs >1115 US$/tonESP, if Ash damage costs >1115 US$/ton–– FGD+ESP and FGD, if the SOx upper boundFGD+ESP and FGD, if the SOx upper bound

increased to 247 increased to 247 US$/tonUS$/ton

• HB4: OSB, 200 MW

• V330: OSB, Crude

• CCGas: Combined cycle of natural gas

• Bio: Sugar Mill, Bagasse

• Bio+FF: Bio with Fabric Filters Ash AT

DAM_Project 2, CandidatesDAM_Project 2, Candidates

DAM_Project 2, Trade-offsDAM_Project 2, Trade-offs

SOx NOx Ash100H ISC 165 361 685

Berlyand 245 400 3789HB4 ISC 162 360 573Bio ISC 163 610

CCgas ISC 162 360Berlyand 188 372

35En ISC 164 361Berlyand 213 384

Lower Bound 150 350 450Upper Bound 250 400 4000

DAM_Project 2, ResultsDAM_Project 2, Results

•• Pareto Dominance:Pareto Dominance:– Bio+FF and CCgas dominate to dominate to V330 and HB4

– V330 dominates to HB4

•• Outperformance test:Outperformance test:– Bio is outperformed by Bio+FF

•• Potentially optimal: Potentially optimal: CCgas and Bio+FF–– CCGas, lower bounds of trade-offsCCGas, lower bounds of trade-offs

–– Bio+FF, if Bio+FF, if COCO22 is higher than 27 US$/ton is higher than 27 US$/ton

Outstanding tasks

•• Validation of the local dispersion models.Validation of the local dispersion models.Evaluation of the ISC models in Cuban conditionsEvaluation of the ISC models in Cuban conditions

•• Complete and discuss estimation and valuation ofComplete and discuss estimation and valuation ofwater pollution impacts for chosen case studieswater pollution impacts for chosen case studies

•• Complete and discuss estimation and valuation the Complete and discuss estimation and valuation theexternal costs associated with crop yield andexternal costs associated with crop yield andbuilding materials of air pollution for each ofbuilding materials of air pollution for each ofdifferent case studies using BGLAD approach.different case studies using BGLAD approach.

•• Implementation with owns efforts of the ImpactImplementation with owns efforts of the ImpactPathway Methodology and comparison its resultsPathway Methodology and comparison its resultswith simplified methodologies. with simplified methodologies. Regional DispersionRegional Dispersion

•• Systematization of epidemiological studies andSystematization of epidemiological studies andestablishing of Fer own.establishing of Fer own.

•• Calculation of national damage costs and depletionCalculation of national damage costs and depletionvelocities.velocities.

Outstanding tasks