Analysis

The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States

  • Nature Energy 2, Article number: 17134 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.134
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Wind and solar energy reduce combustion-based electricity generation and provide air-quality and greenhouse gas emission benefits. These benefits vary dramatically by region and over time. From 2007 to 2015, solar and wind power deployment increased rapidly while regulatory changes and fossil fuel price changes led to steep cuts in overall power-sector emissions. Here we evaluate how wind and solar climate and air-quality benefits evolved during this time period. We find cumulative wind and solar air-quality benefits of 2015 US$29.7–112.8 billion mostly from 3,000 to 12,700 avoided premature mortalities, and cumulative climate benefits of 2015 US$5.3–106.8 billion. The ranges span results across a suite of air-quality and health impact models and social cost of carbon estimates. We find that binding cap-and-trade pollutant markets may reduce these cumulative benefits by up to 16%. In 2015, based on central estimates, combined marginal benefits equal 7.3 ¢ kWh−1 (wind) and 4.0 ¢ kWh−1 (solar).

  • Subscribe to Nature Energy for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the US for water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply. Appl. Energy 123, 368–377 (2014).

  2. 2.

    , , ,  & System-wide emissions implications of increased wind power penetration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 4200–4206 (2012).

  3. 3.

    et al. Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United States: potential benefits and secondary impacts. Appl. Energy 179, 146–158 (2016).

  4. 4.

    et al. The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States. Energy 113, 472–486 (2016).

  5. 5.

    et al. A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of US renewable portfolio standards. Energy Pol. 96, 645–660 (2016).

  6. 6.

    , , ,  & Using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to estimate public health impacts of PM 2.5 from individual power plants. Environ. Int. 68, 200–208 (2014).

  7. 7.

     & Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas. Energy Pol. 53, 429–441 (2013).

  8. 8.

    et al. A geographically resolved method to estimate levelized power plant costs with environmental externalities. Energy Pol. 102, 491–499 (2017).

  9. 9.

    , ,  & Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11768–11773 (2013).

  10. 10.

    Measuring the environmental benefits of wind-generated electricity. AEJ: Econ. Pol. 5, 107–133 (2013).

  11. 11.

    ,  & Quantifying avoided fuel use and emissions from solar photovoltaic generation in the western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 226–232 (2008).

  12. 12.

    ,  & Emissions savings from wind power generation in Texas. Energy J. 34, 155–175 (2013).

  13. 13.

    ,  & Accounting for climate and air quality damages in future US electricity generation scenarios. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3065–3072 (2013).

  14. 14.

    ,  & Characterizing the PM 2.5-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the US. Environ. Int. 49, 141–151 (2012).

  15. 15.

     & Shale gas versus coal: policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. Energy Pol. 53, 442–453 (2013).

  16. 16.

    et al. New approach for optimal electricity planning and dispatching with hourly time-scale air quality and health considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10884–10889 (2015).

  17. 17.

     & Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity health impacts. Environ. Int. 52, 75–80 (2013).

  18. 18.

    The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release (Economics Discussion Papers, 2013).

  19. 19.

    Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use (National Academies, 2010).

  20. 20.

    Annual Electric Generator Report EIA-860 (Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  21. 21.

    US Solar Market Insight Report: 2015 Year in Review (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association, 2016).

  22. 22.

    US Solar Market Trends 2013 (Interstate Renewable Energy Council, 2014).

  23. 23.

    AVoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) User Manual: Version 1.2 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

  24. 24.

    Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data: Average Annual Emissions, Criteria pollutants National Tier 1 for 1970–2016 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

  25. 25.

    , ,  & Updated Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Factors and their Probability Distribution Functions for Electricity Generating Units (Argonne National Laboratory, 2012).

  26. 26.

    , ,  & Updated Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Factors of the US Electric Generating Units in 2010 (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013).

  27. 27.

    Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (National Academies, 2017).

  28. 28.

    et al. Estimating state-specific contributions to PM2. 5- and O3-related health burden from residential combustion and electricity generating unit emissions in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 324–332 (2017).

  29. 29.

    et al. Health and climate benefits of different energy-efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 100–105 (2016).

  30. 30.

    The private and public economics of renewable electricity generation. J. Econ. Perspect. 26, 67–92 (2012).

  31. 31.

    et al. On the economics of renewable energy sources. Energy Econ. 40, S12–S23 (2013).

  32. 32.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 3 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  33. 33.

     & Renewable electricity policies, heterogeneity, and cost effectiveness. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 66, 688–707 (2013).

  34. 34.

     & Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 55, 142–162 (2008).

  35. 35.

    ,  & Renewable energy subsidies: second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resour. Energy Econ. 35, 217–234 (2013).

  36. 36.

    et al. The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study Phase 2 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013).

  37. 37.

    ,  & Assessing the emission benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency using EPA’s avoided emissions and generation tool (AVERT). In 2015 Int. Emission Inventory Conf. Air Quality Challenges Tackling Changing Face of Emissions (EPA, 2015).

  38. 38.

    Air Emissions Displacement by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: A Survey of Data, Methods, and Results (Synapse Energy Economics, 2015).

  39. 39.

    et al. Carbon reductions and health co-benefits from US residential energy efficiency measures. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034017 (2016).

  40. 40.

     & Modeling impacts from EPA’s clean power plan and building block 3 for renewable energy. Electr. J. 28, 72–82 (2015).

  41. 41.

    Power Plant Operations Report Report no. EIA-923 (Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  42. 42.

    AWEA Market Database Pro (American Wind Energy Association, 2016).

  43. 43.

    The Clean Air Benefits of Wind Energy (American Wind Energy Association, 2014).

  44. 44.

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Electronic Quarterly Reports (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2016).

  45. 45.

     & 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report (US Department of Energy, 2016).

  46. 46.

     & Utility-Scale Solar 2015: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016).

  47. 47.

    PVWatts Version 5 Manual (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014);

  48. 48.

    Technical Notes to the Electric Power Monthly (Energy Information Administration, 2015).

  49. 49.

    ,  & Public health costs of primary PM2.5 and inorganic PM2.5 precursor emissions in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 6061–6070 (2016).

  50. 50.

    ,  & Reduced-form modeling of public health impacts of inorganic PM 2.5 and precursor emissions. Atmos. Environ. 137, 80–89 (2016).

  51. 51.

    Boosting GDP growth by accounting for the environment. Science 345, 873–874 (2014).

  52. 52.

    ,  & Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 1649–1675 (2011).

  53. 53.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

  54. 54.

    User’s Manual for the Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Screening Model Version: 2.61 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

  55. 55.

    et al. Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Res. Rep. Health Eff. Inst. 140, 5–114 (2009).

  56. 56.

    , ,  & Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: an extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study from 1974 to 2009. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 965–970 (2012).

  57. 57.

    et al. Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the US. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2268–2274 (2008).

  58. 58.

    et al. US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 535–540 (2015).

  59. 59.

    ENVIRON CAMx User’s Guide Version 5.41 (Environ International Corporation, 2012).

  60. 60.

     & Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. App. Mech. Rev. 59, 51–77 (2006).

  61. 61.

     & Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System: Introduction to the Models-3 framework and the Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

  62. 62.

    Particulate Matter Source-Receptor Relationships Between All Point and Area Sources in the United States and PSD Class I Area Receptors (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).

  63. 63.

    The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes. Econ. E-J. 2, 2008–2025 (2008).

  64. 64.

    The social cost of carbon. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 3, 419–443 (2011).

  65. 65.

    Targets for global climate policy: an overview. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 37, 911–928 (2013).

  66. 66.

    Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1518–1523 (2017).

  67. 67.

    et al. Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015).

  68. 68.

    Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE-2013R model and alternative approaches. J. Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. 1, 273–312 (2014).

  69. 69.

    , ,  & Did the Stern Review underestimate US and global climate damages? Energy Pol. 37, 2717–2721 (2009).

  70. 70.

     & A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 253–258 (2014).

  71. 71.

    Tail-hedge discounting and the social cost of carbon. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 873–882 (2013).

  72. 72.

    , ,  & Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ. 51, 394–406 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Wind Energy Technologies Office, Solar Energy Technologies Office, and Office of Strategic Programs Office, all within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the US Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We would like to thank M. Goggin and H. Hunt at AWEA for providing information related to regional wind power transfers. We also thank J. Solomon-Culp for helping to develop the wind and solar generation time series.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

    • Dev Millstein
    • , Ryan Wiser
    • , Mark Bolinger
    •  & Galen Barbose

Authors

  1. Search for Dev Millstein in:

  2. Search for Ryan Wiser in:

  3. Search for Mark Bolinger in:

  4. Search for Galen Barbose in:

Contributions

All authors jointly developed the research design. D.M. carried out all of the simulations and analysed the model outcomes. With input from all authors, D.M. led the overall manuscript development. R.W. provided critical input and review throughout the manuscript. M.B. and R.W. led development of the comparison with incentives and market prices. G.B., D.M. and R.W. developed the distributed solar generation estimates.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dev Millstein.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Notes 1 and 2, Supplementary References.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Tables

    Supplementary Tables 1–4.