Reducing Philadelphia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 80%

Emin Aktan, Ahsan Alam, Sarah Colins, Richardson Dilworth, Chloe Dye, Robert Zolitor, Michael Schickling, Sean-Erik O'Donnell, Gena Ellis, Romano Foti, Patrick Gurian, Chuck Haas, Marianne Hatzopoulou, Christian Hunold,

Eliya Hurd, Hugh Johnson, Franco Montalto, Abhimanyu J.Patwa, Sabrina Spatari, and Jin Wen

November 4, 2015

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 80%

• 80% cut in emissions by 2050 is a goal for climate stabilization

• How would we achieve such dramatic reductions?– a yearlong study

Project Team• Undergraduate and graduate students, staff, and

faculty from Drexel University and McGill University• Support from Institute for Energy and the

Environment• Information from Mayor’s Office of Sustainability• Advisory Panel• Volunteer faculty labor

Sectors Considered• Emissions from:• Buildings (60%)• Surface transportation (19%)• Electricity (overlaps substantially with buildings)• Not able to consider other sectors (21%)

– Industrial processes– Airport– Public works

• Street lights• Water provision and wastewater treatment• Solid waste transport and landfill emissions

Our approach• Look for demand reductions in buildings

and transport• Identify low carbon electricity options• Compare emissions reductions in terms

of $/metric ton (tonne) averted to the extent possible

• Select the lowest cost/tonne set of strategies that gets us to 80%

Policy

Energy in Buildings

Transport Electricity

• Not an integrated model• A literature synthesis• Look at demand reductions• Look at low carbon supply options• Iterate between the two

• Does not forecast technological change

• Scope 1 + 2 with some consideration of some upstream emissions associated with fuels

• Does not consider growth• Growth is forecast to be modest in Philadelphia

What role can our report play?

• Not a specific plan of action• A starting point for dialogue

7

Building Sector 2013 Livable Area and Energy

Demand were taken as baseline

• Identify sets of energy conservation measures (ECM packages) which bring 50% or 30% demand reduction

• ECM Packages derived from two sources:– ASHRAE ECM

Recommendation– Previous research performed

at Drexel

2013 Energy Demand Data

CommercialResidentialIndustryVeoliaOn site

The basic math of demand reduction• Majority of emissions from buildings are associated with

electricity, not gas/oil heating• The current electricity supply is 40% nuclear, 35% coal, and

21% natural gas– We are already part of the way to a carbon free electricity supply

• We assumed demand reductions would be taken from coal and natural gas supplied electricity– Low carbon emissions from nuclear power

• This multiplies savings from demand reduction– A 60% demand reduction results in 100% carbon-free electricity

Commercial Retrofits

Building Type

Annualized Retrofit cost ($/m2-year)

Energy Savings

($/m2-year)

Cost not recouped by

energy savings ($/year)

Cost per ton averted

($/tonne)

Office $12.3 $11.8 $2.9 million $6Hospitals $15 $30 -$35 million -$72K-12 schools $4 $11 -$16 million -$89Hotels $15 $3 $12 million $519Warehouse $5 $2 $5.4 million $140Retail $6 $9 -$0.02 million -$54Grocery Store $12 $30 -$3.6 million -$88

Residential demand reduction vs. cost

Single ECM Residential Retrofits

Based on http://homeenergysaver.lbl.gov/consumer/

Single ECM Residential Retrofits (cont.)

Based on http://homeenergysaver.lbl.gov/consumer/

Building sector conclusions• It is feasible to reduce emissions by 80% in this sector

through ~50% reductions in demand• Some of these retrofits are already economically

favorable• Some are not economical now and could remain very

expensive ways to avoid greenhouse gas emissions• But if we can provide low carbon electricity to buildings

we can get an 80% reduction in emissions without as much demand reduction– Avoid retrofits with the highest cost per ton of emissions averted

Basic math of electricity supply• As much as 30% of aggregate demand can be met with

intermittent sources without battery storage– Wind– Solar

• Using wind and solar in excess of 30% requires battery storage

• Existing nuclear of 40% + 30% renewable = 70% low carbon electricity

• Many options including :– More nuclear– Carbon capture and sequestration– Battery storage for additional renewables

Example electricity generation mixTechnology Intermittent Percent of

Electricity Demand

Additional nuclear No 8.5%Commercial and industrial rooftop solar

Yes 6%

On-shore wind Yes 6%Utility-scale PV without storage

Yes 18%

Gas CCS No 11%Coal CCS No 11%Total Intermittent 30%

97% decarbonizedCosts 10% more than current supply mix

TransportationScenario 1: individuals with a total daily travel distance below 5 miles would convert all their trips to walking. Scenario 2: individuals with a total daily travel distance below 10 miles would convert all their trips to cycling. Scenario 3: drivers of private vehicles who conduct only two trips per day (starting and ending at home) would convert to public transit. Scenario 4: drivers of private vehicles with the 80th percentile daily travel distance (more than 41.28 miles driven per day) adopt PHEVs. Scenario 5: drivers of private vehicles with the 60th percentile daily travel distance (more than 26.21 miles driven per day) adopt PHEVs . Scenario 6: Scenario 4 was repeated assuming a more optimistic assumption for the electricity mix in 2050. Scenario 7: is a combination of Scenarios 3 and 4 whereby “extreme commuters” adopt PHEVs and the share of transit increases. Scenario 8: Scenario 5 was repeated assuming a more optimistic scenario for electricity mix in 2050.Scenario 9: Scenario 7 was repeated while considering all SEPTA buses as electric.Scenario 10: Scenarios 3 and 8 were combined considering all SEPTA transit buses as electric.Scenario 11: is a combination of Scenarios 1, 2 and 10. Scenario 12: Scenario 11 was repeated while replacing all PHEV cars as battery electric cars.

Choosing among the options• Select most economically favorable:

– Building energy efficiency (high energy use commercial sectors)– Transportation mode switches

• Proceed to moderate cost– Electricity de-carbonization

• Then most challenging– Transportation fleet and infrastructure

• Avoid most expensive– Ambitious retrofits in low energy intensity commercial and

residential sectors

What’s still to discuss?• Dramatic emissions reductions are feasible

– De-carbonizing ≠ reversion to pre-industrial society– Whether this is easy or hard is a value judgment– Don’t expect it to be free

• Many important decisions that need deliberation and further study– Public infrastructure: Nuclear power, carbon capture, transport infrastructure– Private infrastructure: How to realize opportunities in building energy efficiency– Need to evaluate sectors not considered here

• Report available at: http://www.phila.gov/green/resources.html– Under “environment– 2 page summary also available

• Registered ResearchGate users may comment at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283503711_Options_for_Achieving_Deep_Reductions_in_Carbon_Emissions_in_Philadelphia_by_2050

Acknowledgements

• Mayor’s Office of Sustainability• Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Commission• Advisory Panel• Institute for Energy and the Environment

Questions and Comments

• Online you may – use Google login to post questions on YouTube– Tweet questions to: https://

twitter.com/greenworksphila with the tag #80x50

Strategy and goal1) Definition of boundaries

CO2

CO2Scope 2

Scope 1• Electricity generation (grid level and

upstream)• Within the City’s limits from non-

electric fuel sources

2) Definition of baseline3) Projection of future energy demand4) Identification of alternative generation strategies

(scenario analysis)5) Assess cost of alternatives

These roughly correspond to Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (electricity use)Not a full Scope 3 (upstream emissions from goods consumed) analysis . Upstream emissions considered for fuels but not general consumption of goods in Philadelphia

Electricity Generation EmissionsRFCE 2010 Energy mix

Nu-clear40%

Natural Gas21%

Coal 35%

Renewables 2%

Biomass1% Other Fossil

1%

Grid Facts

Total Energy Consumption

14.4TWh/yr

Total Emissions 8∙109

kg/yr CO2eNumber of Natural

Gas Plants 80

Number of Coal Plants 43

Number of Hydro-Plants 15

Number of Nuclear Plants 8

Nuclear Power- Nuclear power produces 40% of Philadelphia’s power. - To maintain that 40% share in 2050 permit renewals

would be required.- Important area for policy and planning

Solar Energy Resource Availability:- 49 km2 of area meets 50% of

Philadelphia's electricity demand- This area is approximately 1.5% of

the area of Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks counties combined and is represented, to scale, by the black box in the figure to the right

- Rooftops (not included in box) could meet 11% of demand

- Substantial storage required

Cost for Solar Power:- Costs used for evaluation are

from Lazard (2014)

Lazard (2014) Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis-Version 8.0, September 2014

Resource Potential:- 4.5 to 5.0 kWh/m2/day for

Philadelphia and surrounding counties

Residential Rooftop

Commercial Industrial Rooftop

Urban Utility-Scale

Rural Utility-Scale Total

Power Generated (TWh) 0.66 0.9 0.7 6.5 8.8

Electricity Generation

Total calculated area (m2) 39530986Fraction suitable for PV 22%

Fraction of suitable space occupied by panels 80%Calculated area for PV panels (m2) 6957454

Average year round surface incident solar radiation (kWh/m2) 1734

Efficiency of photovoltaic modules (sun to dc power output) 14.50%DC-to-AC system efficiency 76%Calculated potential ac power (TWh) 1.33Fraction of potential PV installed 50%Calculated actual ac power (TWh) 0.66

Sample calculation: residential rooftop PV

Solar Energy

Summary Table

Wind Power- Area required to provide 6% of the city’s power.

Philly’s “share” of PA potential: Geologic ~ 30 billion tons or 478 years

45 years for enhanced oil recovery Terrestrial ~ 2.3 million tons per year

(~20% annual emissions from electricity generation)

Dept. of Energy

Carbon Sequestration

MRCSP Phase II Report

Terrestrial Storage andEnhanced Oil Recovery• Low Cost• Low Potential

Storage

Geologic Sequestration• High Cost• High Potential

Storage

Regional Carbon Storage

Courtesy of Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP)

• Full Implementation– ~40% increase in Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)– 85% capture efficiency– Social Cost of Carbon (SCC): 39$ per ton eCO2

*Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) **Natural Gas Combined Cycle

Avg. LCOE ($/MWh)

LCOE + SCC($/MWh)

Pulverized Coal 95.6 139.8

IGCC* w/ CCS 133.8 140.4

NGCC** 66.3 88.4

NGCC w/ CCS 91.3 94.6

CCS

Wind CostsCost of Wind Power per Year

- Assuming that the addition of wind power results in a split reduction of coal and natural gas power, the change to wind power could cost as much as $346 million per year or save as much as $852 million per year when including external costs.

Note: These estimates do not include costs for energy storage

Supplementary Data

1) Fuel Switching – EmissionsChange in GHG Emissions (g CO2e/kWh)

Switching To

Switching From

  Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Biomass Renewable

s

Natural Gas   566 -555 -488 -567Coal -566   -1122 -1054 -1133Nuclear 555 1122   67 -12Biomass 488 1054 -67   -79Renewables 567 1133 12 79  

Supplementary Data

2) Fuel Switching – Costs (LCOE)Change in Cost (mills/kWh)

Switching To

  Natural Gas Coal Nuclea

rBiomas

sPV -

Residential

PV - Commercial/Industr

ial

PV - Utility Scale

Onshore Wind

Offshore Wind

Switching From

Natural Gas   34.5 38 27.5 148.5 77.5 -1 -15 88Coal -34.5   3.5 -7 114 43 -35.5 -49.5 53.5Nuclear -38 -3.5   -10.5 110.5 39.5 -39 -53 50Biomass -27.5 7 10.5   121 50 -28.5 -42.5 60.5PV - Residential -148.5 -114 -110.5 -121   -71 -149.5 -163.5 -60.5PV - Commercial/Industrial

-77.5 -43 -39.5 -50 71   -78.5 -92.5 10.5

PV - Utility Scale 1 35.5 39 28.5 149.5 78.5   -14 89Onshore Wind 15 49.5 53 42.5 163.5 92.5 14   103Offshore Wind -88 -53.5 -50 -60.5 60.5 -10.5 -89 -103  

Supplementary Data

3) Fuel Switching – Costs (Externalities)Change in External Cost (mills/kWh)

Switching To

  Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Biomas

s Hydro PV WindSwitching From

Natural Gas   80.9 -27.2 -0.1 -27.1 -25.5 -31.9Coal -80.9   -108.1 -81 -108 -106.4 -112.8Nuclear 27.2 108.1   27.1 0.1 1.7 -4.7Biomass 0.1 81 -27.1   -27 -25.4 -31.8Hydro 27.1 108 -0.1 27   1.6 -4.8PV 25.5 106.4 -1.7 25.4 -1.6   -6.4Wind 31.9 112.8 4.7 31.8 4.8 6.4  

Buildings

*From Hendricken et al. 2013

Approach• Assess the current building stocks• Project future constructions• Identify and apply ECM packages to reduce energy demand• Estimate costs

How do ECMs look like*?• Home-owner Weatherization• Window: Double Pane w/ Krypton/Argon

and Low-E• Wall: R-13 Batt Insulation• Roof: R-40 Batt Insulation• Nat Gas Boiler + Water Radiator• LED Lighting• Energy Star Equipment and Appliances• Passive Plug Controls (Smart Power

Strips) Window A/C (COP-2.5)• Hydronic Piping

Residential Medium – Pre-1950 Baseline 30% 50%Commissioning No commissioning

Home-owner Weatherization

Home-owner Weatherization

FenestrationSingle Pane Double Pane w/ Low-E

Double Pane w/ Krypton/Argon and Low-E

Envelope Insulation No Wall Insulation R-13 Batt Insulation R-13 Batt InsulationRoof Insulation R-5 Batt Insulation R-20 Batt Insulation R-40 Batt InsulationSpace Heating Equipment & Distribution

Nat Gas Boiler (70% AFUE) + Water Radiator

Nat Gas Boiler (70% AFUE) + Water Radiator

Nat Gas Boiler (70% AFUE) + Water Radiator

Space Cooling Equipment & Distribution Window Fans Window Fans Window FansVentilation Equipment & Distribution No Ventilation No Ventilation No VentilationHVAC Controls Thermostats Thermostats ThermostatsHeating Distribution Hydronic Piping Hydronic Piping Hydronic PipingCooling Distribution No Cooling Distribution No Cooling Distribution No Cooling DistributionPassive Lighting No Passive Lighting No Passive Lighting No Passive LightingLighting Equipment Incandescent Lighting Incandescent Lighting LED LightingLighting Controls Switches Switches Switches

Water Heating Standard Hot Water Heater and Piping

Standard Hot Water Heater and Piping

Standard Hot Water Heater and Piping

Elevators + Large Elec Loads

Standard Equipment and Appliances

Standard Equipment and Appliances

Energy Star Equipment and Appliances

Small Plug Loads Standard Plugs and Distribution

Standard Plugs and Distribution

Passive Plug Controls (Smart Power Strips)

35

EUI EstimatesBaseline:29.9 kWh/sqft30% :20.8 kWh/sqft50% :15.8 kwh/sqft

36

Available Energy Data

Source: Energy Data Provided by MOS

37

Commercial Sector Analysis

Energy Benchmarking Report 2014

Sectors Selection Criteria• ASHRAE has ECM Package

recommendations• Previous Drexel Research for

office sector

38

Building Stock

• 2013 data

Two_Digit_Code

Two_Digit_Code_Description

Total_Liveable_Area(Sq.ft)May -2013

11 Residential Low 157,076,798 12 Residential Medium 487,827,328 13 Residential High 111,716,636 21 Commercial Consumer 46,640,234

22Commercial Business/Professional 71,561,639

23Commercial Mixed Residential 53,034,301

31 Industrial 117,102,986 41 Civic/Institution 107,150,484 51 Transportation 36,395,877 61 Culture/Amusement 7,079,011 62 Active/Recreation 5,014,391 71 Park/Open Space 3,157,881 72 Cemetery 415,568 81 Water 4,483,573 91 Vacant 11,819,966 92 Other/Unknown 13,925,452

Total 1,234,402,125

11 Resi-dential Low

13%

12 Residential Medium40%

13 Resi-dential High9%

21 Com-mercial

Consumer4%

22 Com-mercial

Business/Professional

6%

23 Com-mercial

Mixed Resi-dential

4%

31 Industrial9%

41 Civic/Insti-tution

8%

51 Transportation3%

61 Culture/Amusement1%

62 Active/Recreation1% 71 Park/Open Space

0%

72 Cemetery0%

81 Water0%

91 Vacant1%

92 Other/Unknown2%

TOTAL LIVEABLE AREA

39

Travel Data

DVRPC 2012-13 Household Travel Survey public database

Total no of Households(HH) 9,236

Total no of surveyed persons 20,216

Avg. HH size 2.19

Total no of trips 61,725

Avg. surveyed person/HH 2.19

Avg. HH total trips 8.87

Avg. trip/person 4.05

40

Modes/VehiclesPrivate vehicle Other motorized mode Non motorized modeSedan NJ transit bus WalkCoupe SEPTA busway BikeConvertible SEPTA bus Other NMTSUV Other prvt transit WheelchairPick up Dial-a-rideWagon Private shuttleMinivan TMA shuttleVan Greyhound busCrossover Other busOther kind of truck AMTRAK busMotorcycle School busScooter PATCORecreational vehicle NJ transit commuter

RailNJ transit light railSEPTA trollySEPTA regional railAMTRAK train

Taxi Rent a car

Emission Factors 2012 2050

Vehicle Type Fuel upstream operational upstream operational

Passenger car Gasoline 56 g/km MOVES 41g/km MOVES

Passenger car Diesel 42g/km MOVES MOVES

Passenger truck Gasoline 56g/km MOVES 41g/km MOVESPassenger truck Diesel 42g/km MOVES MOVES

Motor Cycle Gasoline MOVES MOVES

Passenger car Hybrid/Gasoline 161.93 g/km upstream + op 160 g/km

Passenger carPlugin hybrid

(gasoline+electricity) 176.13 g/km upstream + op93 g/km

Passenger car Electric (BEV Electricity) 153.4 g/km upstream + op12 g/km

Passenger truck/SUV Hybrid 160 g/km

Passenger truck/SUV Plugin hybrid 93 g/km

Passenger truck electric 12 g/kmTransit bus Diesel 450 g/km MOVES 450 g/km MOVESTransit bus Hybrid Transit bus Electric

Intercity bus Diesel 450 g/km MOVES 450 g/km MOVESSchool Bus Diesel 450 g/km MOVES 450 g/km MOVES

Rail Electric 243.1 g/km 0 0 Rail Diesel

42

Methodology for 2050 Emissions1- Obtained disaggregate trip data at

the level of a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for 2040

3- Emissions calculated for every trip based on speed/mode

2- Emission factors were generated for upstream (GREET) and operating

(MOVES) emissions for 2050

4- Trip-based emissions were expanded to the total population in 2050 using weights (specific to each

TAZ)

5- Emissions per trip were aggregated to the household level total

emissions generated by each person in a day

6- Emissions per trip were equally divided between the origin zone and

the destination zone total emissions per zone

43

Total GHG Emissions per day

Base Case 2012

Region City

55,298t 8,418t

Business As Usual 2050

Region City

38,748t 5,771t

Transportation

Approach

GHG contributions from transportation:

Scope 1: ~10%Scope 2: Negligible (2010)

Overall: ~10%

Travel Modes Distribution

• Analyze Origin-Destination data from Household Travel Survey (HTS) for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

• Estimate operating emissions(MOVES) • Calculate baseline emissions for the

given trip/speed/mode• Emissions per trip per person were

split between origin and destination• Notes: no new types of vehicle/fuel

were considered

Total no of Households(HH) 9,236

Total no of surveyed persons 20,216

Avg. HH size 2.19

Total no of trips 61,725

Avg. HH total trips 8.87

Avg. trip/person 4.05

HTS Survey

45

Contributions of Private and Public Modes

2012 Base 2050 BAU85%

88%

91%

94%

97%

100%

Region City

Public Transit Private Vehicle

GH

G s

hare

85%

88%

91%

94%

97%

100%

Region City

Public Transit Private Vehicle

GH

G s

hare

Base Case 2012

Region City

18.94Mt(19%, 81%)

2.96Mt(20%, 80%)

Business As Usual 2050

Region City

12.89Mt(27%, 73%)

1.97Mt(28%, 72%)

46

GHG (kg/person) based on Home Location

2012 Base 2050 BAU

47

GHG (% of total) based on 50-50 Split (each trip’s emissions are allocated to the origin

and destination zones equally)

2012 Base 2050 BAU

48

• In 2012, GHG emissions generated by the city residents throughout their daily trips was estimated at 7,442t; it decreased to 5,030t in 2050 (BAU)

• In 2012, GHG emissions "occurring" in the city (based on 50-50 split) was estimated at 8,418t; it decreased to 5,771t in 2050 (BAU)

We can test the effectiveness of different policies at reducing the emissions of city residents vs. emissions "occurring" in the city

Advisory Panel• Meeting in April• Comments on:– Storage– Rebound– Advantages of dense development– Comparison of policy performance with other cities– Intermittency– Additional sources

• Airport, emissions from landfills, etc.