Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “social cost of carbon”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is commonly described and used as the optimal CO 2 price. However, the wide range of SCC estimates provides limited practical assistance to policymakers setting specific CO 2 prices. In this study we describe an alternate near-term to net zero (NT2NZ) approach, estimating CO 2 prices needed in the near term for consistency with a net-zero CO 2 emissions target. This approach dovetails with the emissions-target-focused approach that frames climate policy discussions around the world, avoids uncertainties in estimates of climate damages and long-term decarbonization costs, offers transparency about sensitivities and enables the consideration of CO 2 prices alongside a portfolio of policies. We estimate illustrative NT2NZ CO 2 prices for the United States; for a 2050 net-zero CO 2 emission target, prices are US $ \$34$ to US $ \$64$ per metric ton in 2025 and US $ \$77$ to US $ \$124$ in 2030. These results are most influenced by assumptions about complementary policies and oil prices.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Framework for Incorporating Social Cost of Carbon in Weatherization

This document provides a framework for incorporating [avoided] social cost of carbon (SCC) when calculating cost effectiveness of energy measures under the U.S. Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). The framework describes the relevant metrics, calculation methodology, and implementation approach that can be adopted by any energy audit software for use under the WAP.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

The economic and environmental costs and benefits of the renewable fuel standard

Abstract Mandates, like the renewable fuel standard (RFS), for biofuels from corn and cellulosic feedstocks, impact the environment in multiple ways by affecting land use, nitrogen (N)-leakage, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We analyze the differing trade-offs these different types of biofuels offer among these multi-dimensional environmental effects and convert them to a monetized value of environmental damages (or benefits) that can be compared with the economic costs of extending these mandates over the 2016–2030 period. The discounted values of cumulative net benefits (or costs) are then compared to those with a counterfactual level of biofuels that would have been produced in the absence of the RFS over this period. We find that maintaining the corn ethanol mandate at 56 billion l till 2030 will lead to a discounted cumulative value of an economic cost of $199 billion over the 2016–2030 period compared to the counterfactual scenario; this includes $109 billion of economic costs and $85 billion of net monetized environmental damages. The additional implementation of a cellulosic biofuel mandate for 60 billion l by 2030 will increase this economic cost by $69 billion which will be partly offset by the net discounted monetized value of environmental benefits of $20 billion, resulting in a net cost of $49 billion over the 2016–2030 period. We explore the sensitivity of these net (economic and environmental) costs to alternative values of the social costs of carbon and nitrogen and other technological and market parameters. We find that, unlike corn ethanol, cellulosic biofuels can result in positive net benefits if the monetary benefits of GHG mitigation are valued high and those of N-damages are not very high.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

BEPAM Model Code and CABBI Simulation Results for "The Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard"

This dataset contains BEPAM model code and input data to replicate the outcomes for "The Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard". The dataset consists of: (1) The replication codes and data for the BEPAM model. The code file is named as output.gms. (BEPAM-Social cost model-ERL.zip) (2) Simulation results from the BEPAM model (BEPAM_Simulation_Results.csv) * Item (1) is in GAMS format. Item (2) is in text format.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
DOE OSTI2021

Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ) from the electricity sector. This paper examines the greenhouse gas and welfare implications of this repeal while incorporating the presence of the state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in the US as the status quo. We assess the carbon abatement and welfare costs with the CPP relative to two alternative baselines: a no–policy baseline and a pre–existing policy baseline with the RPS. The CPP is implemented as a regional mass–based standard, a regional rate–based standard, or as a national mass–based standard with trading of emissions across regions over the 2022–2030 period. We find that the incremental discounted welfare costs per metric ton of CO 2 that would have been abated by the CPP relative to the RPS would be substantially lower than the global social cost of CO 2 . However, the overall costs of carbon abatement with the CPP added to the RPS would have become higher than the social cost of carbon when estimated relative to a no–policy baseline, except with a national mass–based CPP. Across all policy combinations and choice of baselines, the aggregate welfare costs were lowest under a national mass–based standard and highest under the regional rate–based standard. Here, we also find that the CPP would have imposed large welfare costs on consumers and fossil fuel producers while benefiting the renewable fuel producers.

, Q42↗
DOE OSTI2025

Load-Shifting Strategies for Cost-Effective Emission Reductions at Wastewater Facilities

Significant hourly variation in the carbon intensity of electricity supplied to wastewater facilities introduces an opportunity to lower emissions by shifting the timing of their energy demand. This shift could be accomplished by storing wastewater, biogas from sludge digestion, or electricity from on-site biogas generation. However, the life cycle emissions and cost implications of these options are not clear. Here, we present a multiobjective optimization framework for comparing cost- and emission-minimizing load-shifting strategies at a California case study facility with a relatively low carbon intensity grid and high spread in peak and off-peak electricity prices. We evaluate cost and emission trade-offs from the optimal flexible operation of both existing infrastructure and optimally sized energy flexibility upgrades. We estimate energy-related emission reductions of up to 9.0% with flexible operation of existing infrastructure and up to 16.8% with optimally sized storage upgrades. Only a fraction of these potential savings are realized under actual industrial energy tariffs and the EPA’s recommended social cost of carbon. Energy flexibility may hold promise as a short-term emission-saving solution for the wastewater sector, but the extent of savings is heavily dependent on the cost of carbon, electricity tariffs, and emission intensity of the regional electricity grid.

climate↗
DOE OSTI2021

Least-cost targets and avoided fossil fuel capacity in India’s pursuit of renewable energy

India has set aggressive targets to install more than 400 GW of wind and solar electricity generation by 2030, with more than two-thirds of that capacity coming from solar. This paper examines the electricity and carbon mitigation costs to reliably operate India’s grid in 2030 for a variety of wind and solar targets (200 GW to 600 GW) and the most promising options for reducing these costs. We find that systems where solar photovoltaic comprises only 25 to 50% of the total renewable target have the lowest carbon mitigation costs in most scenarios. This result invites a reexamination of India’s proposed solar-majority targets. We also find that, compared to other regions and contrary to prevailing assumptions, meeting high renewable targets will avoid building very few new fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) power plants because of India’s specific weather patterns and need to meet peak electricity demand. However, building 600 GW of renewable capacity, with the majority being wind plants, reduces how often fossil fuel power plants run, and this amount of capacity can hold India’s 2030 emissions below 2018 levels for less than the social cost of carbon. With likely wind and solar cost declines and increases in coal energy costs, balanced or wind-majority high renewable energy systems (600 GW or ≈ 45% share by energy) could result in electricity costs similar to a fossil fuel-dominated system. As an alternative strategy for meeting peak electricity demand, battery storage can avert the need for new fossil fuel capacity but is cost effective only at low capital costs (≈ USD 150 per kWh).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Benefits and Challenges of California Offshore Wind Electricity: An Updated Assessment

Offshore wind (OSW) technology has recently been included in California’s plans to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. As an emerging technology, many features of OSW are changing more rapidly than established renewable options and are shaped by local circumstances in unique ways that limit transferrable experiences globally. This paper fills a gap in the literature by providing an updated technological assessment of OSW in California to determine its viability and competitiveness in the state’s electricity generation mix to achieve its near-term energy and environmental goals. Through a critical synthesis and extrapolation of technical, social, and economic analyses, we identify several major improvements in its potential. First, we note that while estimates of OSW’s costs per MWh of installed capacity have generally documented and projected a long-term decline, recent technical, microeconomic, and macroeconomic factors have caused significant backsliding of this momentum. Second, we project that the potential dollar value benefits of OSW’s greenhouse gas reduction capabilities have increased by one to two orders of magnitude, primarily due to major upward revisions of the social cost of carbon. Several co-benefits, including enhanced reliability, economic growth, and environmental justice, look to be increasingly promising due to a combination of technological advances and policy initiatives. Despite these advancements, OSW continues to face several engineering and broader challenges. We assess the current status of these challenges, as well as current and future strategies to address them. We conclude that OSW is now overall an even more attractive electricity-generating option than at the beginning of this decade.

Rose, Adam (ORCID:0000000333477684)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Decarbonization scenarios of the U.S. Electricity system and their costs

Decarbonizing the electricity system to zero-carbon emission is crucial for climate change mitigation. Previous studies have shown that such a transition in the United States (U.S.) may lead to higher system cost compared to a business-as-usual case, but it is not well-known how the cost of electricity generation varies at sub-regional level under the transition, and studies have rarely evaluated the trade-off between the cost and avoided climate damages, as well as the potential roles of negative emission technologies (NETs) in the electricity decarbonization. In this work, we present a regionally resolved national model to quantify the cost of decarbonizing the U.S. electricity system under a set of possible scenarios. The results show that, compared to the reference scenario without a decarbonization policy, reaching zero CO 2 emission by 2050 would incur, depending on the scenarios, 335-494 billion USD additional cost to the U.S. electric power sector during 2020-2050. The regional costs of electricity generation ranges from 2.4 to 4.7 cent/kWh, largely due to the generation profiles and renewable resources availability of those regions. The additional costs can be translated to an average CO 2 abatement cost of 29-59 USD/metric ton CO 2 (with 2%-7% discount rates), which are comparable to the social cost of carbon in the literature at around 4% discount rate. The results also show that the cost of mitigating the last few percent CO 2 emission from the U.S. electricity system may exceed the costs of NETs, indicating an opportunity for NETs to contribute to electricity decarbonization.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Looking Beyond Bill Savings to Equity in Renewable Energy Microgrid Deployment

Microgrids powered by renewable energy can provide backup power to critical infrastructure during grid outages. These systems can also play an important role in advancing energy justice by providing economic, environmental, health, and resilience benefits for underserved communities. The value of microgrids is often measured by the economic savings and resilience provided, but there are other energy justice factors that should be considered. This paper describes a methodology for quantifying broader costs and benefits including utility bill savings, value of resilience, social cost of carbon, public health costs, and jobs associated with the construction and operation of microgrids. We evaluate these factors at three case study sites and find that including energy justice values in the cost-benefit analysis of microgrids can change investment decisions. When climate, health, resilience, and job creation are considered, cost-optimal microgrids include more renewable generation, leading to a 52-82% reduction in emissions and diesel fuel use. The net present values of the microgrids grow from negative $626,000-843,000 in the diesel only case to $10-16 million in the hybrid microgrid case and $12-19 million in the renewable microgrid case, indicating potential for greater microgrid deployment if energy justice values are incorporated in decision making. However, we also see large increases in capital expenses, which could limit deployment unless accompanied by innovative financing measures. These findings may be useful to communities as they seek to strengthen resilience to natural disasters while also improving public health, meeting climate goals, and providing economic opportunity for residents.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Human Health Trade-Offs of Organic Waste Management Strategies

Waste-to-energy systems can play an important role in diverting organic waste from landfills. However, real-world waste management can differ from idealized practices, and emissions driven by microbial communities and complex chemical processes are poorly understood. This study presents a comprehensive life-cycle assessment, using reported and measured data, of competing management alternatives for organic municipal solid waste including landfilling, composting, dry anaerobic digestion (AD) for the production of renewable natural gas (RNG), and dry AD with electricity generation. Landfilling is the most greenhouse gas (GHG)-intensive option, emitting nearly 400 kg CO 2e per tonne of organic waste. Composting raw organics resulted in the lowest GHG emissions, at -41 kg CO 2e per tonne of waste, while upgrading biogas to RNG after dry AD resulted in -36 to -2 kg CO 2e per tonne. Monetizing the results based on social costs of carbon and other air pollutant emissions highlights the importance of ground-level NH3 emissions from composting nitrogen-rich organic waste or post-AD solids. However, better characterization of material-specific NH 3 emissions from landfills and land-application of digestate is essential to fully understand the trade-offs between alternatives.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Power Supply Options for the Marpi Landfill, Saipan: Addendum to 2023 Feasibility Study

The Marpi Landfill (Marpi or the landfill), located on the northern end of the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), is powered by an on-site diesel generator that only operates when the landfill is open and staffed. The CNMI Office of Planning and Development (OPD) aspires to provide the Marpi Landfill with 24-hour power availability despite its remote location and to increase sustainable energy consumption within the CNMI. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) authored a feasibility study in 2023 that explores alternative power supply options for the landfill. This feasibility study (hereafter referred to as Phase I of this study) culminated in a report named “Power Supply Options for the Marpi Landfill, Saipan.” In Phase I, the project team investigated and prioritized seven different power supply scenarios (Table ES-1) for the landfill according to Solid Waste (SW) Taskforce priorities. The project team found that Scenario 4 (100 kW of solar photovoltaic [PV] generation, a 75 kW/300 kWh battery energy storage system [BESS], and 160 kW of diesel generation) ranked highest. Following the Phase I feasibility study, the SW Taskforce secured additional funding for PNNL to assess additional considerations regarding power supply options for Marpi. The purpose of Phase II of this study is to investigate these additional considerations, as compiled in this addendum. Some of the findings compiled here replace findings from the original report. The project team evaluated additional considerations regarding power supply options for the landfill, including modified operations to account for 24/7 power supply, electrified landfill equipment, new and replacement distribution line costs, and the social cost of carbon.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Framework for Assessing Economic and Environmental Trade-offs of Internalized Emission Costs in ERCOT Grid Planning

The power grid is on the cusp of a massive transition driven by three major areas: 1) the growth in demand for electricity, 2) efforts to decarbonize the United States economy, and 3) a desire to mitigate social disparities from the impact of electricity generation on local populations. However, most studies of the electricity sector do not include equity impacts in their models. This study seeks to do so by developing a comprehensive and generalizable model tailored to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) grid, designed to incorporate the equity impacts of electricity generation in a decarbonized and resilient framework. To integrate equity into our research, we incorporate environmental externalities into our capacity expansion model of ERCOT. Specifically, we factor in intermediate-level local marginal damages of precursor pollutants (NH3, NOx, primary PM2.5, SO2, and VOC) and global pollutant CO2 into the cost of generating electricity. We do this by taking into account county population, county ambient pollution concentration, and generator emission rates. Leveraging open-source modeling tools, such as PowerGenome, pyGRETA, and GenX we construct a county-level model to account for these costs. We integrate these marginal damages into the variable operations and maintenance costs of generators, for both existing and potential future builds. This study’s findings suggest that the value of a dynamic social cost of carbon (SSC) will cover criteria pollutant marginal damages within the ERCOT grid and solar and wind is expected to increase out to 2035. Key metrics evaluated within this research include fuel mix distribution across technologies, transmission and grid infrastructure costs, CO2 emissions, local pollutants marginal damages, and the variation in generation capacity built by the model. These results and framework can be used to support grid decisions that explicitly include distributional and procedural equity within a decarbonized and sustainable grid framework.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Balancing renewable energy and river resources by moving from individual assessments of hydropower projects to energy system planning

As governments and non-state actors strive to minimize global warming, a primary strategy is the decarbonization of power systems which will require a massive increase in renewable electricity generation. Leading energy agencies forecast a doubling of global hydropower capacity as part of that necessary expansion of renewables. While hydropower provides generally low-carbon generation and can integrate variable renewables, such as wind and solar, into electrical grids, hydropower dams are one of the primary reasons that only one-third of the world’s major rivers remain free-flowing. This loss of free-flowing rivers has contributed to dramatic declines of migratory fish and sediment delivery to agriculturally productive deltas. Further, the reservoirs behind dams have displaced tens of millions of people. Thus, hydropower challenges the world’s efforts to meet climate targets while simultaneously achieving other Sustainable Development Goals. In this paper, we explore strategies to achieve the needed renewable energy expansion while sustaining the diverse social and environmental benefits of rivers. These strategies can be implemented at scales ranging from the individual project (environmental flows, fish passage and other site-level mitigation) to hydropower cascades to river basins and regional electrical power systems. While we review evidence that project-level management and mitigation can reduce environmental and social costs, we posit that the most effective scale for finding balanced solutions occurs at the scale of power systems. We further hypothesize that the pursuit of solutions at the system scale can also provide benefits for investors, developers and governments; evidence of benefits to these actors will be necessary for achieving broad uptake of the approaches described in this paper. We test this hypothesis through cases from Chile and Uganda that demonstrate the potential for system-scale power planning to allow countries to meet low-carbon energy targets with power systems that avoid damming high priority rivers (e.g., those that would cause conflicts with other social and environmental benefits) for a similar system cost as status quo approaches. We also show that, through reduction of risk and potential conflict, strategic planning of hydropower site selection can improve financial performance for investors and developers, with a case study from Colombia.

Opperman, Jeffrey J.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Roughrider Carbon Storage Hub (Final Report)

The Roughrider Carbon Storage Hub was a 2-year project (October 2023 – September 2025) conducted by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) focused on advancing the feasibility of a commercial-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) geologic storage hub in McKenzie County, North Dakota. The project’s objective was to investigate the potential that stacked storage complexes (multiple deep saline formations) can safely and economically store at least 50 million tonnes of CO 2 within 30 years. The captured CO 2 would be sourced from industrial emitters including project partner ONEOK, Inc.’s gas-processing plants and a planned gas-to-liquids facility. Drilling of the Roughrider 1 stratigraphic test well (14,979-ft total depth) was completed in November 2024. The wellbore intersected four candidate storage formations: Inyan Kara, Broom Creek, Mission Canyon, and Black Island–Deadwood. Operational challenges, including a stuck drill string, were resolved without long-term impact. A comprehensive logging and coring program was conducted, followed by successful well abandonment and site reclamation. Over 660 ft of 4-in. whole core was retrieved. Core plug samples were processed and analyzed for petrophysical and geochemical properties. Results confirmed promising porosity and permeability in the Inyan Kara and Broom Creek Formations and removal of the Mission Canyon and Black Island–Deadwood horizons from further investigation. Data derived from the logging and coring program were used to improve initial geologic models built from legacy data. CO 2 injection simulations showed that the Inyan Kara alone can feasibly store the target mass of CO 2 . Because of subtle differences in geologic structure and porosity trends between the formations, a stacked storage scenario using the Broom Creek and Inyan Kara Formations resulted in a larger overall plume area than using the Inyan Kara alone. Preliminary CO 2 pipeline routes from the industrial sources were mapped utilizing existing rights of way and evaluated for capacity and cost using U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management/National Energy Technology Laboratory models and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions data. Integrating capture, transport, and storage cost estimates with policy incentives (e.g., 45Q credits) provided a total cost-per-ton analysis. Results indicate that the small scale of the volumes to be transported over the cumulative large distances does not support the project’s financial viability. However, the groundwork laid during this project from geological, regulatory, and social perspectives positions the Roughrider hub site as a promising candidate for commercial carbon storage in North Dakota, especially if the economy of scale is introduced for CO 2 transportation to the hub site.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Techno‐economic, environmental, and social measurement of clean energy technology supply chains

Abstract In addition to the criteria of reliability and cost, clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar, and batteries, need to strive to a higher standard of environmental and societal benefit along their entire supply chain. This means additional performance metrics for these technologies should be considered, such as embodied energy, embodied carbon, recycled content and recyclability, environmental impact of material sourcing, impact on land and ecosystems, materials recovery at end of life, and production through quality nonexploitive jobs with community benefit. Many commercial and emerging energy technologies have not yet been explicitly evaluated based on these environmental and social performance metrics, which presents multiple opportunities for researchers and analysts. In this paper, we review the importance and current limitations of techno‐economic and life‐cycle assessment models for research design and manufacturing decisions. We explore emerging manufacturing modeling options that could improve environmental and social performance and how they could be used to help guide research. Even with the deployment of low‐carbon energy‐generation technologies, the future of a successful clean energy transition requires collaboration between researchers, advanced manufacturers, independent standards and tracking organizations, local communities, and national governments, to ensure the financial, environmental, and social sustainability of the entire supply and manufacturing process of energy technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wabash CarbonSAFE Subtask 4.1 - Application of Policy Frameworks for Improved Carbon Capture and Storage Social Site Characterization & Stakeholder Engagement

Anthropogenic climate change threatens environmental and human health globally. Limiting these threats requires large-scale and innovative greenhouse gas mitigation responses across carbon-intensive energy and industrial sectors. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies present potential opportunities for mitigating climate change while maintaining a diverse energy resource portfolio. Successful development of CCS physical sites requires effective and efficient project management solutions that elicit and incorporate the concerns and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Due to the urgency of climate change mitigation technology implementation and the costs of CCS development, CCS project developers cannot risk setbacks by poor stakeholder assessment that concern management processes. Thus, this report presents four prominent policy frameworks and associated case studies as opportunities to improve CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement. After comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiencies of each framework with regard to CCS, this report concludes that the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework, and Policy Conflict Framework can improve the CCS social site characterization process, while the Collaborative Governance Framework paired with the Q-Methodology provides an ideal framework for direct stakeholder engagement. Overall, this report finds that the Narrative Policy Framework and the Collaborative Governance Framework are most ideally suited for the purposes of CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗