Climate change is one of the greatest threats the world faces in the 21st century. Scientists have collectively agreed that this is a consequence of exponential anthropogenic, or “human caused,” emissions of greenhouse gases. The data speaks for itself; concentrations of carbon dioxide, the GHG contributing most drastically to the changing climate, is rising at rates faster than ever anticipated as a result of accelerated fossil fuel burning to supply an increase in electricity demand. Petroleum, natural gas, and coal have provided over 80% of energy consumption in the U.S. for more than 100 years. Using geospatial software, visual portrayal of the country’s public emission rates (in pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity produced) of each ”eGRID” region, overlaid by power plant distribution, demonstrates the carbon impact of the energy sector, while depicting the strong relationship between the primary resources used for generation and the CO₂ intensity of the communities to which they serve. Thus, which U.S. counties should prioritize a clean energy transition based on their “per person” carbon impact?
11 thoughts on “Assessing Carbon Intensity of the U.S. Electricity Grid”
Comments are closed.
From idea to full fruition, this project proved extremely fruitful and applicable to my area of study and work. Over the course of the past several semesters, I’ve learned about the causes and effects of climate change, alongside tangible solutions to mitigating and adapting to the consequences. Although the data alone is unsettling, visual depictions tend to prove more effective at communicating magnitude of situations to a wider audience. I, wholeheartedly, believe that these maps can be used as a practical means of proposing new utility-scale infrastructure for generating clean energy, while also advising we take into account that location where one decides to develop does matter. Electricity consumption can, and will eventually, be considered a force for good in the U.S.
Hi Brooke! I love and admire your passion for mitigating climate change and reducing the threat that it poses to the state of humanity. I was wondering about how eGRID boundaries/subregions are determined and who determines them?
Thanks, Zahra! The eGRID is technically a source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electricity generated in the United States (from the EPA). Subregions are defined using the transmission, distribution, and utility service territories of power plants, instead of following the traditional geographic boundaries.
This is a really cool project. I thought it was surprising that some of the areas with the highest impact are also areas with high wind power production/availability. Also interesting to see that one of the areas plotted as having high carbon intensity per MWh in fig. 1 (around the upper midwest) doesn’t stand out as having high energy use per person in fig 2.
Great observation, Hannah! That is exactly why I found it necessary to produce both maps. Because human density is so tightly packed in certain areas, and significantly sprawled in others, the emissions data is a bit skewed. Although electric power generation is quite carbon intensive in this region, when divvied up by head, the footprint of each person is surprisingly lower than those who live in the middle-part of the country (where population is down).
Did you look at how the carbon intensity of eGRID areas is related to the areas’ overall energy energy use? It would be interesting to know if places with higher energy demand overall are likely to have a lower or higher fraction of that demand met by carbon emitting sources.
Thanks for the question, Michaela. Yes! In figure 1, each power plant is identified by a “dot” on the map. The size of these “dots” are proportional to the total nameplate capacity of electric power generation. This designation was important to include because otherwise it would seem as though the U.S. is host to almost as many, or more, renewable sites than those operated by fossil fuels. However, scale is a crucial element to avoid misrepresentation.
I find it interesting that the Midwest is responsible for a significant amount of carbon emissions despite its lower population density as well, I wonder why. Also, I thought America would have switched over to renewable energy in more places by this point. We definitely need to do something before it’s too late.
Gabby, I absolutely agree. We have the technology to make significant changes, and most importantly, we have the need. Appreciate you taking the time to look at my poster!
Interesting initial look at this issue, Brooke! It is interesting how much the high per capita emissions in the plains states overlaps with a lot of wind power production. Clearly, wind production would need to be scaled there a lot more to make a bigger dent, but I wonder how much. Thinking about that issue more generally, I wonder what a map of best-fit alternative electricity generation sources would look like (solar, hydro, wind, etc) around the country, and where the gaps between the potential for alternatives and their actual implementation is most marked. A lot to explore. Good going.
Thanks so much, Dr. Wernke! Definitely is something I hope to explore further in my studies and work. I’ll be sure to keep these suggestions in mind and you in the loop as I continue to develop a better understanding myself. Appreciate your guidance throughout this semester and final project.