An article I co-authored on how to improve carbon accounting in industry. which demonstrates how much of a difference it makes, was published in the International Journal of Energy Management this week.
https://lnkd.in/gCAA-B4R
Unlocking Electrification with Hourly Emissions Data
Craig Sinnamon, David B. Goldstein, and Anna Kelly
ABSTRACT
International agencies are working to create a sense of urgency
toward climate action. Specific actions such as replacing fossil-fuel-fired
heating equipment with heat pumps, electrifying transportation, and
energy storage are recommended. These broad actions will be evaluated
and implemented at individual facilities. The carbon impact of buildings
and industrial manufacturing must include the embodied carbon of the
steel, wood, glass, and concrete used in construction. But you can’t manage
what you measure incorrectly. Currently the dominant method for
measuring carbon emissions is to multiply energy consumption for each
fuel by an emissions factor, using the average contributors to electricity
generation. Relying on this method for cost assessments will undercut
GHG emission reductions and lead to slower investment in necessary
technologies. Recent standards have recommended utilizing long-run
marginal contributions to electrical generation (“consequential analysis”).
This study addresses the question: How much difference would it
make for facility managers to use long-run marginal emissions rather
than annual emissions in their feasibility assessments for measures at
industrial facilities? We performed a comparative analysis using a sample
of approximately 30,000 industrial facilities. We calculated emissions
data using two distinct inputs: the eGRID (2021 annual average factors)
and the Cambium (8-year average, 2023-2030) hourly long-run marginal
emissions factors (as suggested in new draft standards). This comparison
tests the hypothesis that using average impacts undercuts global policy
goals such as electrification.
