Decision Support Tools for 1) Investigating Trends in the US Vehicle Fleet 2) Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown CEDM Annual Meeting Paul Fischbeck EPP and SDS

Decision Support Tools for 1) Investigating Trends in the US Vehicle Fleet

2) Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown

CEDM Annual MeetingPaul Fischbeck

EPP and SDSCarnegie Mellon University

17 May 2011

1

Fleet Trends Project Course

Undergraduate, semester-long, capstone course– 23 undergrads

• Social and Decision Sciences (SDS)• Engineering and Public Policy (EPP)

– 2 graduate student managers• Mohd Nor Azman Hassad• Thomas Yu

– 2 faculty• Iris Grossmann• Paul Fischbeck

2

Trade-offs

• Fuel economy and …– Performance– Safety– Practicality– Life cycle costs

• How have these metrics changed over time?– Airbags make lighter more fuel efficient vehicles safer, right?

3

Databases• Ward’s Automotive (1990-2010)

– National new car sales by make and model for each year

• Hedges & Company (2010) – State-level car population by make, model, and model year

• Kelley Blue Book (1990-2010) – List and used car prices– Detailed specifications by make, model, and year

• FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System)– Fatalities from automobile crashes– NHTSA

• NHTS/NPTS (National Household Travel Survey) (1995,2001,2009) – DOT Federal Highway Administration

• 5-Star Safety Rating– NHTSA Safety ratings for cars

• Others – US Census, EIA (fuel prices, power mix)

4

Interface to the Integrated Database

Filter Filter specificCountry of assembly United States

Carnegie Mellon University POC: Professor Paul Fischbeck SDS/EPP Project Course (Spring 2011)

Data extracted and merged from Ward's Automotive, Kelley Blue Book, GREET Model Argonne National Labs, and EPA

US Vehicle Fleet Trends

MetricCombined MPG

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Combined MPG - Country of assembly (United States) count = 2721

5By combining metrics and filters, over 1,200 different graphs possible

Life-Cycle Analysiso Inventory Analysis

Considers the individual inputs (energy, materials) and outputs of the product at each stage

Stages: material production, product manufacture, assembly, distribution, use, disposal

Variables to track: energy, emissions, costso Impact Analysis

Combines environmental impacts into one total impact number

o Improvement Analysis Determine how to reduce the environmental impact of

the product

6

GREET Model

• Argonnes National Laboratory• Calculates the life-cycle energy use and

emissions for vehicle productiono MPG (KBB)o Lifetime miles driven (NHTS/NPTS)o Vehicle type- SUV, passenger cars (KBB)o Year (KBB)o Weight (KBB)o Country of assembly (KBB)

• Separate GREET model run for each of the 6,000 make/model/year vehicles in the Ward’s Automotive database

7

8

9

10

11

1990

2005

12

Emissions Trends by List Price

13


14


15


16

Emission Trends by Vehicle Type

17


18


19


20

Comparison: Weight of Vehicles (Year – 2000)

In 73% of crashes, vehicles with no fatalities weighted moreIn 27% of crashes, vehicles with fatalities weighted more

21

Weight – Safety Tradeoff

Heavier vehicles (safety rating 5) have less probability of fatality compared to lighter vehicles of the same safety rating

At equal weight, 3% benefit to safer vehicle

22

Shutting Down Nuclear Power Plants

• Since Fukushima, there has been discussion of the risks imposed by nuclear power plants

• Question: Given various decision rules, what would be the impact on environmental and economic metrics– Natural risks (earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados– Plant characteristics (individual, age, manufacturer)– Characteristics of surrounding region (population,

political support)• Joint work with David Rode from DAI and Thomas

Yu (EPP Masters 2011)

23

Reasons for Curtailing Operations

24

Earthquake and Nuclear Power Plants

Tornado Alley

Method• All power generation facilities for each NERC region were modeled (total

over 16,000 plants)– Historical capacity factor– Emissions rates– Variable costs (sorted)

• Nuclear plants were turned off based on decision criteria• Lost production made up by increasing the output of plants with extra

capacity in order of marginal cost– NERC forced outage rates for coal and gas

• Average cost of generation calculated (does not include T&D)– Infinitely elastic (no pipeline capacity limits)– For some scenarios, increase demand would send NG prices very high

• Additional NOx, SO2, and CO2 emissions tracked• Additional coal and natural gas consumption determined

– Pipeline capacity would be reached for some regions well before demand is met

25

Interface

26

Filter Filter Value ImpactPolitical Blue 61 Number of Plants

56,667 Number of MW

Paul FischbeckCarnegie Mellon University

MetricGeneration Lost

Economic and Environmental Impact of Nuclear Plant Closures

Regional Impact

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

10,000.00

Total US

National Change (Amount M)

SO2 NOx CoalCO2 NG

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

Total US

National Change (%)

SO2 NOx CoalCO2 NG$Gen

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FRCC

MRO

NPC

C-N

EN

PCC-

NY

RFC

SERC

-Cen

tral

SERC

-Del

taSE

RC-G

atew

aySE

RC-S

ESE

RC-V

ACA

RSP

PTR

EW

ECC-

NW

PPW

ECC-

CA

Generation Lost (TWh)

27

28

Emissions Trends by Country

29


30


31


32


33

Trends in Emissions by MPG Category

34


35


36


37


38


39


40

Documents

Decision Support Tools for 1) Investigating Trends in the US Vehicle Fleet 2) Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown CEDM Annual Meeting Paul Fischbeck EPP and SDS