Upload
ella-phillips
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Societal Benefits of Winds Mission
Ken Miller
Mitretek Systems
February 8, 2007
2ControlNumber
National Research Council Vision Statement 1
“A healthy, secure, prosperous and sustainable society for all people on Earth”
“Understanding the … planet …, how it supports life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so … is one of the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity...”
NRC (April 2005)
3ControlNumber
Societal Benefits from Improved Weather Forecasts Using Lidar Winds
Improved Operational Weather Forecasts
Civilian Military
Hurricane Track Forecast Ground, air & sea operationsAgriculture Weapons DeliveryTransportation Satellite launchEnergy Aerial Refueling Homeland Security Dispersion Forecasts for Air Quality Forecast Nuclear, Biological,Recreation & Chemical Release
Science
Climate Change IssuesCirculationH20, trace gases, aerosol, heat transportCarbon cycle Energy cycle
4ControlNumber
Recent estimates for Decadal Survey, ESTO study, Lidar Winds white paper
Based on 1995, 1998 estimates (Cordes)2,3
– Key assumptions • Seem conservative • Hard to validate
Purpose – Update estimates – Added a benefit area– Increased from $228 M to $807 M / yr – Compared with estimates from other programs
Quantifiable Economic Benefits
5ControlNumber
Findings
Benefits greater than in 1995– Fuel costs– Coastal population – Property values– GDP growth – Inflation– Added offshore drilling rig benefits
Magnitudes in line with other case studiesAdditional benefits could be includedRecommend more study of assumptions
6ControlNumber
US Economy Affected by Weather
2005 GDP ~ $12.5 TrillionPercent of GDP affected by weather17
– Nearly 30% directly or indirectly ($3.75 Trillion)
– About 10% directly ($1.25 Trillion)Mission benefits large vs. cost
7ControlNumber
Benefits Reviewed
Cordes Study2,3
– Quantified $• Reduce hurricane over-warnings• Reduce hurricane preventable damage and
business interruption • Save aviation fuel using wind in routing• General forecast improvement
– Not $ - Loss of life and limbConsidine et al Study12
– Off-shore drilling rig decision optimization
8ControlNumber
Hurricanes: Loss of Life and Limb11
Not quantified hereBefore Katrina, Red Cross estimated 25K to 100K
deaths in a New Orleans worst caseDeath rate for hurricanes with > $1 B property
damage (20 yr avg to 2005)– All 128 / yr– Excluding Katrina, Andrew 34 / yr
“…late 20th century forecasting prevents 90% of hurricane-related mortality that would occur with techniques used in the 1950s”
9ControlNumber
Hurricane Over-Warning Savings10,11
Evacuation cost: popular estimate $1 M / mileRegional dependence
– Could exceed $50M / mile in some areas– Much less in other areas
Hurricane Floyd (1999) evacuation cost rivaled damage cost 9
10ControlNumber
Statistics 1995 2 2005 11
– Typical warning 341 miles300- 400– Affected coast 124 miles 100– Overwarning 217 miles200- 300
Benefits– Cost / mile $145 K $ 1 M– Over-warn cost / landfall $ 32 M – Reduce over-warning/landfall $ 5.4 M (17%*) $50 M
(50 miles)– x 2 landfalls / yr $ 11 M 100 M**
– Or scale 1995 to $1M / mile $ 75 M
Reduce Hurricane Overwarning
* Storm climatology and simulations for global 3D winds in NWP** Ref 11, better forecasts, not necessarily wind measurement alone
2005 Evacuation Avoidance: $75 to 100 M/yr
11ControlNumber
Direct Hurricane Property Damage 11
Much not preventableHard to demonstrate reduction
– Probably improves over time– Growth & property values increase
losses– “…no discernable trend from better
forecasts or more effective mitigation measures”
12ControlNumber
Direct Property Damage Savings (1995)2
13 yr to 1995 avg damage– Selected “typical” storms w/o Andrew = $1.2 B / yr
Assumed – 15% preventable with sufficient warning– 17% forecast improvement with winds vs. 1995 24
hr– Total 15% x 17% = 2.5%
Reduction, typical hurricanes = $30 M / yr
13ControlNumber
Update Direct Damage
For > $B storms20 yr avg to 2005 (2005 $)
– About 1 landfall / yr > $1B– $7.1 B / yr less Andrew, Katrina– $15.7 B / yr counting Andrew, Katrina
14ControlNumber
Update Direct Damage (concluded)
Using the lower number– $7.1 B / yr without Andrew, Katrina– Account for lesser hurricanes 22
• Divide by .83• Total = $8.5 B / yr
Reduce preventable losses 2.5% 2
2005 Savings Estimate = $212 M / yr
15ControlNumber
Not in Cordes studyGulf Rigs 12
– Need hurricane track/intensity
– Optimize operating decisions: continue, evacuate, stop production
– Estimated value of 24 hour forecast• Perfect $239 M / yr• Imperfect $ 10 M / yr
Assume 17% improvement2 x ($239 M-$10 M)Benefit = $39 M / yr
Off-shore Drilling Rigs
16ControlNumber
General Forecasting
Winds improve accuracy and lead timesForecasts impact the economyHow much?
17ControlNumber
Some Industries Affected by Weather16, 18
Industry $BAgriculture 80 - 109Air Transportation 88Construction 373 - 528Elecricity Generation 220Fisheries 4Heating / cooling 7Outdoor recreation 100Storm mitigation & repair 17Total 889
18ControlNumber
Chapman study 20 – Estimated gains from maximum
forecast improvement from NWS modernization
– $1.2 B / year in 1992 Cordes2
– Assumed winds provide 5% of max – $60 M / yr ($1992)
General Forecasting (1995)2
19ControlNumber
Scale 1995 General Forecasting Estimate by GDP
1992 – GDP = 5.6 Trillion 1992$– Benefit was $60M– 0.0011 % of GDP
2005 GDP estimate = $12.5 Trillion2005 benefit scales to > $137 M / yr
20ControlNumber
Forecast Improvements Example 1: Households
Household benefit estimates for better forecasts
• $1.7 B / yr (2003) 13 • $1.87 B / yr (2005) 14
This doesn’t include industry benefits
21ControlNumber
Forecast BenefitsExample 2: ENSO 17
El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) savings estimate– U.S. agriculture $200-300 M – U.S. corn storage $ 10- 25 M– NW US salmon fishery $
1 MTotal $211-326
MCan winds help?
22ControlNumber
Forecast Benefits Example 3:Est. Marginal GOES-R Benefits15
$M / yrAgriculture
– Avoided irrigation costs15 41 – Orchard frost mitigation 9
Transportation– Flight delays 41 – Trucking 28 – 56
Recreational Boating 86 - 130 Energy Utilities 486 - 507 Total of Case Studies 691 - 784
23ControlNumber
Conclusions from General Forecasting Examples
Big benefits: examples = $1191 to 1428 M / yr
Is our $137 M “in the ballpark” or low?Can add important benefits to list
24ControlNumber
U.S. Airlines Fuel Savings
User preferred routing– Critical capability for FAA Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NGATS)– Wind optimal routing can save fuel
Benefits: economic, environmental, energy security
25ControlNumber
U.S. Airlines Fuel: 1995 Estimate 2
Background– Fuel consumption effects
• 50 knot wind ~ 11% fuel impact (FAA, early 1980s)• Haul extra fuel for unknown wind conditions
– Real time vs. NWS forecast winds cut flight time 4.2% (simulation early 1980s)
Cordes2 lidar fuel savings estimates– 0.5% domestic – 1.0% international, less wind information available
2006 Savings = $107 M / yr (1994$)
26ControlNumber
2006 (annualized Jan - Nov data)5
– 19.3 billion gallons @ average $1.972 / gal = $38 B– 72% for domestic flight, 28% international
Estimated savings with wind data– Domestic $137 M– International $106 M
Update U.S. Airlines Fuel
2006 US Airlines Savings Estimate= $243 M
27ControlNumber
U.S. Military Aviation Fuel for 2006 (Cordes 1998)3
Military Aviation Savings ~ $20 M (1994$)
Military Aviation FuelAF Navy Total
Cost (1994 $B) 1.854 0.554 2.408% of Total Used 77 23Savings Rate 0.75% 1% 0.81%Savings (1994 $M) 13.9 5.5 19.4Savings (2006 $M) 18.9 7.5 26.4
28ControlNumber
Military Aviation – More Recent Numbers21
AF jet fuel usage 2.6 B gallons / year53% over continental USCost
– ~ $2.40 / gal – vs. $0.63 in 1995 study– Transport to plane $1.30 / gal
29ControlNumber
Military Aviation Update*
* Basis is 2.6 B gallons / yr for AF, $2.40 / gal for fuel, $1.30 / gal for transport to plane, estimated Navy usage using ratio from Ref 3.
Recent Military Aviation Fuel AF Navy* Total
Quantity (B gal) 2.6 0.78 3.38
% of Total Used3
77 23Cost / gal 2.40Transport cost / gal 1.30Total cost @ plane ($B) 12.49Savings Rate 0.81%Savings (2006 $M) 101
30ControlNumber
2006 Annual Benefits Estimates ($M)
1995 Est 2006 EstHurricane Overwarning 11 75Direct Hurricane Damage 30 212Off Shore Drilling 0 39General Forecasting 60 137Airline Aviation Fuel 107 243Military Aviation Fuel 20 101Total 228 807
31ControlNumber
Conclusions
Dollar benefit estimates have increased– Fuel costs– Increased coastal population and property
values– Growing GDP– Added offshore drilling rig benefits
Magnitudes seem in line with other weather case studies
Assumptions should be reviewedSignificant benefit areas may not be included yet
32ControlNumber
References
1. National Academy of Science, Earth Science and Applications from Space, Briefing of Decadal Survey Findings, AMS Town Hall, 1/15/07 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820.html
2. Cordes, J. J., “Economic Benefits and Costs of Developing and Deploying A Space-Based Wind Lidar,” GWU, NOAA Contract 43AANW400233, March 1995
3. Cordes, J. J., Memorandum to W. Baker, “Projected Benefits in Military Fuel Savings from Lidar,” June, 1998
4. Kakar, R., et al, “An Advanced Earth Science Mission Concept Study for GLOBAL WIND OBSERVING SOUNDER,” NASA HQ, December 2006.
5. Air Transport Association, Jan thru Nov 2006, average airline paid price and consumption: http://www.airlines.org/economics/energy/MonthlyJetFuel.htm
6. http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309087155/html/9.html reference to Zeiger and Smith, 1998
7. http://www.oilendgame.com/pdfs/MediaKit/MediaWtOEg_MilFacts.pdf8. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html9. WeatherZine No. 18, October 1999,
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/archives/1-29/txt/zine18.txt10.UCAR Quarterly, Spring 1999,
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring99/USWRP.html11. H. Willoughby, E. Rappaport, F. Marks, “Hurricane forecasting, the state of the art,”
Hurricane Socioeconomic Working Group, Feb 16-18, 2005, http://www.sip.ucar.edu/pdf/01_Hurricane_Forecasting_the_State_of theArt.1.pdf
33ControlNumber
References
12. T. Considine et al, “The value of hurricane forecasts to oil and gas producers in the Gulf of Mexico”, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 43, 1270-1281. http://www.isse.ucar.edu/HP_rick/energy.html
13. “The Economic Value of Current and Improved Weather Forecasts to U.S. Households”, NOAA Magazine, 2003 http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag99.htm
14. J. Lazo, NCAR, “What are Weather Forecasts Worth?” CANSEE, October 28, 2005 15. Williamson, Hertzfeld, Cordes, “The Socio-Economic Value of Improved Weather and
Climate Information”, GWU, 2002 http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/Socio-EconomicBenefitsFinalREPORT2.pdf
16. “Methodologies for the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Meteorological Services,” http://www.wmo.ch/web/spla/R&Op-II(02)APPENDIX_D.doc
17. Weiher et al, “Valuing Weather Forecasts”, 2003 http://www.economics.noaa.gov/librarly/documents/social_science_initiative/workshop_briefing_book-ww.pdf
18. Teisberg, “Valuing Weather Forecasts: Methods, Examples, Next Steps,” http://www.economics.noaa.gov/librarly/documents/social_science_initiative/workshop_briefing_book-ww.pdf
19.”Inventory of Estimates of Value of Weather Information and References” http://www.economics.noaa.gov/librarly/documents/social_science_initiative/workshop_briefing_book-ww.pdf
34ControlNumber
References
20. R. Chapman, “Benefit-Cost analysis for the modernization and associated restructuring of the National Weather Service,” NISTIR 4867. Report to NIST, 1992
21. M. Babcock, USAF, memoranda to K. Miller, January 2007 22. R. Pielke and Landsea, “Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States:1925-
1995,” Weather and Forecasting, 13:621-631 http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/USdmg/
35ControlNumber
Backup Charts
36ControlNumber
Weather in Economic Decision Making 2
Simple Decision ModelP = Probability of adverse weather eventL = Loss from adverse weather eventS = Savings by preventive action (given adverse
event)C = Cost of actionCost = 0 if no adverse event
Then:Expected loss without action = PLExpected loss with action = P(L-S) + C
If PS > C, it is rational to act
37ControlNumber
Better Forecasts MakeBetter Decisions
P is the weather forecast (neglecting the complexities) If less uncertainty in P
– People use it more– Better economic decisions
Evacuation decisions will be conservative since loss of life is a factor