Winning the Hardware Software Game Winning the Hardware-Software Game - 2nd Edition

Using Game Theory to Optimize the Pace of New Technology Adoption
  • How do you encourage speedier adoption of your product or service?
  • How do you increase the value your product or service creates for your customers?
  • How do you extract more of the value created by your product or service for yourself?

Read more...

Latest Comments

  • Ron Giuntini said More
    As always a good read.
    I have always... Thursday, 25 January 2018

Emissions Calculation Example

Emissions Reduction Example

 

A recent article in the NYT, “California Panel Considers Money From Climate Rules” by Jesse McKinley, describes different tactics for California’s implementation of a cap and trade system:

Offering an early glimpse of how California might manage a central element of its ambitious greenhouse-gas law, a state committee has recommended that residents receive cash or tax breaks resulting from auctions of emission allowances to industries and other polluters.

Under the proposal, described by the committee as a “household friendly” approach, Californians would receive 75 percent of the proceeds from emissions auctions, either in tax decreases or checks sent directly to residents…

In cap-and-trade systems, individual polluters are given allowances to pollute to a certain level, with the total number of permissible emissions slowly reduced year by year.

In some cases, the allowances have been offered to polluters without charge to soften the economic impact or to win the confidence of businesses, which will bear higher costs to reduce emissions and which can sell unused allowances. The cap-and-trade legislation passed by the United States House last summer had some free allowances, as does much of the legislation being considered in the Senate…

A couple of different proposals have been floating around for allocating rights-to-pollute, including:

  • Give all permits to polluters;
  • Give some permits to polluters and auction the remaining permits to polluters;
  • Auction all permits to polluters and have government keep the proceeds; or
  • Auction all permits to polluters, but return some of the proceeds to the public.

In order to get a better idea of how cap and trade works and who ends up getting what under the various proposals, I came up with a simple example.

 

Emissions Calculation Example

Suppose there are three different utilities, each of which supplies electricity to 1,000,000 people, or roughly 400,000 households (HH) (see column [C] in Figure 1). Suppose Utility 1 uses coal to generate its electricity, Utility 2 uses half coal and half natural gas to generate its electricity, and Utility 3 uses half natural gas and half nuclear and/or renewable resources to generate electricity (see columns [A] and [B] in Figure 1).

The average HH uses roughly 9,000 kWh per year in electricity (see column [D] in Figure 1). This means each of the utilities generates 3.6 million MWh per year for its residential customers (column [E] in Figure 1 = column [C] x column [D]).

According to the EPA, combustion of coal generates, and combustion of natural gas generates 0.17060 metric tons (MT) of CO2 per kWh of natural gas (see column [F] in Figure 1). Generation of electricity from nuclear sources emits no CO2, and I assume generation of electricity from renewable resources emits insignificant (i.e., no) amounts of CO2.

(1 metric ton = 1,000 kg = 2,205 pounds; 1 US ton = 2,000 pounds; so 1 metric ton = 1.10 US tons)

So now we have the total emissions per year for each of the utilities associated with supplying residential customers with electricity (HH = households, M = million, MT = metric tons):

 

fig_1

 

Emissions Reduction Example

How do utilities go about reducing the amount of emissions associated with a given amount of power they generate?  (Of course, utilities can always buy power on the open market, instead of generating it themselves, and sell the purchased power to their customers.  However, purchasing power from other entities simply shifts the emissions burden to neighbors.)  To reduce emissions, fossil fuel plants (coal, gas, oil) can buy cleaner fuel (or clean their own); they can install scrubbers on their generators to filter out emissions; they can install carbon capture technology on their generators, capture the CO2, then store the captured CO2 under the ocean or underground; or they can install generators that produce power from cleaner sources (gas, solar, wind, nuclear, etc.).  However, expanding into new sources of resource generation also requires utilities to install infrastructure that will enable them to link the new generators into their transmission system.

Reductions in CO2 emissions generally require producers with only coal plants to install whole new technologies, whereas producers with generators utilizing cleaner inputs can often reduce total emissions by decreasing production from generators using dirtier inputs and increasing production from generators using cleaner inputs.  In these cases, it is generally most expensive for coal utilities to reduce emissions, less expensive for coal & gas utilities to reduce emissions, and least expensive for gas and renewable resources utilities to reduce emissions.  At the same time, it’s also more expensive to reduce emissions by a little than by a lot.  These two sets of concepts

  1. Reduction in emissions from coal generators is more expensive than reduction in emissions from gas generators, which is more expensive than reduction in emissions from renewable resources generators, and
  2. The cost per unit of reduction in emissions is larger, the greater is the amount of reduction,

are illustrated in Figure 2:

fig_2

In the example illustrated in Figure 2, if each of the utilities were required to reduce emissions by 100,000 metric tons (a combined 13% reduction in total emissions), it would cost the coal utility $2M to implement the procedures that will achieve its reduction of 100,000 MT; it would cost the coal and gas utility $1.25M to achieve its reduction of 100,000 MT, and it would cost the gas and renewables utility $0.5M to achieve its reduction of 100,000 MT.  In aggregate, then, it would cost the utilities a total of $3.75M to reduce emissions by 300,000 MT.

Now, instead of requiring each of the three utilities to reduce emissions by 100,000 MT, suppose that the requirement is that the 3 utilities combined must reduce their total emissions by 300,000 MT.  The costs for each of the utilities of reducing emissions by different amounts derived from Figure 2 above are displayed in Figure 3 below:

fig_3

In the set of numbers highlighted with orange text in Figure 3 we see the same information as that from Figure 2, that if each of the utilities were to reduce emissions by 100,000 MT, for a combined reduction of 300,000 MT, it would cost Utility 1 $2M, Utility 2 $1.25M, and Utility 3 $0.5M, for a combined cost of $3.75M.

Alternatively, as seen in the numbers highlighted with a yellow background in Figure 3, we see that the 3 utilities combined could also achieve a total reduction of 300,000 units by having

  • Utility 1 reduce emissions by 50,000 MT at a cost of $0.5M,
  • Utility 2 reduce emissions by 100,000 MT at a cost of $1.25M, and
  • Utility 3 reduce emissions by 150,000 MT at a cost of $1.125M,

for a total cost of $2.875M.  Under this scenario, as compared with original scenario of 100,000 unit reductions by each, Utility 1 would save $1.5M by paying $0.5M in retooling costs to reduce emissions by 50,000 tons, rather than by paying $2M for retooling to reduce emissions by 100,000 tons. At the same time, Utility 3 would pay an extra $0.625M: $1.125M in costs to reduce emissions by 150,000 tons, instead of paying $0.5M to reduce emissions by 100,000 tons.  Utility 1 and Utility 3 could then negotiate a payment from the former to the latter for the 50,000 MT of emissions, somewhere between Utility 3’s cost of $0.625M ($12.50 per ton) and Utility 1’s savings of $1.5M ($30 per ton).  In this way, the total emissions reduction would be the same as that in the original scenario, but the total costs of achieving the reduction would be reduced.

This is how cap and trade works: total allowable emissions are capped (requiring a reduction of 300,000 MT in the example provided), and polluters trade the rights to pollute with each other.  As compared with the scenario in which each polluter is forced to reduce emissions by a certain amount (as seen in columns [E], [F], and [G] in Figure 4), cap and trade ends up with the polluters for whom reductions in pollution are most expensive continuing to pollute more, while buying rights to pollute from polluters who have reduced their own emissions more at lower costs.

Continuing on with the example, let’s say Utility 1 and Utility 3 settle on a price of $20 per ton for the 50,000 MT at issue.  In this case, the utilities total costs of supplying power to their residential customers would increase by (see columns [H], [I], and [J] in Figure 4):

  • Utility 1: $0.5M + $20 x 50,000 =    $1.500M, or $3.75 per HH
  • Utility 2:                                            $1.250M, or $3.13 per HH
  • Utility 3: $1.125M - $20 x 50,000 = $0.125M, or $0.31 per HH

In other words, total cost per HH of supplying electricity will increase more for the utilities for whom it is more expensive to reduce emissions; and these also tend to be the utilities that start out with largest amounts of emissions.  That is, Figure 4 shows that Utility 1 started out with the most emissions, 1.11 million metric tons, vs. 0.86 million metric tons for Utility 2 and 0.31 million metric tons for Utility 3 (column [D]), while Utility 1 also ended up reducing emissions the least, by 50,000 metric tons, vs. 100,000 ton reduction by Utility 2 and 150,000 tons reduction by Utility 3 (column [H]).

fig_4

Continue on to Part 2.

Continue on to Part 3.

More Blogs

The US Healthcare System Is Massively Complex and Massively Interconnected 

31-10-2018 - Hits:2083 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Consider how the different groups of players in the healthcare system are connected to one another: Healthcare Industry Trends Trends in society and in the healthcare industry over time have led to  Increases in medical information  Increases in numbers and specialties of service providers Increases in numbers of available medical devices and pharmaceuticals Increases in malpractice...

Read more

Playing the Marijuana Market Transition Game

26-09-2018 - Hits:2183 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Download PDF Timeline of US Marijuana Laws California Is Different from Other Legalized States Description and Implications of CA Legislation Marijuana Supply Chain Regulations and Realities Players of the CA Market Transition Game CA Market Evolution to Date Future Market Evolution   California is currently transitioning from illegal and semi-legal markets for marijuana to legal markets. The black and...

Read more

Playing the Virtual Reality Game

29-08-2018 - Hits:2285 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Key Concepts Before we can understand the issues related to 360°, 3D, AR and VR technologies, we have to understand some key concepts. Immersion and Presence The goal of 360°, 3D, AR and VR technologies is to immerse users in an environment, so that they feel they have been “teleported” to this new...

Read more

Is Our Economy Playing the Demand Side or Supply Side Game?

10-08-2018 - Hits:871 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Which actions should government take to spur economic activity during economic recessions? Liberals tend to believe in Demand Side Economics, that is, demand drives the economy. So during recessions, government should stimulate demand through spending. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe in Supply Side Economics, that is, supply drives...

Read more

Why Don’t Projects Go As Planned?

26-06-2018 - Hits:958 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Business projects, government programs, and social activities. We make plans and projections for the activities we are going to undertake. Yet, when we actually implement the programs, all too often, the results don’t turn out as well as we had planned. Why not? I had a client, for example, that employed...

Read more

Playing the Public Roadways Game

03-05-2018 - Hits:1455 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Electric scooters (“e-scooters”) are one of the latest hot new tech toys on the scene. Several start-ups have unloaded thousands of rentable e-scooters onto the streets of major cities in the US. The scooters offer users a cheap and convenient way to travel short distances across town. These scooters are...

Read more

Discussion of the Mapping Apps Game

07-04-2018 - Hits:1125 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Mapping apps, such as Waze and Google Maps, have created enormous value for users by helping them get to where they’re going faster. As least initially, when few people were using mapping apps, the apps were particularly helpful for individual users in rerouting them around traffic problems. However, now that...

Read more

What Makes the Most Popular TED Talks So Popular?

19-03-2018 - Hits:1314 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Suppose a friend told you that he was planning on doing a TED Talk, and he asked your advice on how to make his talk one of the most popular TED Talks out there. What would you tell him? This is exactly the type of question Data Scientists seek to answer...

Read more