The energy-climate-health nexus in energy planning: A case study in Brazil

Global greenhouse gas emissions from energy production were approximately 40% higher in 2017 than in 2000 (International Energy Agency, 2018), and ambient particulate matter – one of the byproducts from fossil fuel combustion of most concern for public health – is now the fifth largest contributor to global disease (Cohen et al., 2017). Achieving the climate targets of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals requires better accounting for climate and health costs in energy planning. This paper quantifies trade-offs between selected energy infrastructure, climate, and health costs when meeting future electricity demand by increasing the share of renewable energy, with a focus on variable renewable energy (VRE; here: wind and solar photovoltaic power). Using a spatially and temporally resolved approach, we analyzed three scenarios for year 2030 for Northeast Brazil, characterized by 30%, 45%, and 70% of VRE (the latter corresponds to 100% renewable energy). We find that accounting for the health impacts from electricity generation is sufficient to economically justify deep decarbonization of Northeast Brazil's power sector. Full decarbonization is economically justified when the carbon price exceeds $20/tonne CO2, which is less than Brazil's country-level social cost of carbon and only 4.8% of the global social cost of carbon. Our study shows that regional climate and health costs from electricity generation alone can be greater than the additional infrastructure costs of decarbonization. Our results highlight how systematically accounting for health and climate costs in energy planning would economically justify the decarbonization of energy systems.