A new report from the National Research Council on the “hidden costs of energy” is, frankly, stunning. In a sane world, it would be headline news.
Producing and using energy imposes all sorts of costs on public health, crop yields, ecosystems, recreation, educational performance ... the list goes on. Many of these costs don’t end up reflected in the market price of energy; consumers don’t see them or factor them into purchasing decisions. They are hidden, paid indirectly through, for example, health-care spending or environmental-remediation costs. Such costs are external to energy markets—externalities, as economists call them—and they represent an enormous subsidy to the dirtiest sources of energy.
I’m always left somewhat dissatisfied by discussions about externalities. People seem to imagine them as external in some sort of metaphysical way, as though the costs inhabit an immaterial and weightless ether. (“Social” costs, they’re sometimes called.) But costs are costs. Someone pays them, with real money. They dampen economic productivity, like driving with one foot pressing the brake.
In 2005, Congress set about finding out just what these external costs of energy production and use amount to. It requested that the National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) attempt to place a number on them. On Monday, the NRC released its report: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use.”
First, note that the report did not attempt to quantify the damage to ecosystems and agriculture wrought by climate change. It did not attempt to quantify the national security costs of securing energy supplies. It did not attempt to quantify the land-use costs of biofuels. It didn’t attempt to quantify the costs of mercury pollution, which as Bill Chameides documents, are substantial. It didn’t attempt to quantify the impact on taxpayers that subsidies to the coal industry impose.
So a huge chunk of costs were written out, meaning the results are extremely small-c conservative. Nonetheless, the NRC found that hidden costs amounted to $120 billion in 2005.
Of that $120 billion, a whopping $62 billion—over half—came from one source: coal-fired electricity plants. And that’s only a partial accounting, as Ken Ward Jr. reports:
Maureen L. Cropper, a panel member and professor of economics at the University of Maryland, noted that the study also did not examine “upstream” costs of coal-fired power—such as damage from mountaintop removal mining— or “harm to ecosystems” from other impacts, such as disposal of toxic power plant ash.
If MTR mining, ash disposal, mercury emissions, market-distorting subsidies, and climate damage were taken into account, how much farther do you think coal’s costs would rise, in both absolute and relative terms?
Remember this report the next time you hear that “coal is cheap.”
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
The hidden costs and benefits of things we take for granted
Comments
View as Flat
neosapiens Posted 1:08 pm
20 Oct 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:19 pm
20 Oct 2009
"..Nonclimate-related damages for corn grain ethanol were similar to or slightly worse than gasoline, because of the energy needed to produce the corn and convert it to fuel.."
And thanks to coal:
"..Electric vehicles and grid-dependent (plug-in) hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher nonclimate damages than many other technologies.."
The key is getting rid of coal. We no longer cook or heat with it. Time to stop making electricity with it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:53 am
21 Oct 2009
That's the real cost of continuing down the dead end path we are on. Exporting renewable energy jobs and manufacturing to China and other nations. Living with an economy at the mercy of oil producing nations and corporations and manipulated world oil markets and storms along the Gulf coast that threaten oil refineries.
Those are costs that voters can see all around them. Why is Detroit dying? The US auto industry refuses to shift to electric transportation, instead going in exactly the opposite direction, bigger more powerful gas guzzlers.
The same reason the rest of industrial america is dying. A refusal to compete on the global financial stage. Corporate america wants to continue to pursue that next quarterly earnings report, rather than long term financial security.
This is the huge invisible elephant in the room. The huge external cost due to reliance on coal and oil and nuclear power. Measure the time lost in the global competition for green manufacturing since the death of the electric car or since the appointment of the bushwacker.
Or back to the BJ that made Clinton an early lame duck, just when he had the leverage to act. Or way back to the Reagan win. Just when high oil prices could have impelled a switch to renewable energy.
What has been the cost of the Reagan revolution in terms of US leadership in technology and manufacturing and economic growth? What is the cost in terms of family economics? Before Reagan one worker could support a family, now 2 or more workers can't support a family. Nearly every family is one lost job or health emergency away from losing their home.
That's a real cost that is easy to measure and point out to voters.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:52 am
21 Oct 2009
Permalink
PompeyRoad Posted 7:56 am
24 Oct 2009
Permalink