Hidden Costs of Energy
Posted by Sidney Draggan on October 20th, 2009
The National Academies’ National Research Council has released a report (Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use) that:
“. . . examines and, when possible, estimates “hidden” costs of energy production and use — such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health — that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these costs. The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.
Requested by Congress, the report assesses what economists call external effects caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle — for example, not only the pollution generated when gasoline is used to run a car but also the pollution created by extracting and refining oil and transporting fuel to gas stations. Because these effects are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers may not realize the full impact of their choices. When such market failures occur, a case can be made for government interventions — such as regulations, taxes or tradable permits — to address these external costs, the report says.
The committee that wrote the report focused on monetizing the damage of major air pollutants — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter – on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation. When possible, it estimated both what the damages were in 2005 (the latest year for which data were available) and what they are likely to be in 2030, assuming current policies continue and new policies already slated for implementation are put in place.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change; the wide range of possibilities for these damages made it impossible to develop precise estimates of cost. However, all model results available to the committee indicate that climate-related damages caused by each ton of CO2 emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now; even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.”
Hidden Costs, Fatal Flaws
There is a huge and, I believe fatal flaw, in the report. Although the
report does evaluate (”monetize”) all costs (cradle to grave) for
transportation, it does not do so for electric generation.
The title, the press release, and the tone of the introductory parts
promise a complete look, but it never happens. There is some language
that sort of acknowledges this failing but no rationale for leaving out
the “feedstock”, transportation, and disposal costs for coal v nat gas
for electricity.
The data is sort of there in the section on transportation, and one can
“data mine” that section and roughly determine the total cost for nat
gas. So, they had the data and didn’t report it. They choose to just
make the point that coal burns dirtier than natural gas.
As you know there are large concerns with the hidden costs of producing
and transporting natural gas. The effects on water (cf the huge issues
being raised in NYS/NYC about drilling in the NYC watershed and in other
parts of the state) are large. Also, one look at the air quality issues
coming from DISH TX makes the point about GHG and human health hazards
and costs.
It would be wonderful if you could revisit your review and address the
huge failing of not making the critical and promised comparison. The
issue goes directly to the national concern and debate about “clean”
energy. Also, the Sierra Club is, I am told, now having a vigorous
internal discussion about the appropriateness of supporting natural gas
as a bridge fuel. “Hidden Costs” would go a very long way toward
grounding the debate, and clarifying things for policy makers - if it
was complete.
As a scientist, I know that the report, coming from the very prestigeous
National Academy/National Research Council on the request of Congress,
will be taken very seriously at the highest policy levels. I fear that
our leaders will reach a incomplete decision if they believe that
“Hidden” is the final answer to the “bridge and GHG/global warming work
that they are so deeply and importantly engaged in.
We have had 8 years of junk science informing policy. I hope that this
report does not represent more of the same - possibly in a good cause,
but bad science nevertheless.
Stanley R Scobie, Binghamton, NY
# November 2nd, 2009 11:24 pmSays:
Thank you, Mr. Scobie, for your insightful comments on this National Research Council report. The comments should elicit further analysis and comment among readers of this Forum.
# November 4th, 2009 7:08 amGreat information! One of my Professors was discussing this in one of his classes the other day. I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. By the way, i came across these excellentphysics flashcards. Its also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!!
# November 27th, 2009 9:52 am