4 ms·

"Accounting for the damages [of unpriced externalities] conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated" http://onlineli

"Accounting for the damages [of unpriced externalities] conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010....

hyperbovine 12y ago
And voilá, wind and solar suddenly beat coal.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Not yet, because wind and solar are currently able to generate only a tiny fraction of the energy we get from coal.
rustyconover 12y ago
All of our lungs should breathe a collective sigh of relief for not having to deal with so many particulates from coal burning after these rules go into force. Not to mention saving our water from pollution of coal ash. It will be pleasant to have less of these types of plants in operation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need to have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers running.
- smsm42 12y ago
  Is there any data that our lungs are seriously hurt by these particulates right now? >>> And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need to have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers running. We will have to get the energy from somewhere. The only viable alternative on that scale that I can see is nuclear energy, but given current panic mood about it, does not seem very likely. If not, are we ready to seriously cut energy consumption and accept the accompanying life standards drop? I don't think so.
  - aaronblohowiak 12y ago
    Natural gas burns cleaner than coal in almost every respect. Sadly, long-term effects of chemicals used to extract natural gas from shale are unknown.
  - rustyconover 12y ago
    Actually yes there is data. A cursory reading of the literature would suggest that American Lung Association, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, and Physicians for Social Responsibility all concurred that coal burning does impact our respiratory system. See: http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-r... And: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere. If not smoking, what else will people do to get their fix. Are we really ready to give up our nicotine habit? A lot of people did give up smoking once they figured out it was killing them. If people realize the same thing about coal, I suspect there will be a much faster and stricter set of regulations coming into force. As for the problem of where to get energy, natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. Of course if that gas is delivered via fracking there are a whole lot of other problems with ground water pollution. So the energy mix needs to change and it needs to be found in a less impactful fashion.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      >>> Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere No it does not. Human organism has ways of producing substances that work with the same receptors that respond to nicotine. Thus, there is no biological need to introduce nicotine to the organism. More correct analogy would be vitamines, proteins, minerals and other substances that we commonly call "food". If you want to give up food, it would be reasonable to ask, how you replace energetic and nutritional needs of the organism? Modern economy has energetic needs which need to be satisfied if you want to have modern economy. Either you go back to pre-industrial economy and subsistence on the constant brink of starvation, or you produce a lot of energy. There's no other way. The question is how you are going to produce it. >>> natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. As carbon emissions are the problem being discussed, and burning gas produces carbon emissions, naturally I did not consider it as a true alternative with respect to producing energy while reducing carbon emissions.
throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
Full source of that: http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/Full%20Cost%20of%20Coal.pdf http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/Full%20Co... Interestingly, most of the external costs they estimate aren't CO2 emissions. Table 4 on page 92. In the "median" case, it's 9.3 c/kWh air pollutants, 4.4 c/kWh public health burden from Appalachian mining, and then 3.1 c/kWh from climate effects. In the "high" case climate goes up to 10.2 c/kWh, still less than half of the 26.9 c/kWh total.
cmsmith 12y ago
This is a good point, and illustrates (1) the magnitude of what we are stealing from future generations and (2) that it would be economically disastrous to try to make that difference up overnight via a 200% carbon tax. However, there is no need to make up the difference overnight, or really even to make up the entire difference. If coal power costs $0.1/kWh, and solar/wind/whatever costs $0.15/kWh, then you would only need a $0.05/kWh equivalent carbon tax to shift investment in research and infrastructure. Or really even just the promise of such a tax in five years. And it is fine for the tax to gradually approach $0.2/kWh equivalent, because by that point the only applications using coal would be specialized and could afford it without wrecking the economy.

hyperbovine 12y ago

And voilá, wind and solar suddenly beat coal.

ams6110 12y ago
Not yet, because wind and solar are currently able to generate only a tiny fraction of the energy we get from coal.

rustyconover 12y ago

All of our lungs should breathe a collective sigh of relief for not having to deal with so many particulates from coal burning after these rules go into force. Not to mention saving our water from pollution of coal ash. It will be pleasant to have less of these types of plants in operation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need to have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers running.

smsm42 12y ago
Is there any data that our lungs are seriously hurt by these particulates right now? >>> And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need to have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers running. We will have to get the energy from somewhere. The only viable alternative on that scale that I can see is nuclear energy, but given current panic mood about it, does not seem very likely. If not, are we ready to seriously cut energy consumption and accept the accompanying life standards drop? I don't think so.
- aaronblohowiak 12y ago
  Natural gas burns cleaner than coal in almost every respect. Sadly, long-term effects of chemicals used to extract natural gas from shale are unknown.
- rustyconover 12y ago
  Actually yes there is data. A cursory reading of the literature would suggest that American Lung Association, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, and Physicians for Social Responsibility all concurred that coal burning does impact our respiratory system. See: http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-r... And: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere. If not smoking, what else will people do to get their fix. Are we really ready to give up our nicotine habit? A lot of people did give up smoking once they figured out it was killing them. If people realize the same thing about coal, I suspect there will be a much faster and stricter set of regulations coming into force. As for the problem of where to get energy, natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. Of course if that gas is delivered via fracking there are a whole lot of other problems with ground water pollution. So the energy mix needs to change and it needs to be found in a less impactful fashion.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    >>> Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere No it does not. Human organism has ways of producing substances that work with the same receptors that respond to nicotine. Thus, there is no biological need to introduce nicotine to the organism. More correct analogy would be vitamines, proteins, minerals and other substances that we commonly call "food". If you want to give up food, it would be reasonable to ask, how you replace energetic and nutritional needs of the organism? Modern economy has energetic needs which need to be satisfied if you want to have modern economy. Either you go back to pre-industrial economy and subsistence on the constant brink of starvation, or you produce a lot of energy. There's no other way. The question is how you are going to produce it. >>> natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. As carbon emissions are the problem being discussed, and burning gas produces carbon emissions, naturally I did not consider it as a true alternative with respect to producing energy while reducing carbon emissions.

throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago

Full source of that: http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/Full%20Cost%20of%20Coal.pdf http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/Full%20Co... Interestingly, most of the external costs they estimate aren't CO2 emissions. Table 4 on page 92. In the "median" case, it's 9.3 c/kWh air pollutants, 4.4 c/kWh public health burden from Appalachian mining, and then 3.1 c/kWh from climate effects. In the "high" case climate goes up to 10.2 c/kWh, still less than half of the 26.9 c/kWh total.

cmsmith 12y ago

This is a good point, and illustrates (1) the magnitude of what we are stealing from future generations and (2) that it would be economically disastrous to try to make that difference up overnight via a 200% carbon tax. However, there is no need to make up the difference overnight, or really even to make up the entire difference. If coal power costs $0.1/kWh, and solar/wind/whatever costs $0.15/kWh, then you would only need a $0.05/kWh equivalent carbon tax to shift investment in research and infrastructure. Or really even just the promise of such a tax in five years. And it is fine for the tax to gradually approach $0.2/kWh equivalent, because by that point the only applications using coal would be specialized and could afford it without wrecking the economy.