The toll air pollution exacts on human health and other “hidden” costs of energy production and use are profiled in a new report by the National Research Council. The cost of the nation’s appetite for energy is not reflected in market prices for coal, oil, and other sources - or the electricity and gasoline that are produced from them. Released on October 19, the report estimates dollar values for these hidden costs.
The report, sponsored by the U.S. Treasury Department, focuses on monetizing damages caused by major air pollutants - including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter - on human health, grain crops, timber yields, buildings, and recreation.
The NRC estimated those costs at $120 billion in 2005 - the most recent year for which data is available. The number primarily reflects health damages from air pollution associated with the generation of electricity and motor vehicle transportation.
The NRC did not estimate the hidden costs associated with damages resulting from climate change, such as harm to ecosystems, the effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security.
Among key findings:
- In 2005, the total external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants (which produce 95 percent of the nation’s coal-generated electricity) were about $62 billion. About 10 percent of the 406 coal plants accounted for 43 percent of the damages.
- Motor vehicles generated $56 billion in health and other non-climate related damages in 2005.
- Non-climate related damages for corn grain ethanol were similar or slightly worse than for gasoline, because of the energy needed to produce the corn and convert it to fuel.
- Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles dependent on the grid showed somewhat higher non-climate damages than many other technologies. Those vehicles in use produce few or no emissions, but the electricity that powers them, if it’s generated on the grid, relies heavily on fossil fuels.
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 outthe “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
— Stan Scobie