This is that whole externalities thing. Harvard Med School finds that coal is dirty: "In a groundbreaking article released in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, details the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion. These costs, between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually, are directly passed on to the public." Can be read online. For those of you who are feeling too happy today, the cure is at hand: Center for Health and the Global Environment
One of those minor little details that just happens to be essential to humanity's survival. From Harvard, no less. Finally. Now if only the Medical School can convince the Business School! If the all-too-real costs of social and environmental subsidies are accounted for in prices, we may yet evolve into an intelligent species.
Indeed. This is the bit that business fails to mention when they argue that solor/wind/whatever is just too expensive. They're comparing the cost of those technologies to the price of coal.The cost of coal is rarely brought up.
The upside, though small, is that the education level is increasing rapidly. Twenty years ago, most folks did not even know the most common fuel for electricity. Now their is a lot more understanding of fly ash, mercury, acid rain, etc. and other costs related to coal. More that a few coal plant proposals have been shot down over the last few years due to this education. I know the "Glades" plant in FL was revoked. Anyone know of others?
The plan is to replace coal with nukes. Whats the cost of a nuke meltdown on the west coast? You AGW doomers ,probably think that a meltdown will never happen. Noone ever thought planes would bring down the WTC either. The CIA has a computer virus which caused Iranian centrifuges to self destruct by running uncontrollably. Any environmentalist who is pro-nuke is not an environmentalist.
Here's one: Coal-fired Mohave Generating Station to be dismantled - Breaking News - ReviewJournal.com The Navajo Generating station. The plant's smoke stacks are the 3rd highest things built in the entire state. This bad boy was shut down for the longest time ... of & on ... now & then ... near the CA & AZ borders, due to eye watering toxic haze. The EPA (under pressure from local native american tribes that get tons of revenue via coal mines on reservation property) seems to have balked, as the read below indicates that it's going to be resurected from its dead status: http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/article_d22ec62c-bb10-50fc-8a6e-57a1e92a574a.html Boy o boy . . . the lost jobs seem to have won out over the EPA. Or were the "too expensive to be practical" ... not so expensive after all? Here's the good news . . . and believe it or not ... it from the feds ! ! http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2011/February/20110209173935nirak0.9313013.html# According the the researchers, there's nothing economically stopping us from being fossil fuel free, in just 50 years. But . . . what if the "we'll loose our jobs!" crowd is too boisterous? .
I agree. This 'nukes for coal' plan is news to me. btw, if you were lumping me in with the 'doomers', that's a complete mischaracterisation. Warnings should be an impetus for healthful change. I'd far rather see sanity prevail than succumb to illusions of inevitability.
The secret weapon is economics, not grand plans. The cost of coal plants, nuclear plants, and NG plants will continues to increase. The cost of the fuel for each will continue to increase faster. Meanwhile the capital cost of wind and solar will be on a declining trend till they become the major power plant business. There fuel cost cannot decrease since it is at zero already. The lines have already crossed in some situations. 50 years from now, it's a done deal. Every time I look, the big plants have trouble getting financing, especially nuclear plants. The solar plants have trouble getting permits and necessary changes to power plant legislation. (e.g. Legal requirements to run 24/7). The present economic hit of the last two years has slowed progress down, but more so since electricity demand has gone down, meaning no plant can show much of a ROI right now. Now when the demand comes back, thing might be rather surprising. No need for a carbon tax when the basic economics are good enough already.
Not as secret as it used to be. People are becoming increasingly aware of the costs of environmental damage, and the need for them to be recognised in economic models. Along with social costs, they can no longer be ignored by labelling them 'externalities', in effect deeming them either 'not relevant' or 'not my problem'. Counting all the costs over the long term is the only valid way to evaluate alternatives, and by that accounting, coal and oil are the most expensive energy choices, not the cheapest. If there's a place for left and right to find common ground, it's economics. The more environmentalists in business school, the better.
The Kansas PUC killed two plants in KS that were being built to export energy to elsewhere. The fella who made the decision said that it would be "irresponsible to build these plants given the current scientific understanding" or something to that effect. That was, I believe, in 2008.
