Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Looking at Energy From the Wrong Perspective

By Stephen Lacey
January 6, 2010 | 17 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

Our collective perspective on energy is terribly skewed. And sometimes it's just downright bizarre. It seems like every day I come across something that makes me realize how upside down we are when it comes to thinking about energy.

Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the coal ash spill in Tennessee, which poured one billion gallons (yes, billion) of toxic sludge into the surrounding area. Local residents have been forced to leave their homes because of high levels of arsenic, lead and mercury. Farmers can't let their cattle graze. And fisherman have nothing to catch anymore. The clean-up effort could cost anywhere between $800 million and $1.2 billion. Of course, they didn't factor that cost into the development of the coal-fired power plant.

So who's going to pick up that bill? Ratepayers and taxpayers, that's who. They'll also have to pick up the bill at the hospital. Oh, and don't forget the farmer who will have to re-build his farming operation, the local campground owner who will have to find another business to get into and all the displaced families that need to find new homes.

When the hidden costs of burning dirty energies become so brutally clear, it should make us realize how much less costly renewables are. Yet somehow, clean energies are constantly pegged as too expensive.

Anyone familiar with the conversation around energy knows about the negative externalities (i.e. environmental, social and health costs) that are not properly valued in the price of fossil energies. Full-cost accounting is central to the argument in favor of renewables.

This anniversary of this incident would have been a perfect opportunity for journalists and pundits to broaden the discussion and compare the full cost of renewable energies with fossil energies. Unfortunately, only a few energy and environmental advocacy blogs picked up on the theme and the newspapers and television talk shows focused exclusively on the immediate environmental disaster. Not much more.

Meanwhile, because of our inability to connect the dots, the average citizen still sees renewables as more expensive. That's what we tell them, despite evidence to the contrary, so that's what they will continue to believe.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

17 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 17

January 6, 2010

Thanks for reminding us of the big picture Stephen. This is a perfect example of why we need to get all the potential solar power from the southwest shipped to the entire country. I vote we build that 700kv SuperTransmissionHighway folks were talking about at SPI.

Comment
2 of 17

SolarFred

January 6, 2010

You speak the truth, my friend. Solar marketing and PR departments need to ramp up their comparisons of solar and coal. If 50 solar companies today issued a press release about the economic impact of the coal ash disaster this week and next, the main stream media would pick up the story again. Their reports would start, "Two weeks ago marked the anniversary of the coal ash disaster..." And then they would go into its costs and compare it to the non-existent solar farm clean up costs. And they would interview the solar companies that issued some of those press releases.

If we're to change public policy and public perception of "cheap" coal, solar companies need to be leading the PR campaign, not following environmental groups. It's good for their own businesses, as well as the world.

Thanks for the wake-up message, Stephen!

Comment
3 of 17

william-fitch-22587

January 6, 2010

Hi Stephan:

Look at the cost of Chernobyl... dollars and human...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/02/cuba-chernobyl-health-children
Just one link...
As I just noted in another post, think of what would be the current state of affairs in PA if the Hydrogen bubble had ignited at TMI...
I think they should turn the Washington mall area into the permanent Nuclear storage facility for the USA. It would be a wonderful display of modern technology, safety and represent the support our collective representatives show for the new Nuclear resurgence about to be sprung on the unknowing USA population.
Nice article....

.....Bill

Comment
4 of 17

StephenLacey

January 7, 2010

Bill -- another great example. There are so many to look at throughout history. It's remarkable that we're still having this conversation, in my opinion.

Thanks for the link!

Solar Fred -- this is definitely a needed PR angle....Big time. I wish I had seen at least one press release exploring this angle. Alas, not a thing.

Comment
5 of 17

Joel_Fairstein

January 8, 2010

I grew up in Oak Ridge, not far from the site of the coal ash spill. Although the spill was a singular event with implications for renewables, coal's hard legacy goes well beyond it in both history and geography. The Cumberland mountains behind Oak Ridge were scarred for decades from strip mining. Now entire mountaintops are removed while mining waste pollutes nearby streams.

This is the ongoing cost of coal extraction, not to mention its impact on air quality. The coal ash spill is just the tip of the iceberg.

Comment
6 of 17

william-fitch-22587

January 8, 2010

Hi JF:

Thanks for pulling back the curtain a bit more...

.....Bill

Comment
7 of 17

ronald-corso-50476

January 8, 2010

Yes, and if this Country had used net energy and present value analyses correctly a long time ago and the State PUC's were interested in the long-term value of energy, we would have built more renewables from the start

Comment
8 of 17

Don

January 8, 2010

Hi Stephen,
I just received notice of this discussion, while watching "Coal Country" on the Planet Green cable channel. How's that for timing? That show pretty much says it all. Clearly burning fossil fuels has it's impact but coal is horrific on so many levels.

The part of all of this that is most incredible, are the arguments that we have no choice but to burn coal because it is the most abundant US energy source, and that the southern states economy depends on it. We are faced with all sorts of choices in life, and one that harms others on any level, is the wrong one. Mountain-topping, and all the byproducts of mining and burning coal are criminal in my book. When all that waste finds it's way to the water table, and I understand this is already starting, West VA and other coal producers will be a permanently unusable wasteland. How can anyone justify this?

Comment
9 of 17

claver

January 8, 2010

I develop alternative energy projects (wind, solar, and biomass). From a 'best of all worlds" perspective, I agree with your comments. However, the ability to make a serious dent in fossil fuel use will take two decades. "Bridge" fuels such as natural gas and nuclear will have to be prominent as the global economy grows. Global growth will be focused on the "BRIC" countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). These countries will account for 70% of the increase in industrial energy use and that will predominately be fossil fuel based. Coal and natural gas will account for two-thirds of the world's electric generation needs through 2030. Renewable energy (mostly wind and solar) will make up about 12% of global supplies by 2020.
When I speak to folks about renewable energy, I always provide them with a dose of realism - If you are one of the 1.5 billion people without electricity or the nearly five billion folks living in the developing world, what would you choose, 3 to 5 cent conventionally generated electricity or 13 to 14 cent generation from renewable sources? There will be a 50% increase in global energy demand over the next two decades, unfortunately, the lion's share of that increase will be nuclear and fossil fuel based.

Carl

Comment
10 of 17

william-fitch-22587

January 8, 2010

Hi Carl:

You are absolutely right. Until things get really bad, not just for the masses but for the ones holding the strings, money will not take a back seat. Choices will be made based on it, as opposed to the well being of all. "Survival" in its diverse context must be threatened at the top. This is not radical thinking or expression. It is simply an historical fact, sadly... Mans long term genetic vision, was simply left to shallow in the mix...

.....Bill

Comment
11 of 17

Don

January 8, 2010

I'm not so sure that nuclear CAN help with this equation as between permitting, not in my backyard legal battles and construction, it takes too long to build one. I've heard 10-year estimates for that process, how can that help? What percentage of our increased energy production over the past 20 years is due to new nuclear startups in the US? Ok, same question for coal-fired plants? I'm not especially fond of nuclear either but it would appear to be the lesser evil, IF we could actually build some plants.

In my book, renewables and even more-so, conservation, could provide the most immediate and environmentally benign benefit.

Comment
12 of 17

tim-gard-25916

January 8, 2010

Stephen,
Its frustrating as someone on the outside to see the ignorence displayed here. And yet, renewables are treated as a PIA by those who profit from the challenged energy sources like coal, oil and nuclear. We have paid bills like this for the last 100 years with tax dollars, and no one seems to notice when "real" cost is considered. Its time to reset our country and throw out all the previous politicians. They are all bought and paid for with private money. Makes me mad. Keep up the fight man.
Tim Gard

Comment
13 of 17

edward-wilhelm-75955

January 8, 2010

Thanks for doing this article. The people need to know the truth and consequences. I personally will not support in any way the coal or nuclear industry. I want my energy source to be clean and renewable , and I do my own homework and research. Those who depend on the media will believe the lies and half truths.I love REW.

Comment
14 of 17

gary-mccallum-153526

January 8, 2010

The disaster that occoured in Tenessee I think will pale in comparission to the impending disaster to come in the great white north. The northern oil sands project which requires 1 barrel of oil and 4 barrels of water to produce 2 barrels of oil has some of its toxic tailings ponds mere meters away from the Athabaska River which drains into Athabaska Lake which drains into the Slave River on to the Great Slave Lake then into the Mackenzie river on it's 2,000 mile journey to the Arctic Ocean.
We cannot expect any intelligent sesolve in this dillema in the near future as our Prime Minister (that person hiding in Copenhagen) has both his head and financial resources stuck in the oil sand.
Oh Canada
Our home the natives land
What has become of you?

Comment
15 of 17

todd-cory-154245

January 10, 2010

The bottom line is very, very few people are willing to change their behavior. No one wants to consider the long term implications to their behavior. We are like little kids that want to just continue to party. The reality is that our empire is in decline and the future holds a much smaller resource pie for far fewer people. Greenwashing will only make things worse.

Comment
16 of 17

douglas-johnson-173755

January 12, 2010

Hello from NE Wisconsin:

Your article was one which had us remember an event with a physical dilemma. Every state that has a coal burning plant is emitting emissions of gasses and toxic metals to fall whereever. In 2005, Wisconsins' coal burning utility plants had released 2100 pounds of mercury from the combination of all the millions of pounds of coal that were burned that year. Notice that I said only that year. And, what about all the other states that also burn coal?

We used to talk about acid rain and how it affected lakes; but, we don't hear that anymore. For that matter, we don't hear about all the other side affects either. Why is this so?

Doug Johnson

Comment
17 of 17

StephenLacey

January 13, 2010

Doug -- I saw an EPA report recently that said we had reduced SOX and NOX emissions 50% in the last 20 years. That has greatly reduced the acid rain problem in the U.S.

As for Mercury -- well, I've heard from people that background mercury levels might actually be worse for the planet than CO2 and other GHG emissions! I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly scary....

Anyway, I wish I knew why we don't talk about this stuff as much as we should. I guess the extreme pundits like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman aren't looking out for Americans like they say they are....

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Stephen Lacey

Add to my network

About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »