Whitepaper writing services from Greenbang - click here to find out more.
 
Home | Research Store | Work With Us | Events | Insight | Press | About | Newsletter | Contact

The ‘hidden’ costs of fossil fuels? $120 billion in US alone

Published Wednesday, 21st October 2009

smokeNever mind what your electric bill or receipt at the pump says … using fossil fuels is even more expensive than you think, thanks to “hidden” costs like air pollution’s impact on human health.

Those costs amounted to about $120 billion for the US alone in 2005, according to a new report from the National Research Council (NRC). In fact, the hidden expenses is likely even greater, as that figure doesn’t include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security.

The report examined those factors but did not assign a cost to them.

Requested by the US Congress, the NRC 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 petrol 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, the report says, a case can be made for government interventions — such as regulations, taxes or tradable permits — to address these external costs.

The report’s authors sought to calculate the costs associated with 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, they 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 authors indicate that climate-related damages caused by each tonne 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 tonne would increase by 50 to 80 per cent.

The report also found that the life-cycle damages of wind power, which now produces just over 1 per cent of US electricity but has large growth potential, are small compared with those from coal and natural gas. So are the damages associated with normal operation of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors, which provide almost 20 per cent of the country’s electricity.

However, the life cycle of nuclear power does pose some risks; if uranium mining activities contaminate ground or surface water, for example, people could potentially be exposed to radon or other radionuclides; this risk is borne mostly by other nations, the report says, because the US mines only 5 per cent of the world’s uranium.

Life-cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear, wind, biomass and solar power all appear to be negligible when compared with fossil fuels, the report concluded.

Bookmark and share:
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Slashdot
  • del.icio.us
  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  1. Ian Falconer says:

    A link to the report, or even just its title would be helpful.
    Thanks

  2. Greenbang says:

    Good point, Ian. You can find a free online version here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794#toc




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.












RELATED NEWS

Latest Insight

What is the smart grid? thumbnail

What is the smart grid?

Governments, energy companies and tech firms all talk about the “smart grid” a
Clean-energy incentives: Here … then gone thumbnail

Clean-energy incentives: Here … then gone

Call it penny-wise, pound-foolish (or Euro-foolish) … although “cutting off your nose to
New buildings – even the ‘green’ ones – aren’t so green thumbnail

New buildings – even the ‘green’ ones – aren’t so green

The sustainable-living mantra of “reduce, reuse, recycle” is usually applied to low-tech or

LATEST REPORTS
1

Who’s the leading smart-city brand?

More than half of the world’s nearly seven billion people now live in urban areas, and that proportion is expected to reach almost 69 per cent by 2050. To avoid pushing local and global systems to the point of collapse, cities will need to become much smarter and more efficient Read more ...
more info
2

Managing the smart-grid data overload

Developing the UK’s smart-grid infrastructure will require communications and data technologies that can manage far more information than utilities must handle today. That’s the focus of a strategy report from Greenbang Research: “Enabling the UK’s smart-grid future: The wireless spectrum debate.” The report answers such questions as: Should dedicated Read more ...
more info
3

Incentives fire up UK solar market

The introduction of the feed-in tariff (FIT) incentive policy on 1 April has sparked an explosive reaction in the UK renewable energy market with solar leading the way in installations, according to a new Greenbang research report titled, “The UK’s Feed-in Tariff: Impact, response and market trends for the decade Read more ...
more info