Of all the fossil fuels we burn, coal produces the greatest amount of carbon dioxide per energy output, meaning it contributes the most to climate destabilization. Unfortunately, the majority of our electricity comes from coal because it is the cheapest power source under our current economic structure. If we accounted for its real costs, including economic externalities (such as respiratory problems, mercury pollution, and environmental destruction caused by some coal mining), it would no longer be considered the cheapest source of energy. Unfortunately, our current economic system does not account for these costs, so we continue to harm people's health and exacerbate climate change, while enjoying falsely cheap energy.
The dilemma is that people want cheap energy so they have more money to support their families. If we pay less for our utility bill, we can spend more on food, gas, clothes, cars, houses, cell phones, entertainment.... But is it worth it? Are people really willing to sacrifice their children's health and clean environment for cheaper electricity today? Would you be willing to sacrifice some of the "extra" things you purchase so that you could use cleaner energy? What monthly purchase would you be willing to forgo so you could purchase clean energy?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The Coal Dilemma
Labels:
climate change,
economics,
energy,
fossil fuels
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Unfortunately, the coal also comes from mountain top removal - and you really can drive by one day and realize the mountain is gone. That's scary.
Solar power and other renewable power sources really aren't that much more than coal. Plus, if your house is making excess power, some power companies will buy it back.
I'm confused about the affordability of solar power. I keep hearing drastically different numbers for how much it costs. Does anyone have a good article on this? I would certainly make sacrifices to pay for cleaner electricity. I would be willing to forgo going out to eat, driving (though since I don't drive much maybe the sacrifice would be not owning a vehicle), and buying new clothes. I'd be ok with my electric bill tripling, maybe even quadrupling. The problem is that society isn't with me and mandating it isn't politically feasible.
Hmmm. Well, the confusion probably arises because 1) there are quite a few different types of solar - each with its own cost-benefit analysis, and 2) solar production depends on, well, the sun - so the cost will depend on the weather and hence it probably varies by region.
But I will keep looking for latest numbers for you - at least for the cost of the three most commercially available types of solar power.
I keep hearing a debate over how much energy storage is required for all renewables economy (i.e., to store electricity for when the sun is not shining). Do any cost estimates figure in the cost of energy storage technologies?
As far as I know, most of the costs of solar are reported in price per peak watt - which means the price does not include storage. However, there are a couple of solar power systems that inherently have storage integrated into them, and so they would include the cost of storage. I have heard of two types - one uses excess electricity to store solar heat in water which is then run through a turbine, and the other is the solar water heater used on roofs.
Actually, I just read something (a book called "Earth: the sequel" by Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn - http://earththesequel.edf.org/) that confirms what I said about the ambiguity in the cost of solar: Cost varies drastically by region because the it depends on the amount and intensity of solar radiation - which varies greatly by region. This explains why you have probably heard so many different numbers. On top of that, there are at least 5 different (commercially available) ways of harvesting solar energy, and there are different costs associated with each one.
Post a Comment