Categories
Environment Greenhouse gases

Acknowledge the True Cost of Electricity

Screen Shot 2015-04-29 at 7.20.27 AM

 

Courtesy of Dr. Drew Shindell

Did you know that the federal government is shortchanging us citizens by a billion dollars a year? Cozy deals with the feds are allowing private enterprise to underpay for natural resources.

Last month I wrote about pressuring educational institutions to divest from fossil fuel investments. Our future health and that of the planet depend on using as little carbon-based fuel as possible.

Now there is more evidence that divestment is the proper path to follow. A New York Times article examines the most common energy source for generating electricity (coal) and suggests that the public is being cheated. Another article in a scholarly journal looks at atmospheric externalities from five different methods of electrical generation and comes up with estimates of the true cost of each. Any way you look at it, short-term gains by big business are robbing citizens of money and health.

Coal on our federal lands belongs to us citizens. Congress set the royalty rate for private companies at about 12% of the sale price for coal strip-mined on federal land. Almost all of that coal is used for generating electricity.

Often a small fraction of the price is actually collected, however. The General Accounting Office found that the effective royalty rate was only 5.6% in Colorado in 2012—less than half of what it should have been! Headwaters Economics, a nonpartisan research group, estimates that the loss each year to US citizens is between 1 and 5 billion dollars. Somehow we are being cheated out of this money. But that isn’t the only bad deal that is robbing us of money and health.

“Externalities” are hidden costs of a product. In La Plata County 2/3 of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. There are many externalities that don’t appear on our La Plata Electric Association bills, including greenhouse gases, mercury and health-robbing particulates.

One third of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in the USA result from electrical generation, but we don’t pay directly for emissions that are causing disasters. Instead, our taxes pay for damage caused by storms and other symptoms of the climate-havoc that CO2 causes. Pregnant women are forbidden from eating many fish because they are contaminated with mercury from burning coal. Some of us pay both with money and with shortened lives for the asthma and other respiratory diseases caused by smokestack particulate emissions. The list of hidden costs goes on and on.

What is the true cost of electricity? LPEA charges domestic customers 11.9 cents per kWh—but that is far from the whole cost. (A kilowatt-hour is a measure of electricity.) Professor Shindell at Duke University has attempted to determine the true cost of energy. His paper “The social cost of atmospheric release” looks at two categories of cost—the core cost and externalities. Interestingly, the core costs of wind, solar and nuclear are all about 10 cents/kWh. None of these sources has significant externalities, according to Shindell. This obviously ignores the possible disasters associated with nuclear, however, as demonstrated by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Furthermore, these costs do not include power distribution.

According to Shindell, the cost of generation with natural gas is the least expensive at about 6 cents/kWh, but the externalities add another dime of hidden expense. Coal is a loser: its core cost is a dime, but the externalities add another 27 cents to the true cost! That means that the true cost of electricity generated by coal-fired power plants is 37 cents/kWh.

Shindell’s study just looked at air pollution externalities. Water, in this year of drought, is another externality. While renewable energy uses little or no water, generation with coal requires a huge amount for cooling.

We are lucky to live where forward-thinking LPEA provides our power. Regrettably, more than 2/3 of its power is currently generated by coal. Fortunately it makes renewably generated “Green Power” available for tiny increment in cost. It has programs to encourage energy efficiency, such as paying half the cost of LED light bulbs. It promotes local renewable power generation with wind, hydro and photovoltaic systems, and has encouraged “planting” solar gardens.

What can the electrical consumer do? The first step is to use electricity frugally. Turn off lights when you don’t need them, unplug electrical “parasites” that draw current even when they’re “off” and replace your old refrigerator with an Energy Star one. Next, spend a few dollars a year to get “green” power. Always keep in mind that electrical generation with coal is robbing us of both money and health.

© Richard Grossman MD, 2015

Categories
Population

Divest

Navajo Mine at  Four Corners Generating Plant

“Apathy is Deadly”
Bumper sticker

Our planet could support many more people if each person consumed less. One of the largest problems caused by our consumption is greenhouse gas emissions from using fossil fuels.
The divestment movement aims to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to increase usage of renewable energy. It pressures institutional endowments to sell off investments in companies that produce fossil fuels.
Most colleges and universities have endowments. Gail (my wife) and I met at and graduated from Swarthmore College near Philadelphia; its endowment is over a billion dollars. It uses the interest from this money in excellent ways—to provide student scholarships, increase salaries and to build new, efficient buildings. Unfortunately it won’t disclose how the endowment is invested.
Divestment (freeing endowments from investments in fossil fuel companies) makes sense for three reasons. The financial and environmental reasons are intertwined and one affects the other. Let’s examine the financial reason first—the value of oil and coal stocks is declining so it doesn’t make sense to invest in them. The current low price of petroleum is a short-term cause for this decline. Another reason for their loss of value is that society is finally recognizing the “externalities”—costs of fossil fuels that are not included in the price of these commodities.
An example of an externality is the mercury that coal fired power plants have pumped into the air for years. This poisonous metal is a trace pollutant of coal. When coal is burned, mercury settles into streams and contaminates the fish we eat. Mercury is especially toxic to pregnant women and young children. Paradoxically, fish is “brain food” that would otherwise be good during pregnancy and for youngsters. The price of the electricity we buy from power plants does not pay for the harm done by the mercury they emit—that harm is an externality. If all the externalities were accounted for, the cost of electricity generated by coal should be twice or even triple the price that we actually pay for it.
In order to protect our health, the Environmental Protection Agency is increasing regulation of ozone and carbon dioxide as well as those of mercury emissions. Ozone causes serious respiratory problems and premature deaths, and the CO2 emissions, of course, are changing our climate. The recent disastrous oil spill and subsequent fire in West Virginia illustrates additional problems with the transport and use of fossil fuels.
The esthetics of energy development are also problematic. Mountaintop removal is hideous. Having a pumpjack in your yard is ugly and noisy.
The value of traditional carbon-based investments is diminishing as society recognizes how problematic they are. It is possible that they will become worth next to nothing—“stranded assets”—as regulation of the industries increases and as more and more people realize the harm they are causing. These are reasons many colleges and universities have already divested.
Investments in renewable sources of energy, on the other hand, are improving. The cost of photovoltaic panels that convert sunlight into electricity has dropped significantly over the past years, bringing solar generation into parity with generation by coal in some cases. As the price drops, it is expected that more and more people will be able to afford to generate their own “juice”. The cost of wind-generated power is also dropping. I expect investments in these technologies to do well in the future.
The two reasons for divestment already mentioned—financial and environmental—are closely connected in our capitalistic society. The third reason may not be intuitive, but for me is the strongest motivation—young people are sparking the divestment movement. A group of students at Swarthmore College recognize the destruction caused by mountain top removal for coal in Appalachia. They are propelled by the injustice of rich people in remote cities who use the labor of poor people in the “hollers” to destroy their own future livelihood. These students advocate keeping coal and oil in the ground to avert a climate disaster that might otherwise imperil the future, including my granddaughters.
My generation has innocently benefitted from using fossil fuels. We have had an inconvenient awakening that our use of petroleum, coal and gas has changed our world.  Although we will not see most of the repercussions of these changes, our progeny will. We owe it to our grandchildren to do what we can to mitigate these alterations. One small but significant step is to divest from personal investments in fossil fuels, and to demand that endowments to which we contribute also divest.
© Richard Grossman MD, 2015