Harvard Study Estimates Coal Power Has $300 to $500 Billion in Hidden Costs

[Nathanael]

A new study from Harvard University has found that when the entire life-cycle of coal is considered -- extraction, transport, processing, and combustion -- it poses significant public health and environment hazards. Cumulatively, the study estimates these hazards cost the American people roughly US$300 to US$500 billion dollars annually.

Entitled, "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal," the scientific article is set to be published next month in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The research was headed by Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Epstein employed the help of nine other public health and environment experts to conduct the analysis.

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/yes/harvard-study-estimates-coal-power-has-300-500-billion-hidden-costs

[Wilms]

1. "extraction, transport, processing"

That's something I always wonder about nukes, too.

[JDPriestly]

2. So do oil and as a previous poster pointed out nuclear energy.

Only sun and wind energy make sense at this point. I feel quite certain that solar energy is the way of the future. It will eventually be decidedly more cost-efficient and safer than any other methods.

[Nathanael]

3. Evolution of Solar

The issue with wind and solar is space. I know there are tonnes of regions that are currently uninhabited, but the issue around size for power projects is still important. Do you see solar technology evolving to the point of massive reductions in the amount of land required for commercial-scale projects?

[Kolesar]

4. Put the solar collectors on the roof...eom

[JDPriestly]

5. I believe that solar equipment will be greatly improved and become

more competitive over time. Relatively little has been invested in solar technology.

Put solar reflectors on every building in Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside and San Diego and San Bernardino counties as well as every building in towns and cities in Arizona and then develop good technology to store the energy that is produced. I believe this can be done.

After all the jet engines of today are far more efficient than the engines of the 1920s. Gas mileage has improved since the Model T's. Think of Priuses, and the technology is still being improved.

We should be investing in solar. I live in L.A. It is raining this afternoon, but it does not rain very much. Those areas of the country that get a lot of rain also tend to get a lot of wind and usually have a lot of water. New, more efficient ways to obtain energy that can be converted into electricity and fuel can be developed as to those energy sources also.

If we end the subsidies to nuclear, coal and oil and natural gas, we will discover that the cost and efficiency of solar and wind, just to name two examples of alternative energy sources, are far better than we now think.

The environmental damage done by our traditional energy sources will cost our children and grandchildren very dearly. Clean air and water are precious commodities. We do not yet place money value on them. But as we pollute them, we hand to our children and grandchildren the expense of cleaning them up. They will not thank us for that.

[PamW]

7. Not if you know your science

After all the jet engines of today are far more efficient than the engines of the 1920s. Gas mileage has improved since the Model T's. Think of Priuses, and the technology is still being improved.

If we end the subsidies to nuclear, coal and oil and natural gas, we will discover that the cost and efficiency of solar and wind, just to name two examples of alternative energy sources, are far better than we now think.
===============================================

I hear these "arguments" all the time from non-scientists that if we just did some more research
that solutions to the problems will magically appear. Yes - there have been marginal improvements.

However, we've had Rankine steam power for almost 2 centuries ( let alone just the 1920s ), and
we have never built a Rankine steam engine with an efficiency greater than the
"Carnot Efficiency Limit". Even with 2 centuries of research to make steam cycles more efficient,
we have never exceeded the Carnot limit because the laws of physics say it can not be done.

Sorry to burst your pollyanna bubble, but there are limits placed on solar power by the laws
of physics, such as the "quantum limit", and the limits imposed by "charge carrier recombination".
Solar power will never be so efficient as to exceed these limits that current solar
technology approaches.

As far as subsidies to nuclear power, what subsidies? When anti-nukes say there are subsidies
to nuclear power they are either counting the money the government spends on nuclear weapons,
or they call it a subsidy that the Price-Anderson act doesn't force the nuclear owners to buy
insurance above what any accident could cause. Even if the Government steps in to pay for an
accident, Price-Anderson requires the nuclear utilities to pay it back. That's hardly what
anyone would call a subsidy. More anti-nuclear myths at play.

PamW

[txlibdem]

12. People wrongly think that improving solar panel efficiency is the key to making solar affordable

That's what the solar industry has been doing for 40 years now. The end results are a few really impressive press releases and maybe a fantastically expensive (but VERY efficient) solar panel that only NASA can afford to buy (and then not very many of them anyway).

What people should be thinking is cost per watt. Bring that down and you have the solar revolution that we all want (and that the planet so desperately needs).

I don't care if my solar panel is 5% efficient as long as I can put them on my roof for $1 per watt. Cost per watt is the only consideration. Achieve that and nobody will be talking about new coal plants (or keeping the existing ones operating) for very much longer.

On a side note: we are close if you do not include the installation costs. These solar installer companies think that they can rip people off and charge $40,000 for a 4kW array. They are pricing themselves out of business. The company that is going to get my business is the one that will do the job for a reasonable cost and not try to rip the homeowner off!

[txlibdem]

8. Actually model T got about 25 miles per gallon

If you are driving a vehicle that gets 25 mpg or less you are driving a LESS EFFICIENT vehicle than the 1908 Model T.

"The whole 25-mpg Model T story started with an ad devised by the Sierra Club to embarrass Ford during its centennial celebrations in 2003, which unfavorably contrasted the 16-mpg Explorer with Henry's flivver. Never mind Ford's own Web site claims the Model T got 13-21 mpg (but of course, say the conspiracy theorists) the Sierra Club's 25-mpg number is now accepted as fact by credulous media outlets."

http://blogs.motortrend.com/the-25-mpg-model-t-why-havent-we-done-better-1751.html

"According to Ford Motor Company, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13 to 21 mpg"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

Sure there have been tweaks here and there but when all is considered the Model T works the same as your gasoline burning car today.

[txlibdem]

9. Best improvement to solar is CHP

CHP stands for "Combined Heat and Power" and it's a great way to kill two birds with one stone: you get solar power and hot water at the same time. Depending on how large your CHP setup you can get at least your domestic hot water for free and larger systems can also provide for in-floor heating as well.

There was a fascinating video from 2007 talking about a "breakthrough in solar" that used a tiny postage stamp size solar cell (of the highest efficiency I'll bet being that it was so darn small) and used a fresnel lens glass to focus the sun onto that tiny spot, the hot water was collected off the back of the solar cell (they do hate to get all heated up) and of course the cell provided the electricity. The lens moved to track the sun all day long (better power output that way no matter what kind of solar cell you're using). I'll try to find it and post later.

[txlibdem]

10. Here's a youtube video showing the effect of a fresnel lens on a solar panel

This video shows the basic concept of using a fresnel lens to concentrate sunlight onto a solar panel. This guy does so many great videos... He shows clearly that the output of the solar panel goes way up, from 11 volts to 17 volts by just focusing a fresnel lens onto the solar panel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yh1q59a1h0&playnext=1&list=PLEB2B01C7A11ED191

Adding the water heating to the back of the solar panel does two things: 1) makes hot water (good thing), and 2) it keeps the solar panel cooler, preventing excessive heat from sapping the energy output of the solar panel (it stays in the maximum energy producing temperature range instead of getting too hot, which causes reduced electrical output).

After about an hour searching through my internet history (I'm feeling rather ambitious today I guess) I finally found the video I was talking about regarding concentrating the sun for both power and heat:
"Most solar arrays are about 14% efficient, this system would be about 80% efficient,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0507-bringing_sunlight_inside.htm

"Dynamic Solar Facade"
"The Integrated Concentrating (IC) Solar Facade System is a building integrated photovoltaic system that takes a dramatically different approach than existing building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) or concentrating PV technologies to provide electrical power, thermal energy, enhanced daylighting and reduced solar gain. The system (for both retrofit applications and new construction) is architecturally integrated into the facades and roof atria of buildings while still providing maximum outside views and diffuse daylight for the building users. These benefits are accomplished by miniaturizing and distributing the essential components of concentrating PV technology within the weather-sealed windows of the building envelopes. (An alternative approach is to place the components behind the external façade envelope and construct an inner surface to protect the mechanisms.) The IC Solar System produces electricity with a PV cell, captures much of the remaining solar energy as heat for domestic hot water, space heating (or, possibly, for distributed absorption refrigeration cooling), reduces solar gain by the building, and enhances interior daylighting quality, thus reducing overuse of artificial lighting. The design and operation of the system permits direct partial views of the outside by the building's inhabitants. The modular design can be attached to a range of existing building structures or implemented into new designs. The tracking IC Solar Module System has been demonstrated in several 'proof of concept' lab-scale prototypes with multiple cell types."

http://www.case.rpi.edu/projects/ICsolar.html

The system is currently being tested:

"Solar Power Prototype - This is the first building-integrated concentrating photovoltaic system, developed by researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with collaborators at Harvard University, and tracks the motion of the sun and uses lenses to concentrate sunlight 500 times, generating both electricity and heat. This system was developed with funding from NYSERDA, NYSTAR, and the US Department of Energy. It is being tested in collaboration with SyracuseCoE."

http://www.syracusecoe.org/coe/sub1.html?skuvar=17

They are still researching! Still haven't brought this product to market?!? I can't believe that it's taking so long -- it looked like a very good product from the 2007 article. I hope they get this to market soon!

More pictures in this article. I like the idea for sure:

"Cityscapes of glass-clad buildings gleaming in the sun make Anna Dyson think about wasted energy.

Dyson heads the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology, or CASE, a research consortium that wants to turn office windows into multifaceted solar power generators. Their "integrated concentrating dynamic solar facade" consists of grids of clear pyramids that help focus the sun's rays to generate energy. It would essentially make buildings look as if they were draped in giant jeweled curtains.

A prototype gets a real-world tryout after the opening last week of an eco-friendly research building in Syracuse. Researchers at CASE — a collaborative research group involving Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy and the international architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill — call it a step toward exploiting the huge but largely untapped "green" resource of building exteriors."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35726826/ns/us_news-environment/

:hi:
Well, it took a while but there is my answer to your question. Building integrated concentrating combined solar heat and power. Now try saying that 10 times fast.
:hi:

[Statistical]

13. It is possible the 80% efficient system cost 500x as much as the 14% efficient system.

As someone upthread pointed out the cost per watt is the more meaningful metric.

Say you have two systems.
One is 14% effecient and cost $5 per watt.
The second is 28% efficient and cost $20 per watt.

The only advantage the second on has is space. It requires roughly half the space. It also costs 4x as much to supply the same amount of power to your house.

99.9% of people would pick the first option. The second option only makes sense in places where space and/or weight is limited like on a space satellite.

[txlibdem]

15. I agree with you on principle, making solar cheaper per watt is the answer

I'm just not sure where you got that it costs 500x as much as "standard solar panels." Can you point me to where you found that figure? The Rensallier system I linked to generates not only electricity like a solar panel but also heat, which can be used for hot water and to warm the building in winter but with a heat pump also provide cooling in summer, and the system also brings daylight farther into the building which cuts down on lighting costs. So a comparison between all of that and only the electricity from a solar panel would not be proper or fair. Total building costs need to be weighed when discussing a system such as this.

But to the larger point, I absolutely agree with you that it's the cost per watt that needs to be the focus. I don't give a crap if you've got a 40% efficient solar panel (which IIRC is the highest they've achieved in the lab). If that 40% panel is so expensive that only NASA can afford one then forget it, you've accomplished nothing.

The cost of solar panels had been going down steadily since the 1990s. Then in 2005 or so it leveled off and only started dipping again in 2009 (caused by the global depression or advances in manufacturing is anybody's guess). There is still much work to be done to get solar panels cheap enough that families can actually afford them.

[Statistical]

16. It was an illustration.

Just pointing out efficiency by itself is meaningless when it comes to total cost.

Most commercially viable solar panels are 8% to 15% efficient. Anything higher than that although more efficient tend to have a higher cost per watt.

Some of the cheapest (in terms of cost per watt) solar panels are actually are the panels coming out of China with subpar efficiency (6%, 8%, 11%, etc). Using last gen equipment they produce an inferior product but are able to offer it at cheapest prices in the industry (about $1 per watt).

"The cost of solar panels had been going down steadily since the 1990s. Then in 2005 or so it leveled off and only started dipping again in 2009 (caused by the global depression or advances in manufacturing is anybody's guess). There is still much work to be done to get solar panels cheap enough that families can actually afford them."

I am looking into micro inverters by Enphase (one low cost inverter per panel vs one high cost inverver per house). The ability to install say only 6 panels (~1KW) for $4000 - $5000 (before rebate) and then expand it later a couple panels at a time is an interesting concept. Some companies have even expressed a desire to make an "integrated panel" panel, mounting hardware, inverter, and snap together wiring all sold as a single unit. I think we will see that within a couple years at Big Box stores.

[txlibdem]

17. Decreased solar panel output due to shadows and clouds are a concern

The cheap solar panels will probably suffer from these issues. But there is a way around it. Just put one of the new Enphase inverters on each panel and you have the perfect solar solution for grid tied.

[XemaSab]

6. There are lots of critters in the "uninhabited regions"

Does paving over the Amazon for solar power make sense?

How about damming the Yukon?

And what about putting wind farms on every ridge in California, including around Yosemite, Lassen, Kings Canyon, and other national parks?


I'm a fan of putting solar on roofs, and not much else.

[TheWraith]

11. People have been sure solar was the way of the future for half a century.

The catch is that, though the cost has dropped, it's been at a rate that would put it price competitive with other options long after the point when 100% clean energy is absolutely vital.

[kristopher]

20. Bunk

Energy Department Announces Goal of Ultra-Cheap Solar PV Power by 2020
http://solarhbj.com/news/energy-department-announces-goal-of-cheap-solar-pv-power-by-2020-01350

http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve/

[GliderGuider]

14. Since the USA uses only 15% of the world's coal,

the global hidden cost is around $2 Trillion per year.

Coal electricity generation has been estimated to cause around 150 deaths per TWh on average. The world generates 8000 TWh per year from coal, so that means about 1.2 million lives every year are laid at the feet of the coal industry.

Luckily most of them are poor people who live far away.

[backwoodsbob]

18. so do we price electricity out of reach for billions of people?

that is the problem

[GliderGuider]

19. It's already out of reach for billions of people.

Certainly the way we use it in the West, to light the insides of our houses when no one is home...

The least we could do is recognize the fact that coal is killing the planet. And us.