A Harvard University study published on Feb 17, 2011, has determined that the true costs of using coal to generate electricity in America are between $330 and $500 billion dollars annually. The study, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs -- The Life Cycle Consequences of Coal" by the Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment examines the costs for so-called "cheap coal" that don't show up on the monthly electric bill: the so-called "externalities" or hidden costs. In a time of huge budget deficits, Americans -- and our leaders in Washington -- should be looking at these costs.
All businesses try to externalize their costs. For example, Toyota requires its auto parts suppliers to warehouse their parts and deliver them to the assembly line on a "just-in-time" basis, so that Toyota doesn't have to build huge storage warehouses. Toyota's just-in-time system thus externalizes their costs for warehousing the parts onto their suppliers.
In the 1960's, soda manufacturers sold their product in returnable bottles. There was much less litter, because people would pick up the bottles and return them for the 2 cent or 5 cent deposit. In order to increase their corporate profits, Coca Cola and Pepsi switched to aluminum cans and then to plastic soda bottles. Today our roadsides and streams are filled with trash, and over 40 percent of the litter is drink containers. The taxpayers foot the bill when highway workers clean up the trash, and the soda companies make bigger profits: they have externalized their costs onto the public.
Coal companies are adept at externalizing their costs. For example:
A few years ago the Indiana University School of Medicine did a study and determined that the public health cost of burning coal for Hoosiers was $5 billion annually. Pollution from burning coal causes heart disease, lung disease, and asthma and puts mercury into the environment. The American Lung Association estimates that 24,000 excess deaths nationally are caused by pollution from coal-fired power plants every year.
In Kentucky, the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED) did a study which found that in 2006 coal generated $528 million in revenue for the state of Kentucky, but it cost $643 million in state expenditures. Similarly, in West Virginia, Downstream Strategies issued a report which determined that coal's net costs to West Virginia for 2009 were $97 million.
The numbers in the Harvard study are astronomical, and will hopefully stir some public debate about coal's true costs. About five years ago, when Ontario's leaders calculated the public health care costs of burning coal and compared them to other forms of electricity generation, they found that burning coal was overwhelmingly more expensive than renewables and hydro-power. Because Canada's public health care system means that the health care costs of burning coal are being paid out of government coffers, Ontario is now phasing out the use of coal.
Here in America, we just put the costs of coal on the backs of poor people without health insurance and little kids with asthma, while the coal company makes huge profits.
We often hear that alternative sources of energy, such as wind power and solar power are "too expensive" and not cost-competitive with "cheap" sources of energy like coal. Now we know that is not true.
These are unexpected breakthroughs in energy.
The first was demonstrated in January. A scientist believes it will begin a stampede!
See Cold Fusion and Black Swans at www.aesopinstitute.org
A 24/7 development program is possible for a flock of Black Swans that are being born.
The speed of change is now up to us.
All this news about "Terrorist Organizations", and though we have identified some MAJOR corporate interests who have been found guilty of threatening our food and water supplies, we have not yet called them out for what they are: Threats to our National Security.
Think about it. China 2009 burnt over 45% of all coal burnt on the planet. Based on this Harvard study it had to cost China about $1.5 Trillion. Where did China get all this money? How is it they have so much of ours?
There obviously have to be a whole lot of hidden benefits to cheap dirty coal energy whether we want to admit to it or not!
Look I'm not a fan of dirty coal energy!
But silly numbers just weaken our case not improve it!
but still have to compete against other vendors. Toyota wins for sure, maybe the parts suppliers can too.
I am currently working at the largest new coal-fired power plant in the US....I am employed by Bechtel at Lively Grove, Illinois...The web site is prairiestateenergycompus.com
Ummm....no; the parts supplier charges the cost of his warehousing in the parts cost that Toyota pays. Toyota in effect pays for only that fraction of warehousing needed for the parts it buys, saving money so that a lower price can be offered to the customer.
"Today our roadsides and streams are filled with trash, and over 40 percent of the litter is drink containers. The taxpayers foot the bill when highway workers clean up the trash, and the soda companies make bigger profits: they have externalized their costs onto the public."
Ummm...no; litterbugs offload their cleanup efforts on the public. Bottle deposits weren't offered to keep the environment clean; they were "bounties" offered to minimize replacement costs for new bottles. Plastic and ultra light aluminum cans reduce transit weight & save gas.
"Here in America, we just put the costs of coal on the backs of poor people without health insurance and little kids with asthma, while the coal company makes huge profits."
OK - let's put all those nasty coal mines out of business. What will all those ex-employees of the mines do once you have thankfully relieved them of a means of making a living that you in your smugness find objectionable? We all know what magnets WVA & eastern KY are for capital investment and job creation...
Regarding your analysis re beverage bottles, you forgot to factor in the non-renewable resource costs of producing aluminum and plastic (fossil fuels). Humanity pays the price for that.
What to do with ex-employees of mining companies? That’s easy. Put them to work cleaning up the toxic waste sites they have produced over the decades. That should easily employ all of them for generations to come.
And yea you're right... Mr Galt2 assumes Toyota will lower their prices, and that's not always the case either. They may just take the higher margin and either reinvest it into their business, raise salaries, or pay their shareholders.
Making assumptions -
that Toyota pays for storage in the cost of the parts
That we are out to unemploy coal mine workers (a vanishing breed, by the way, King Koal is doing fine on reducing his work force)
How about the SUBJECT of the article the "total" cost of using coal? Data backed with real numbers. Increased health costs, clean up costs, the decreased property value of surrounding area?
When decisions are made buyers (citizens, towns, states) deserve to know the total costs involved.
As for beverage bottles- on that I agree.
We were offered a choice years ago. Consummers chose cans and plastic---we own that decision.
You buy it -You clean up the mess.
Of course we can also choose to quit buying plastic and cans when the true cost is realized.
Just like we can reduce use of coal--when it's true costs are revealed.