October 19, 2009
Study finds $62 billion a year in 'hidden costs' of coal
Advertiser

Read the report here

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- While coal is touted as a cheap source of power, burning coal to generate electricity produces more than $62 billion a year in "hidden costs," according to a new National Academy of Sciences report released Monday.

The report, by the academy's National Research Council, focused on premature deaths caused by air pollution from coal-fired power plants. Study authors said the narrow focus clearly underestimated other costs of the nation's continued reliance on coal.

The $62 billion in hidden costs of coal amounted to half of the $120 million in such costs identified across the electricity, heating, and transportation sectors examined in the report.

But in the electricity sector alone, coal produced about half of the nation's electricity, but accounted for nearly all of the hidden costs.

"Coal is the major player here," said Carnegie Mellon University President Jared Cohon, chairman of the team that wrote the 374-page report, "Hidden Costs of Energy."

Burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, both overall and per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, the report said. The life-cycle damages of wind power are small compared to coal and natural gas, the report said.

Requested by Congress, the report tried to assess what economists call "external effects" caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle.

Because these effects are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers may not realize the full impact of their choices, said a news release announcing the study.

Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: MU4WVU2 (10:01am 10-20-2009)
Report Abuse


Could anyone predict an article from Ward would be biased against coal? Why is coal the major pollutant percentage wise? The other two major sources of electricity comes from nuclear and oil/natural gas. Neither of which are major pollutants, but they are not the source of energy desired by "greenies".

The study was commissioned by "Congress". I would suspect the study was commissioned by a committee within congress headed by either Waxman or Boxer. Also, without knowing the agend of congress, I would suspect a "Cap n Trade" bill will be discussed within a couple weeks. The commission did suggest that this cost oversight could be addressed by the legislature via "taxable or tradeable permits". Could you have imagined the timlyness of this report.

If this congress wants to remove coal as a source of fuel within US, I would prefer the demise be via legislation to cease, rather than to tax it to an expensive to industry (passed to citizens)death. Then ask China to do likewise

Posted By: tomfool (7:30am 10-20-2009)
Report Abuse


This is a good, important article. The hidden costs of coal are seldom mentioned in debates concerning the use of coal, but those costs are enormous, widespread and destructive.

Posted By: jkotcon (7:17am 10-20-2009)
Report Abuse


So if we have to add 3 cents per kWh for the health effects of coal-fired electricity, is it really "low-cost" energy? Or is it an example of a "market failure" because those who pay the health costs are not the ones who benefit from the sale of the "cheap" electricity?

Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
MC CORMICK JEWELERS
A name you have know and trusted for over 60 years for honesty, quality and fair prices. The own...
Advertisement - Your ad here