Deadly accidents involving nuclear reactors, oil rigs and coal mines in recent months remind us that all forms of energy generation carry risks. In developed countries, coal is the most hazardous (bottom left), according to the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, which studied more than 1,800 accidents worldwide over nearly 30 years. For coal, mining tends to be the most dangerous step; for oil and gas, most accidents occur during distribution; and for nuclear, generating plants are on the hot seat (orange bars).
Developing nations tend to have higher fatality rates, experts say (although reporting is less comprehensive, so no numbers are shown). “Regulations may be less strict,” explains Peter Burgherr, head of technology assessment at the energy systems analysis laboratory at the institute. “Working conditions are also poorer,” and less mechanization means more people are doing manual labor in harm’s way.
The lion’s share of human costs, however, comes not from accidents but from pollution, which makes fossilfuels the most dangerous form of energy generation (below). As Burgherr notes, “People are often not aware of what is happening to them in daily life.”
— Mark Fischetti
» Web Exclusive: Read more about ‘The Health Care Burden of Fossil Fuels’
Graphic by Jen Christiansen; Sources: Paul Scherrer Institute (deaths); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (health burden)
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentIt is hard to put economic value to people's lives. Regardless, if you are implying the intermittency of wind and solar, that is a matter of prudent planning. While the cost of electricity from renewable sources are often comparable to conventional sources (depending on the location/resource), and continue to decline, the intermittancy issue can be addressed through prudent planning of reserves (battery, hydro) and transmission. We are supposed to be a smart nation to understand this, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody who claims clean energy is too expensive needs to stare long and hard at that giant black semi-circle outlining the economic costs that society pays for these "cheap" dirty fuels. We need even more stringent pollution controls and some sort of carbon tax / permitting system to even hope to balance out the Market Failures that fossil fuels present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, fossil energy will inevitably become too expensive and too inefficient (EROEI) to power our society. Whether this happens in the latter half of the 21st Century or the early years of the 22nd doesn't really matter. We, as in the U.S. because the rest of the world is leaving us behind in clean energy development, should either reclaim our leadership in this economic sector and lead the 21st Century much like we did the 20th, or we should resign ourselves to become a 2nd-rate power using dirty 19th Century technology to fuel our descent into irrelevance.
Problem is, it is not merely an economic decision. We are humans and our lives mean lot more than dollars and cents. What good is it to have cheaper power if that kills us? And you assertion about all renewables being too expensive in not correct either. Some are and some aren't. Geothermal is not. Many hydro is not. Even before you add any "social cost". And they are not intermittant. I am an investment banker who finances these projects. And I have financed coal and gas fired plants in the past as well. This not an emotional argument. You can get some good insights and good data from the research at Lawrence Berkley Labs (by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bollinger) on the economics of renewables. These are as unbiased research as you can get.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChecked out the nextbigfuture.com page. It is just garbage. Period. I see these kinds of mouthpiece, anonymous sites all the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There has been less than 10 people killed in nuclear power production accidents worldwide in more than 50 years of history."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what you're saying is you didn't actually read the article you linked to? Specifically where it says "The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl"
Perhaps you should do a little more research? The bullshit from the people who comment on this magazine never ends...
"...the cost and reliability of renewable energy is nowhere near that of the more conventional sources of electricity production"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSource?
"If wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, etc. were cost effective and reliable on a long term basis they would be getting implemented at a far higher rate than they are today. This is not the case simply because of the economics."
So, the cyclic gutting of support for renewable energy whenever Republicans come into power while support for fossil fuels continues and even expands has NOTHING to do with the rate of renewable energy development, right? The fact that the Government bends over backwards to secure oil supplies from the Middle East has nothing to do with that figure either, am I correct? The disproportionate campaign contributions to said party in exchange for protecting said subsidies doesn't distort the precious "Free Market" one bit, does it?
"The emotion of people on this topic greatly affects the chosen outcomes."
I'll agree to this statement. It seems that some peopel have an emotional reaction AGAINST clean energy just because those damn dirty hippies COULDN'T have been right all along, could they? Why don't you go figure the cost of 5M lost work days PER YEAR caused JUST by fossil electricity generation. Here, I'll do it for you:
Median wage: $40k Per day: $109.59
Times 5M = $548M
Then add in $1,200M ($40K * 30K premature deaths) for EACH YEAR this pollution knocks off the average worker's life. How many pollution control upgrades could this money buy? How can we most effectively incorporate these costs into the price of fossil fuels so that the Market can make the most efficient decision?
Some people who invoke the market here seem to think that the current state of the market is perfect, that it doesn't need fine-tuning or change. I'm afraid that's not the case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article shows, with evidence, that there are costs we fail to take into account when we make our choices. What that means is that our present market is incomplete and imperfect. It must include all the costs that society incurs as a result of its energy choices, including our best guess of the future outcomes of those choices.
Looking only at the production cost of energy and ignoring all the others is unacceptably myopic.
"If wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, etc. were cost effective and reliable on a long term basis they would be getting implemented at a far higher rate than they are today. This is not the case simply because of the economics."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to forget that existing companies with vast investments in fossil-related power infrastructure are loathe to just abandon those investments and contribute to their own obsolescence. Who wants to give up a trillion-dollar money-making empire?
To lose sight of that is...myopic, at best. I would suggest you at least *try* to understand that there's more to economics than the "invisible hand".
T
There is certainly basis to the facts brought up, but there is a definite element of 'statistics make the story'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInjury and death reports are a matter of regulatory commissions which vary drastically among industry and country. The units were confusing, since I wasn't sure if it was capacity, or production. (peak vs hours produced)
The lead seemed anti nuke, the article was not so clear in direction. PSI is a good research company in a local that is not always so keen on straight fact.
Hydro deaths (to production, not accident) are mostly associated with Dam construction, it would be interesting to see the same Stat including Hoover construction. If the stats should include all deaths related to the industry, perhaps car accidents should be included in oil. (Just a joke, but pointing out that statistics are a matter of counting)
I'm all for fossil fuels like oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear; they bring families together. The 29 killings in the coal fields of West Virginia by Massey Energy brought a whole bunch of families together. The mass killings in Japan and Russia by nuclear energy brought a whole bunch of families together. The mass killings in the Gulf of Mexico by oil brought a whole bunch of families together. The mass killings in the south and northwest by methane from natural gas brought a whole bunch of families together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClean energy like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal can offer us nothing to bring families together like fossil fuels can. So why would we ever want to switch over to clean energy?
Well, wind power brings wealthy families of all stripes (liberal and conservatives) together to fight against the "viewshed" pollution by the matchstick-size turbines sighted in the distance. Cape Wind being a perfect example. So may ways to bring families together. It is part of the "human experience".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there are any statistics in the nextbigfuture report you doubt please look them up and give us your data with sources like Brian Wang most definitely not anonymous provided.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa like you are even capable.
We need a carbon tax or permission to live? You do realize all that will do is put the majority of the population back on to subsistence living, while the rich get to do whatever they want? Then the people who cant afford your "permission" tax, will go underground, finding ways to heat their home and cook food to avoid the your tax they can't afford and then we end up with more pollution along with the society changed to the rich who can pay your tax and everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just love socialists. Their plans not only never work, these ideas actually create the very problems they try to solve and worse.
I think you need to go visit these places around the world, you claim are so much further along than the US. You are simply flat wrong. My job takes me to all of these places and the US is way ahead of everyone else. Our air is cleaner, our water and rivers are cleaner. Our forests are increasing because we didn't actually completely wipe them out. The Europeans almost completely wiped out all wild life in their countries. Japan and I do speak japanese so I have been there, are quite clean, except for messing up with nukes. Plus they have to really do a lot of damage to fit 35 million people in a single city. But at least Tokyo is clean when compared compatible cities in Europe or even America. BUT considering the japanese desire to exterminate whales and over exploitation of their own islands, they are not ahead of the US. Singapore does a good job, very nice and clean but it is not that hard to be clean when you only have to manage a 5 million people. Plus they have a tendency to destroy the surrounding ocean to increase land mass.
Not sure what less developed countries you have been too but India, Brazil, China, Philippines, Russia, Mexico are all places I have been and they are nightmares when it comes to protecting the environment. I do like those places, especially China and the Philippines but harbingers of Environmental Protection these places are not.
So with the rest of the world producing 75% of the CO2 for global warming, which country is it exactly that exceeds the US with actual environmental protection?
I question that 75% number also because you whacked out liberal kool aid drinking environmentalists do not count things like the Co2 output of the 3 billion cook fires and heating occurring in the undeveloped world.
There is no alternative to oil. Sorry, invented Black half circles do not change this fact. There will be an alternative. Capitalists who want to make money will find a way, which is a good thing
Now that I have rebuffed the kool aid drinkers, on to this ridiculous pie chart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, unless you can actually show someone got sick from a particle or molecule created by one of those forms of energy, then you are just blowing smoke up the proverbial back side of everyone. Not to mention being entirely delusional.
30k premature deaths, lol what you have a crystal ball that tells you the exact number of deaths there should be? And you people wonder why no one buys your "evidence" for human caused global warming.
5 million lost work days? What is that all you liberals taking your mandated vacations?
And the various diseases listed? Unless you can prove none of those existed before the modern age, you have nothing to talk about.
Why not claim hemorrhoids and the common cold are all caused by these forms of energy as well?
And of course somehow we dont know enough about the production of Solar panels to "link" them to diseases. Sorry, with the exception of someone living in a coal burning smoke stack, you can't prove anyone died or got sick by these methods, nor that they would not have gotten sick or died from some other means.
How many people die from the soot produced in India with the half billion cook fires? How many die in china in industrial cities with no US style pollution controls? Now if this is what the article was about, it would almost be plausible.
This has to be the dumbest article yet on finding lame excuses to tax the hell out of everyone or sell fake environmental protection technology in the name of global warming prevention.
Isn't flooding out entire mountain ranges and preventing a river from reaching its delta for lack of water, environmental damage. How is this cost not included? Just ask mexican fisherman at the end of the colorado river how the hoover and other damns are working out for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything has a cost. We can't dam up every river, geo thermal is local, wind well go to palm springs and see if you want miles and miles of land used for windmills to power one small city. Coal, Oil and Natural gas are in fact the most efficient method of getting energy. Until an actual replacement exists, we are stuck with it. The fact is the Capitalists who run Energy companies as well as others are looking for a actual alternative because there is so much money to be made. Any company who comes up with a form of energy that can produce as much as the fossil fuels also at a comparable cost, will make billions. This fact nothing is yet there proves it does not exist.
Maybe solar will work, when the price comes down to about 5k per home instead of the current 70k.
"We need a carbon tax or permission to live?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm, where did I say that?
"You do realize all that will do is put the majority of the population back on to subsistence living, while the rich get to do whatever they want?"
Where's your proof backing up this statement. It HAS to be an economic model of some sort, otherwise you're just spouting off your uninformed opinion just like you always do.
"Then the people who cant afford your "permission" tax, will go underground..."
Aren't you the master of hyperbole. The worst-case estimates of the cost for the Republican-sabatoged Cap and Trade legislation was $170 per year for each household. Now, you can't tell me $170 PER YEAR is going to drive anyone underground without either lying or being gravely mistaken.
I don't even know why I try to debate with crazy deniers like you. If you want to live in a 19th Century world, please let us people living in the 21st Century off at the next stop so we can live in a better future and you all can enjoy a reborn Gilded Age in some obscure corner of the world.
........There is no alternative to oil. Sorry, invented Black half circles do not change this fact. There will be an alternative..............
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there an alternative to oil or not ?
Hopefully the "Capitalists" don't count on your foresight because if they do they'll start looking for an alternative when the last drop of oil is burned. And hopefully the alternative does not require anything chemical because oil is the backbone of the chemical industry but by the time you finally agree it will be too late.
Yes, pokerplyer, please be aware of the economics. You saw the figures for the number of hospital admissions, premature deaths, etc. Are you aware that the fossil fuel providers and users cover none of those costs? They socialized, while the profits are privatized. And note that the costs here mentioned do not include costs for water fouled by mountaintop removal debris, oil spills, etc. Add these costs back in, and fossil fuels are no longer cheap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really need to think about what you say. By your definition, Capitalists are evil greedy jackasses bent on getting the most money possible. They would get far more money and be able to overprice any alternative fuel because so many people would be dumb enough to pay for it. So no, capitalists dont want to run out of oil first, that is insane, they would have no product. They want to make money and money can be made from an alternative fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure why you dont understand simply english. There is no alternative fuel now. There will be an alternative in the future. Though that is not certain. What is certain is no alternative fuel will exist if you liberals actually do your nonsense plans of taxing everyone because we all breathe. There is no chance the "government" will come up with any sort of alternative. At best they will destroy the environment in their attempts to alter the climate and trying to force the population back to living off the land.
You said it. "We need even more stringent pollution controls and some sort of carbon tax / permitting system to even hope to balance out the Market Failures that fossil fuels present. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPermitting to live, that is what you are saying. Now where is the proof? What do you think happens when you artificially raise the cost of something? People who can't afford it, do without, the rich just pay. Where has this happened? How about the 10 pound a day permit to drive in London? What happens? The people who cant afford 10 pounds a day, dont drive, the rich do what they want.
Then we get to the insanity of your carbon tax plan. If the desired effect is to lower emissions, then how is trading a pollution permit going to achieve that? Especially, when some countries, the Schedule B ones from the Kyoto treaty, have unlimited pollution rights they can sell to the schedule A countries? So american companies the evil bastards they are, will just buy pollution rights and keep polluting. India, since it has no restrictions, will increase its own pollution because according to liberals, it is fair they get to catch up.
There is also a psychological factor. This is demonstrated in cities where water restrictions occur to conserve water. As soon as the restriction goes in, you find people watering a lawn more than normal, all night long and even people who dont normally care are all of a sudden determine to get their share of water and be dammed if the government will tell them what to do.
The net result of all your permission to live taxes and oppressive environment controls will have the effect of increasing pollution, creating some kind of underground use of things like wood or raw coal and an even bigger divide between rich and poor.
Just curious on how much I would have to pay each year to cover my cost of breathing?
Take Argentina, a place with such stringent financial control and super high taxes, that people have an underground cash economy. Saving money in a safe deposit box, to avoid the taxes on transactions. This is simple human nature. Proven many times. The entire soviet union operated this way.
Unlike you, I can actually think, collect my own data and analyze it. I don't need biased pseudo-science to prove what historical examples already show.
Your plan will take us right back to the 19th century. What do you think will happen when your oppressive plans are implemented? People try to survive any way they can. It is capitalism, industry and advancing technology that brought us out of the 19th century.
"I think you need to go visit these places around the world, you claim are so much further along than the US. You are simply flat wrong. My job takes me to all of these places and the US is way ahead of everyone else. Our air is cleaner, our water and rivers are cleaner. Our forests are increasing because we didn't actually completely wipe them out. The Europeans almost completely wiped out all wild life in their countries."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the USA have a much lower population density than Europe is to thank for their more numerous wildlife, not any American policy decisions.
I am from Germany, and I have lived in the USA for a while, and our cities _are_ years ahead of most of your cities. Your whole civic infrastructure is built around the personal car and the availability of cheap oil - and now that the era of cheap oil has ended for good, your whole infrastructure is slowly crashing down. On a per-capita basis you consume more energy and more resources - how is _that_ "years ahead"?
Which European countries did you visit, anyway - the Ukraine?
Jorgan: THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of our country is wilderness, not merely because of our population density, but because of decisions we the people made through our elected representatives to set these areas aside for future generations. As an aside, Africa is comprised of only twenty eight percent wilderness
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeventy five years ago fifteen percent of the population still churned its own butter. Most people worked dawn to dusk in the fields and factories to eke out a living. Electricity was unavailable to folks in the vast interior of our country. The median standard of living in real terms was well below what is considered "the poverty line" today. Average age at death was somewhere south of fifty.
The leisure class was miniscule. A very few people had all the wealth. If you wanted to talk about the gap between rich and poor, it was miles and miles wider than it is today. And the opportunities to rise out of poverty have never been as abundant as they are today. Or would you care to name an era when my chances would have been better?
The great equalizer of course has been fossil fuels. At no time in our history has more wealth been more evenly distributed as it is today. And none of this would have been possible with out "dirty energy".
For that matter, at what time in our past do you feel it would have prudent to switch to say, solar? Oops!! it just occurs to me that solar panels or hydrogen fuel cells or wind turbines would would never have been created had not the scientific infrastructure evolved to allow their creation! And that infrastructure was dependent entirely on .....wait for it.....Fossil fuels!!!!
If there is any "crashing down", it is the crumbling ediface of the moribund ideas eco-zealots promulgate; "The world is ending because of climate change", We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction" "We are overpopulating ourselves out of existence"......
The rhetoric of the left describes various types of ecological "end times", which are every bit as colorful and inexact as those of the great religions of the world.
The world will at some point slowly, glacially perhaps, find a better, cheaper alternative to fossil fuels. But it will not simply materialize out of the blue.
By the way, Jorgen, If my history is correct, it seems to me that just about the time we in America were consigning vast regions of our great country into perpetual care, Your country was turning most of Europe into a smoldering parking lot. How many windmills did you guys have to build to do that?
I think we all agree that there should be No Human cost of energy or any other subject for that matter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that considerable investments are made in renewable energies and we do already have a wide diversity of energy production which could provide are continuous needs. In combination with the “smart cities” programs, we should be able to improve a lot more the way we generate, transport, store and distribute energy – all to avoid energy waste and increase efficiency. Diversity of renewable energies plus “smart cities” will definitely solve the problems of “reliability and availability” problem.
I tend to also believe that one of the main problems is the Human guiltiness for “money power” and the benefit fossil fuel can bring nowadays. For example, petroleum products are literally everywhere, used as source of energy, as a derivative in the chemical industry and even in the agriculture for nearly all pesticides and many fertilizers. Although, I admit necessary, such massive demand obviously brings massive revenues that industries/people are not ready to let go that easily. Said that, as we research and develop more and more on renewable energies, recycling methods and organic agriculture, once we will effectively see significant improvements in those areas, the disappearance of fossil fuel can occur really fast and it will be permanent.
It may be or may not be that “the cost of renewable energy compare to conventional sources” at the moment but in any case, it is a priority to unsure a healthier and safer future of our generation and the next.
The real drive to see such changes appearing is indeed to eliminate pollutions, improve our general health and safety. As it is noted in the article “the Human cost comes not from accidents but from pollutions”…but pollution is not only a Human cost but also a huge healthcare financial investment. Due to pollution, I am persuaded we spend as much, if not more, as the cost involved by using fossil fuels. Putting that into the equation and you may find that the overall cost of renewable energy is much cheaper and cost efficient than using fossil fuels!
In the overall, I believe we still need fossil fuel at the present time but by continually investing in clean energy, I believe that in the short future we will be able to avoid all fossil fuel consumption for energy.
"If you wanted to talk about the gap between rich and poor, it was miles and miles wider than it is today. And the opportunities to rise out of poverty have never been as abundant as they are today."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat gap has been opening up rapidly since about the early 1980s while the opportunities to rise out of poverty have been shrinking as we have gutted out education system. The fact that a certain political party is obsessed with cutting taxes / waging war and then blaming teachers and pensioners for the ensuing deficits has NOTHING to do with this situation, right? No wonder you guys think facts have a liberal bias...
"The great equalizer of course has been fossil fuels."
It's not the fossil fuels themselves that have been the "great equalizer", it's the energy they provide. We started using them when they were abundant and we didn't know how damaging they could be to the environment and to our own health. Now that we know better, it seems stupid to continue throwing money and effort towards supporting an antiquated energy source.
The Sun is in the sky for an average of 12 hours a day and sunlight isn't concentrated in geopolitical hot-spots. There are no windspills that cover our beaches with windballs that kill off pelicans. I'm not saying that fossil fuels should be made illegal, but we should stop distorting the market in their favor via direct and indirect subsidies, some of which were highlighted in this article. The market operates more efficiently when ALL prices are taken into account and incorporated into a price signal that reflects the TRUE cost of using a product. That society as a whole pays all the external costs, on top of the currently distorted market price, while the fossil fuel companies get to rake in all the profits goes against all economic theories.
Oh, and that cheap shot at Germany is completely out of bounds. I could just as easily bring up how we slaughtered the Native Americans or put Japanese Americans in internment camps. Or why don't we bring up Slavery and the Civil War it caused here? Pertinent to the discussion? No. But vengeful and satisfying to make a Nazi reference (because lefties are somehow Nazis to you people...)? Yeah, that sure makes sense...
Exactly, it's just economics. The government has provided 10x the direct subsidies that renewables enjoy to fossil fuels and the indirect subsidies range over 100x the support that clean energy enjoys. The figures on this article are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the indirect subsidies that dirty energy enjoys. Only when all the costs are incorporated into the market price of fossil fuels can the Market make the most efficient decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor someone who worships at the altar of the Free Market, you don't seem to know much about Economics, do you?
Why are people so afraid of nuclear energy? These figures clearly show fossil fuels are more deadly and more hazardous to health. The fear may be more emotional than rational.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are more likely to get struck by lightning than die of radiation from nuclear plant accident. Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident, killed around 250 people in 10 yrs. Fossil fuels kill 30,000 people every year in US alone.
As long as the reactors don't get hut by a tsunami, they're great for generating a lot of low-carbon energy. The French have developed a method to reprocess the waste that cuts down the time the waste needs to be stored by 98% or so and returns some usable fuel as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe REAL problem with nuclear power as it is currently produced around the world is the cost of reactor construction. Even with an $80B loan guarantee program from the U.S. government, they're having a hard time getting even more than a few reactors built. The fee required from the utility to get the loan is merely to shield the government from default risk. Most of these reactors are ones that were 80 - 90% complete when the construction industry fizzled out completely in the 80s, but they still require billions of $$$$ worth of additions to get them operational. Reactor construction projects from San Antonio, TX to Ontario Canada and elsewhere in the developed world have seen the utility hoping to own the reactor balk at construction costs approaching $10B per 1GW reactor. China is building 50 - 60 Fukushima-style knockoffs to cut costs, but they also don't have the passive safety features that more modern reactors have, so lets hope they don't melt down. Nuclear boosters that point to these reactors as an example of how much it would cost to build reactors in the developed world are trying to deceive you or have been deceived themselves. Finally, France's reprocessing industry is MASSIVELY subsidized by the government, so don't expect it to be viable in countries that like to be more Free Market-orientated.
These cost issues mean that investment in nuclear power sucks up money that could be better invested in energy efficiency, conservation, demand management and renewable energy. Once all these cheaper sources of carbon reductions are maxed out, THEN we could think about building a few Thorium reactors or something by then. I do think we should cut the nuclear loan guarantee program and other supports for the industry and use that to fund research and proof-of-concept Thorium reactors to see if it's viable as a commercial enterprise.
$1M per MW cost is not too expensive. Solar and wind cost more, twice more, but people are building them because they are renewable. I think the problem with nuclear is negative public perception and fear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy were nuclear cost competitive in the 80s and now expensive? What cost item increased since then that's far beyond the cost increase of non-nuclear plants?
It's actually $10B per GW, so according to your un-sourced figures, solar and wind (even though they have different prices) are 1/5th the cost of nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee here:
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearcosts2009.pdf
Nuclear power was killed by a variety of factors. Firstly, the permitting and construction process usually takes over 10 years. During that time, even just inflation can explode the projects budget against projected baselines. If you factor the inevitable technical and legal issues along with financial wrangling that usually happens in big projects like these, there is very little chance the reactor will finish on budget and within schedule. In light of the Fukushima disaster, any new reactors will need more robust and redundant safety systems, increasing costs and more schedule delays because of the necessary redesign.
The 10-year+ construction times mean that nuclear is not very scalable. It has to come big or not at all and it takes a loooong time to come online. Forecasting electricity demand out that far is next to impossible. The oil shocks of the 1970s and the ensuing efficiency measures enacted in everything from autos to refrigerators totally blew the electricity demand forecasts of the 1960s that prompted the construction of reactors out of the water. The downside is that we continued building lower-risk coal plants and a huge amount of natural gas generating capacity since then. The costs highlighted in this article are mostly driven by coal emissions, so maybe we didn't save any money in the long run.
However, renewable energy is even MORE scalable than natural gas and coal. You can put up a solar array on your roof in a couple days and you're already generating electricity. Multiply that millions of times and there's no way conventional thermal power plants can keep up. Solar also generates during peak demand, the most expensive power on the market, so you have to compare retail peak electricity prices against solar power's cost to get an accurate comparison between energy sources. Plus, it reduces the need for more generating infrastructure by supplying power at the point of load. Wind energy can be forecast hours or days in advance and if you build enough wind farms in a wide enough area, it can be counted on for baseload supply.
Maybe thorium reactors will provide the last 10% or so of supply that's difficult to provide renewably, but LWRs are not viable in the 21st Century.
Sault says: "...It's actually $10B per GW, ... solar and wind … are 1/5th the cost of nuclear..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Nuclear Levelized Costs according to Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010 study for the UK puts Nuclear Cost at the lowest of Gas, Wind & Tidal:
Typical cost ranges include:
Tidal generation - between 16 and 38 p/kWh
Offshore wind - between 15 and 21 p/kWh
Onshore wind - between 8 and 11 p/kWh
Combined cycle gas turbine – between 6 and 11 p/kWh
Nuclear - between 6 and 8 p/kWh
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/engineering-consultants-parsons.html
That is from a prominent international engineering firm and power specialist, not some SCHLOCK anti-nuclear website run by one guy who gets big fat $50k donations from Richies & Family Foundations who undoubtedly make their $billions in Oil,Gas, Coal & Renewables.
OECD puts Capital Cost of Nuclear at $3382 per kw for advanced GenIII – not your invented $10k per kw. It also puts capital cost at $1556 per kw in Korea, and $1763 p kw in China where RATIONAL Regulators exist, not corrupt anti-nuclear regulators. And that is before factory production has even begun.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TMEhZugHMmI/AAAAAAAAJao/LXaekS3TzuY/s1600/nuclearcosts.png
Nice how Sault conveniently ignores Capacity Factor when comparing Nuclear to Solar & Wind. Nuclear with a >90% CF, Wind with 15-30% CF and Solar with a 10-20% CF. Modern onshore Wind Farms are running $2.5k per kwpk or $10k per kwavg, plus incredibly expensive triple oversized long distance transmission lines, plus the extraordinarily expensive energy storage or fuel guzzling gas turbines as backup, which will supply 80-90% of the Wind/NG system energy. And cycling inefficiencies induced in the shadowing NG power plants will waste as much fuel as the Wind would theoretically save.
Solar Costs are minimum $3 per peak watt installed and avg is $7.80 per peak watt installed, at an avg CF of around 15% that puts Solar at $20k to $40k per kwavg. Not including the necessity for 100% backup for both Solar & Wind. And 80-90% of the Solar/Wind/Shadowing Fossil Fuel power source will Fossil Fuel energy, some gain that is.
Nuclear power is hindered in the West by Politicians, ENGO's & Media paid-by-fossil-fuel & renewables Vested Interests, who have money to burn and $trillions to loose if Nuclear Energy starts ramping up again, like it did in the 70's & 80's.
The construction times of GenIII reactors in China & Korea is now 4 yrs, unhindered by the Oil&Gas Cronies, that operate freely in the West.
For your info, $1B per GW = $1M per MW = $1 per W.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm the source. One of our companies makes solar cells. Solar cell costs $2 per W excluding installation. With installation it's $4 per W.
As you said, nuclear was killed by regulatory and legal requirements. It was not cost nor safety that killed it. Regulators made it difficult to construct new nuclear plants in response to the negative public perception. It started in the 80s because that was the time of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.
Btw, was there a single fatality due to radiation in Fukushima? How often does a magnitude 9.0 earthquake combined with 30 ft tsunami hit a nuclear plant?Regardless, the public will fear nuclear energy even more.
"...nuclear was killed by regulatory and legal requirements..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter said "...Nuclear was blocked in Western countries by...". It is not dead. It is returning in the West as it must, but tediously slowly, until we are either embarrassed to the point of looking pathetic by China, India & Korea, or fear & disaster forces politicians to disdain the Oil/Gas & Coal dollars that bribe them, and take serious action.
"...It started in the 80s because that was the time of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.."
No it started as soon as Nuclear was proving it could seriously displace Oil & Coal power generation. That was back in circa 1975, well before TMI(1979) or Chernobyl(1986). The NRC (run by zero qualification political appointees), which replaced the far more effective AEC, in 1974. Before the NRC, NPP's in the USA were coming in at as low as $680 per kw, in $2007 - Quad Cities 1800 MWe - and 4 yr construction times. By the time all the paid-by-fossil-fuel ENGO's, Legal firms, Lobbyists, Media and Politicians(with their NRC - the Nuclear Rejection Commission) got their slimy hands on Nuclear regulation, prices had skyrocketed to upwards of $6,000 per kw. For the sordid tale, see here:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/
Most people have no idea of the influence of lobby/legal firms, paid media & ENGO's. There are now about 30,000 ENGO's in the World. In the USA - 12,400 ENGO's had expenditures of $10.3B in 2005. In 2008 15,290 spending $13.9B. Yep that's $billions. You don't get money like that from the little people. Most of it comes from wealthy foundations, funded by the super-rich (think Oil&Gas wealth mostly). The New York based Environmental Grantmakers association itself boasts $200B in assets for it's 200 members.
And these foundation fund not just anti-nuclear ENGO's but anything that pushes up the cost of Energy, including pipeline, tar sands, oil tanker shipments, and they heavily promote High Cost Renewables (i.e. anything but conventional Hydro). Higher energy prices mean much higher profits on their Oil, Gas & Coal. Greenpeace is their biggest friend. see:
http://ecofascism.com/article23.html
Rather than consider the Human Cost of Energy, consider instead the Human Cost of lack of Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You can get some good insights and good data from the research at Lawrence Berkley Labs (by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bollinger) on the economics of renewables. These are as unbiased research as you can get."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad that's not what commenters like @pokerplayer are here for. Preview 'Climate Cover-up' http://tinyurl.com/3pemofc
None of your anti-renewable energy screed is backed up by either reality or proof. Referencing opinion blogs and a website called "ecofascism dot com" is really showing your not-so-hidden ideological agenda, isn't it? No wonder you cherry-picked bogus data to prove your point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are "triple-oversized" transmission lines, anyway? Aren't the transmission lines going to your house "triple-oversized" because you definitely aren't using their full capacity all the time, right?
If nuclear power is so profitable, why isn't Wall St pouring all that cash they're hoarding into building new plants, even with the $80B in loan guarantees the federal government is providing? Why did the municipal utility of San Antonio, TX have to write off $450M in losses when it abandoned 2 reactor construction projects because of exploding costs? Unless you can answer these questions rationally and with some independent facts to back you up, you cannot contribute to this discussion.
First Solar can produce CdTe panels for under $1 per watt. Solar PV costs have dropped 40% in the past 18 months, so you have to constantly stay up to date in this fast-moving industry to have the best data. The cost of instillation, support equipment and permitting / regulatory red tape are starting to dominate the costs of solar PV and those areas have not nearly improved as fast as cell production yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar has its highest output during peak demand at the point of load. Therefore, when you own and/or operate a PV array, you are selling your power when prices are highest. In addition, producing at or near a load means that grid upgrades are obviated wherever PV is installed and the benefit scales with the size of solar output in a given area. Any economic analysis that doesn't take these two factors into account is severely flawed.
I think it's a bit too early to say if Fukushima has caused any fatalities or not. However, the plant itself will probably be a $30B+ writedown by TEPCO with the Japanese government socializing much of these losses amongst its people. In addition, giving proper compensation for people relocating out of the exclusion zone will probably run into $100B+ territory with the Japanese people picking up this tab as well. How much wind and solar would this money have bought?
You ask how often an earthquake of this magnitude AND the accompanying tsunami that followed it would occur. Well, the designers of Fukushima didn't think that event would occur within the lifetime of the plant and they were gravely mistaken. How many billion$ are you willing to stake that engineers building these plants all over the world will be more able to foresee ALL the natural disasters that will affect these plants for the next 60 - 80 years? We almost had a nuclear plant get flooded this year and we lucked out by a few inches. Did the plant builders foresee that close call? The costs of a reactor accident are so high that we can't afford that slim of a margin of error, especially when clean energy is improving so rapidly.
BTW, Here's just some data on wind power costs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2010_annual_wind_market_report.pdf
"...Referencing opinion blogs and a website called "ecofascism.dot.com" is really showing your not-so-hidden ideological agenda, isn't it?..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the website, fully links its assertions with citations, unlike your sources. And if you ever read anything I've wrote you will know I am NOT an AGW or Peak Oil denier, unlike the mentioned website. As-a-matter-of-fact I have frequently warned of the dangers of runaway Global Warming & Peak Oil catastrophe. Unlike you, I actually believe in REAL SOLUTIONS to those problems, not warm-and-fuzzy sunshine, gentle breezes and moonbeams will solve everything. And unlike you, I am not a Religious (greenie religion) Fanatic. If you were starving (as most people in the world will be if your greenie energy plans are accepted), and a Republican offered you a biscuit, you would immediately refuse it, thinking it must be poisoned. I would taste it, smell it and if it looked good - I would eat it. I happen to believe, unlike you, that science, math & truth are independent of who writes them. And the eco & fascism link is not so far-fetched as you think - read the article. A bit of interesting history of Scientific American & Nature magazines included:
http://ecofascism.com/article22.html
"...with the $80B in loan guarantees the federal government is providing..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, interesting thing your loan guarantees. Rod Adams explains:
"...For a project[Calvert Cliff's NPP] that would have produced 4,000 jobs for 4-5 years in Maryland, the companies involved were being told that they had to PAY the US government a non refundable fee of $880 MILLION dollars in order to BORROW $7.5 billion for a project where they would have to invest at least 20% of the project cost as their own equity, thus giving them at least $2.0 billion in reasons to make sure the project succeeded.
In contrast, the wind farm, which will produce 400 jobs for a relatively short period during construction, was able to obtain a $1.06 billion dollar loan with NO CREDIT SUBSIDY COST at all. The ARRA has provided all of the money required for the credit subsidy cost for politically defined "renewable" energy via a change in section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act. In addition, section 1603 of the ARRA provides a CASH GRANT in lieu of a production tax credit of 30% of the cost of the project via a check within 6 months after the project closes. The wind project thus gets a $1.06 billion loan with no closing cost and the sponsors have no equity in the project at all since they get their 20% down payment back with a 50% kicker less than a year after the project starts..."
So for your Renewables - guaranteed FREE loan guarantee with a GUARANTEED 50% PROFIT right after the project starts. And a TRIPLE Accelerated Depreciation Tax Gift, that Nuclear doesn't get. For Nuclear you have the gov't demanding an $880M "FEE" up front – nonrefundable, and 20% payment of their own equity – that's with the right hand, while meanwhile with the left hand the gov't is doing everything they can to throw roadblocks in front of the Nuclear development, and if it collapses due to unrelenting paid-by-Oil Greenie ENGO's, and other Vested Interests PLUS the NRC, then the taxpayer foots the bill and OMB & politicians get big, fat bonuses from Oil/NG who stand to make $billions by blocking the plant construction.
You don't have to convince me of the viability of solar. We wouldn't be in the solar business if we think it's not viable. But that $1 per watt of First Solar is just the manufacturing cost. They can't sell their panels at that price. You have to add corporate overhead cost plus profit margin plus $2 per watt installation cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 9.0 magnitude earthquake and 30 ft tsunami will surely have a high cost of destruction in any city. You mitigate the risk of natural disasters by safety engineering and insurance to cover the cost. The Fukushima engineers should have done better on safety.
Despite the fear and doomsaying, the historical fact is nuclear is safer than fossil fuels. Renewables are best but expensive, nuclear is second, fossil fuels are worst.
"...What are "triple-oversized" transmission lines, anyway? Aren't the transmission lines going to your house..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince Wind has an avg output of only about 25% of it's peak output. And are mostly located far from major load centers - you need transmission lines, switchgear and transformers sized to carry the peak output, while on avg only carrying 25% of peak output. A greatly added expense. Residential consumers do have a similar peak/avg ratio, but that is for very short distance transmission, at such low power levels that the transmission difference in cost is minor.
sault says:"...Solar has its highest output during peak demand at the point of load.... power when prices are highest..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope. Solar peaks typically at noon, while grid load peaks usually around 5 pm, when Solar is at 10% or less. Compare load/supply profiles, Solar in Hawaii:
http://minnefuels.pbworks.com/f/1264719011/solar-PV.jpg
For Electricity prices and demand profile, Ontario grid:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/marketToday.asp
So Solar PV matches morning demand not bad in the summer, but demand is still rising after noon, while Solar is falling off. By 5pm Solar is nil while demand is still very high for another 4 hrs. So call out your NG power plant crews for a 4 hr shift in the afternoon, to complement the Solar. Pay the VERY HIGH peak demand charge on the NG you consume, and if it is a cloudy day, call out the NG power plant crew again - not really - you better have the plant on spinning standby, wasting fuel in case the Solar craps out.
sault says: "...at or near a load means that grid upgrades are obviated wherever PV is installed ...that doesn't take these two factors into account is severely flawed..."
Yep, that is true. But that is only rooftop Solar PV which most experts have already concluded is NOT as economical as LARGE commercial arrays located in very good locations like the desert. Note that $/pkwatt does not include Residential FACTS like building and tree shade, slack & apathetic maintenance - letting leaves, dust & debris build up on the panels and poor orientation to the sun.
I know a fellow who installed a Solar Hot Water system, it worked fine, but he sold the house 3 yrs after installation, and the new owners thought it looked ugly, and didn't want to maintain it so they trashed the whole thing. How often does that happen? How often does some homes have their Solar off because a mickey-mouse tripped breaker, but the resident is too dumb to even know it or too lazy to bother checking it out?
Latest avg cost of Solar PV in the USA, according to your NREL is $7.15 per watt:
http://openpv.nrel.gov/
You probably didn't read the wind power study, did you? Didn't think so...You know how you can tell a reputable source from an agenda-driven source? The reputable source will highlight the benefits AND challenges / drawbacks concerning the technology under discussion. An agenda-driven source will either ONLY bash its target or praise the technology it endorses (like ALL of your sources). The wind power study I provided WAS sourced (that's how I know you didn't look at it) and provides a realistic picture of the industry as of mid 2011.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since Wind has an avg output of only about 25% of it's[sic] peak output."
Still more evidence that you didn't read the study. The industry average is actually 31% and would have been closer to 35% if it were not for curtailment activities. The best wind farms can achieve a 48% capacity factor and offshore wind promises sites with over 50% CF.
The fee on the loan guarantees was to protect the federal government from the historically high default rate for reactor construction loans. The historical data shows that about 50% of those loans would default. Just look at the massive writedown NRG Energy was forced to do because of exploding reactor costs:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13411603&page=1
How much would the federal government be on the hook for if not for the fee to protect it from the historic 50% default rate of reactor construction?
"The wind project thus gets a $1.06 billion loan with no closing cost and the sponsors have no equity in the project at all since they get their 20% down payment back with a 50% kicker less than a year after the project starts..."
So where are you copying these little nuggets from? There's no 50% "kicker" or guaranteed profit for renewable energy development. Your biased "source" is misleading you. It's a good thing the nuclear industry's production tax credit is set in stone and they have long-term certainty while the renewable energy tax credit is at the mercy of political whims and the three times it has lapsed, due to Republicans carrying out the wishes of their fossil-fueled masters, the clean energy industry has had to deal with massive tax uncertainty.
That $7.15 per watt includes the more expensive solar cells that were installed in the 70s 80s and 90s. A lot of that was research programs and not commercial cells. How about we include the Manhattan Project into the cost per watt for nuclear or how about all those reactor construction projects that failed in the 70s and 80s and the massive writedowns that ratepayers had to swallow? Doesn't sound fair, does it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, anecdotes concerning your friend's hot water system are not proof of anything. The following insinuations are even more worthless to this debate.
Look, you can claim that nuclear power is cheap and the only thing standing in its way are politicians and hippies and I can say that it's expensive and should only be expanded when renewable energy and efficiency have been fully exploited. I can point to the historic failure rate of reactor construction and you'll point to those same politicians and hippies and blame them for killing the industry back then. Yeah, it's a pain in the @$$ to get a powerplant of any kind built and we need to streamline the regulatory process as much as possible. The good Dr. said that instillation for solar PV is $2 per watt. That needs to change. Nuclear power CAN generate clean electricity as long as there are no more Fukushima-style disasters. I want to know that any new plants built will have a nearly ZERO chance of melting down and / or releasing radiation during their lifetimes. So, if you can point to specific regulatory hurdles that don't increase safety, sure, get rid of them. I want to know the true cost of nuclear power without all the red tape just as much as I want to know the true cost of solar, wind, etc. without all of its red tape attached too. I've seen such divergent cost estimates for new nuclear power that I'm just a bit skeptical. More transparency is all I'm really asking for.
Another equally important reason utilize alternative power, one that is often overlooked, is our dependence on the multitude of products other than
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfuel.
Also consider, gasoline/diesel engines use, at most,
one third of each gallon burned to do work while the rest is lost to heat and friction.
The real expense resides in our reluctance to change. The burgeoning world population with it's own energy demands suggests time is of the essence.