Report looks at hidden health costs of fossil fuel energy production

// added October 20, 2009 // 9 comments //
Image...
WakeUpPeople

more from News:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/77423.html

Generating electricity by burning coal is responsible for about half of an estimated $120 billion in yearly costs from early deaths and health damages to thousands of Americans from the use of fossil fuels, a federal advisory group said Monday.

A one-year study by the National Research Council looked at many costs of energy production and the use of fossil fuels that aren't reflected in the price of energy. The $120 billion sum was the cost to human health from U.S. electricity production, transportation and heating in 2005, the latest year with full data.

The report also looks at other hidden costs from climate change, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, harm to ecosystems and risks to national security, but it doesn't put a dollar value on them.

"We would characterize our estimate as an underestimate," because it didn't include those other costs, said Jared Cohon, the president of Carnegie Mellon University and the chairman of the committee that produced the report.

The report says it's impossible to put a monetary amount on all the hidden costs of energy, in some cases because of a lack of information but also because the study had limited time and resources. It focused on the costs of air pollution on health.

Coal-fired power and motor-vehicle transportation accounted for roughly 99 percent of those costs. The other approximately 1 percent of the estimate was from heating for homes, buildings and industrial purposes, mostly from natural gas.

more at link...
  1. groups:
    News,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Progressive America,   5 more
  2. tags:
    News,  US News,  Fossil Fuels,  health costs
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka

9 comments // Report looks at hidden health costs of fossil fuel energy production

  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • Natural gas is clean and efficient. It causes almost no pollution---since it is a gas, pollutants can be removed before it is used. It produces more energy and less than half the CO2 of coal.

      Solar thermal is cheap and efficient. It can be used as a "helper" to already installed heating systems, and greatly reduce energy costs by lowering the amount of fuel consumed. Solar hot water, for instance, does not need to replace a water heater----but by preheating the water coming in can cause the water heater to use 80% less fuel. Everything works the same as always---it just takes much less fuel. Solar thermal can save as much as 40% of the energy bill on an average home. The natural gas not used in home and hot water heating could be used to generate electricity.

      Use natural gas to generate electricity. We'd have no need for strip mines, and completely minimal environmental damage to earth, water and air. And we'd cut CO2 emissions for coal plants over 50%---boom, one swoop.

      We can use natural gas to power our vehicles. With bi-fuel engine vehicles, and biofuels, we can run our vehicles without ever needing one drop of petroleum and all the environmental damages it causes. And, we can build our vehicles from all the parts we use now---the way we build them now---at about the same cost. No exotic, expensive batteries, rare earth elements ect.----and our vehicles would run the same, and do everything they can do now on natural gas. The only thing different---biofuels and natural gas produce almost no pollutants. They contain no sulphur or heavy metal toxins. Bi-fuel engines cost about the same to build as what we have right now.

      Bi-fuel engine vehicles would cost about 1/3 what it costs to run on petroleum----and could still run the same on liquid fuel for situations where natural gas is not available.

      Miixing fossil natural gas with just 6% biomethane produces greenhouse global warming neutral emissions. And we can make biomethane from sewage and landfills.

    • 5 months ago
  • blknight
  • larrysnotes
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  

    • $120,000,000,000.00 would be doing some good if NASA gets it. Giving it to the People would be un big mistake. Helping the Sick is work for the Catholic Church and their World Council of Churches. So, the thing ta do is stop pollution and give The $120b to the Church groups, then they can put something righteous to work for us after they cover their operating expenses of course.

      You cant just give money to people. They won't spend it correctly.

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Helping the sick is everyone's business. The World Council of Churches' work has nothing to do with directly helping the sick and the poor. Giving $120 billion to church groups will only enrich church leaders and encourage greed.

      Of course one can give money to people - most of them will spend it wisely.

    • 5 months ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • Gravity_Man:

      I'm sorry Vierotchka but people will spend all that money up and then they will be exactly where they are right now... while NASA needs it to detect the asteroids that will be flying in come 2012. Our solar system will be going through the Milky Way center plane and we will have a lot more coming at us than new pantyhose.

      Big Giant Rocks. Save the money off pollution and give it to NASA ASAP. Any other use of the money will be poorly spent. My post should be amended to NASA 1st and the Church 2nd and the people NEVER, or there won't be any people according to all reliable astronomical science at the present time.

      People have to give the money to the smart people this time.

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • Gravity_Man:

      I know, but it doesn't matter because the President has to take care of the worst threats. Giving people more health care so they can be super healthy when the next asteroid decides NOT to miss is poor priorities for a President irregardless of what political Party he belongs to.

      From what I've heard Washington has already invested trillions in underground facilities to survive. They didn't ask you your opinion. Current.com is somewhat here to keep everybody busy. We don't really know much because of their Truth Embargo keeping us all dumb as brutes.

      So since we only know a fraction of what's really going on none of our uninformed opinions carries much weight.

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
most popular
videos on current tv

current videos