Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of imposing limits on the federal government's ability to reduce carbon emissions by limiting the power of the Environmental Protection Agency. In an effort to roll back the authority of the federal government, the court has heavily undermined Joe Biden’s climate change plans. The opinion many hold about this ruling is primarily based on beliefs about climate change. I would like for a moment to put the important issue of climate change aside, and instead look at the pros and cons of energy options based on their energy production, human impact, and costs. Let’s forget climate science, why might we want to change our energy system anyways?
Financial Cost
When comparing the financial cost of energy options, the best way is to consider the kW generated from the investment (not including government subsidies/taxes). Looking at the data below, natural gas offers the cheapest option, with coal and solar just behind. Coal and gas have been a cornerstone of energy generation, but investment and innovation in solar and wind have made their costs competitive. Hydro and nuclear follow behind.
Natural Gas - $600 - $1,200 per kW
Coal - $1,000 - $1,500 per kW
Solar (Utility Scale) - $830 - $860 kW
Solar (Rooftop Installation) - $1,800 - $2,000 kW
Onshore Wind - Average $1,600 kW
Offshore Wind - Average $6,500 kW
Hydro - Average $2,752 kW
Nuclear - Average $6,000 kW
The gas and coal numbers come from this Penn State page providing numbers that were favorable to fossil fuels. Solar and wind numbers from Penn State were out of date. Due to recent innovation, I used numbers for utility-scale solar from here. Rooftop solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear all came from here.
Fossil fuels also face the unique challenge of dramatic price fluctuations. The operating cost for coal and gas range from 4 to 10 cents per kW due to unstable coal and gas prices. Meanwhile, sources like solar, wind and hydro all have operating costs under 1 cent per kW. Once built, resources don't need to be bought to fuel them. The only costs are repairs and maintenance labor. The operating cost of nuclear ranges from 2 - 5 cents per kWh. Uranium prices are more stable because uranium is a resource that doesn't fluctuate when governments threaten war or when dictatorships jack prices to generate profit.
Impact
Ignoring climate effects, this next section will look at how each energy source causes death and the rate at which they do so.
Our World in Data’s graph of deaths caused per terawatt of energy produced based on accidents and air pollution caused, not factoring in potential climate change effects.
Coal
Coal has the highest health impact due to the fly ash particles produced from burning coal which irritate the lungs and accumulate in the body. Those living near coal plants can expect to have a lower life expectancy and increased risk for respiratory disease, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. Ultimately, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, etc.) causes premature death annually for about 7 million people worldwide.
Natural Gas
Gas is an improvement from coal, only releasing nitrogen dioxide when burned. This causes inflammation in the airways, coughing, wheezing, reduced lung function, increased rate of asthma attacks, and is the likely cause of asthma in children. According to Our World in Data, in an average town of 187,090 people, coal would prematurely kill 25 people annually. Natural gas? only 3.
Solar & Wind
As the third most deadly job in America, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 47 roofers die on the job per 100,000 annually, predominantly from slipping accidents. This same rate is expected for solar panel installation on roofs. Deaths can be mitigated through more rigorous safety practices and using solar shingles so roofers can do two jobs at once. Alternatively, large-scale solar farms on the ground shift the human impact to lifting injuries, electrical burns, etc.
Wind farms cause about 167 accidents annually due to heights, moving parts, and electrocution during installation and maintenance. Of interest, studies report windfarms also kill about 0.3 birds and bats per 1 million kW generated. Fossil fuel power stations kill about 5.2 per 1 million kW generated.
The Weather Problem
A unique challenge that solar and wind face is the weather. Simply put, the sun doesn't always shine, nor does the wind always blow. When this happens, energy is lost, and power can go out. The solution is for electrical grids to use what’s called ‘dispatchable energy’. When solar and wind can’t keep up, lost power must be substituted with other sources that can easily be ‘dispatched’, such as coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear. In short, a purely solar and wind grid is impractical. Dispatchable energy must make up a fraction of the grid to compensate due to inconsistency.
Inactive solar farm at night from the Department of Energy.
Hydro
Deaths caused by hydro are largely related to the location they are constructed. Some governments are willing to build them in risky areas prone to flooding, while others hold high standards with good construction codes. According to Forbes, per 1 trillion kW generated, 5 Americans die from hydro plants, beating all energy sources (in America) at safety– other than nuclear. The global death rate jumps to 1,400 people per trillion kW. These deaths occur due to a variety of reasons, including natural disasters (think of things like monsoon season, unique to the Indian subcontinent), poor construction standards, and sabotage.
Nuclear
Deaths from nuclear power generation only occur in rare one-off events. In a typical year, nobody dies from nuclear power generation. But, every few decades a bad event occurs. For example, due to poor construction of safety features, and the decision of workers to ignore safety measures, Chornobyl caused 47 deaths, and 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer may be associated. However, these additional estimates are difficult to attribute due to the subtle nature of cancer and radiation. Looking across history, deaths caused by nuclear power generation are difficult to pin down, but fair estimates range anywhere from 100-5,000. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia’s sobering list of mostly zero’s for nuclear power plant accidents.
Nuclear also has the issue of the waste created which can take hundreds or thousands of years to decay. Currently, innovation has reduced the generation of nuclear waste, but there are no ideal solutions. Deep geological disposal is emerging as a solution, where locations with very stable geology could store waste deep underground without needing maintenance. Others have proposed a future where nuclear waste is disposed of in outer space.
So– what might this mean?
Instead of thinking about climate change for a moment, what if we looked at the impacts our energy options will always have, no matter the validity of climate change. For our power grids, there are no air or blood clean solutions, there are only tradeoffs. Are we comfortable with the number of deaths they cause? Is the economic loss worth it? Why not go green anyways?
Have a question about something in the news? Shoot me an email and I might answer it in a future article!
Forget Climate Change, Why Go Green Anyways?
Actually we now haw solar panels that with low to no sunlight, will use heat set in to the panels this obtaining electricity 24/7.
Plus the area used as a solar farm takes up the same space as nuclear including the nuclear safe zone.