Slashdot Mirror
The Health Benefits of Wind and Solar Exceed the Cost of All Subsidies (arstechnica.com)
New submitter TheCoroner writes: A paper in Nature Energy suggests that the benefits we receive from moving to renewables like wind and solar that reduce air pollution exceed the cost of the subsidies required to make them competitive with traditional fossil fuels. Ars Technica reports: "Berkeley environmental engineer Dev Millstein and his colleagues estimate that between 3,000 and 12,700 premature deaths have been averted because of air quality benefits over the last decade or so, creating a total economic benefit between $30 billion and $113 billion. The benefits from wind work out to be more than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is more than unsubsidized wind energy generally costs.
This study ambitiously tries to estimate the benefits from emissions that were avoided because of the increase in wind and solar energy from 2007 through 2015, and to do so for the whole of the U.S. Millstein and colleagues looked at carbon emissions, as well as sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, all of which contribute to poor air quality. There are other factors that also need to be considered. A rise in renewables isn't the only thing that has been changing in the energy sector: fuel costs and regulation have also played a role. How much of the benefit can be attributed to wind and solar power, and how much to other changes? The researchers used models that track the benefits attributable to renewable power as a proportion of the total reduction in emissions.
This study ambitiously tries to estimate the benefits from emissions that were avoided because of the increase in wind and solar energy from 2007 through 2015, and to do so for the whole of the U.S. Millstein and colleagues looked at carbon emissions, as well as sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, all of which contribute to poor air quality. There are other factors that also need to be considered. A rise in renewables isn't the only thing that has been changing in the energy sector: fuel costs and regulation have also played a role. How much of the benefit can be attributed to wind and solar power, and how much to other changes? The researchers used models that track the benefits attributable to renewable power as a proportion of the total reduction in emissions.
But what if we make the world better for no reason?
But what about the health benefits of me driving a '69 Charger Hemi R/T? It's great for my stress level and has cured my erectile dysfunction.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course, it has long been known that if the negative externalities of coal generation were factored in it would be way more expensive than other generation forms. Did they also count the concerns about coal ash storage, which has caused drinking water problems and even a flood of radioactive, toxic sludge in the case of the Tennessee Valley?
It should come as a no surprise that the stuff that comes out of tailpipes is not good for you to breathe. It can and does kill people. People who want to kill themselves quickly, breathe a lot of it in a short amount of time. The rest of us are doing it over a longer period of time.
The sooner we switch away from a gas burning engine, the better.
Even including the deaths from Chernobyl nuclear power has an impressive safety record. More people died from windmill and solar accidents per energy produced than nuclear.
Sure, there were a lot of accidental deaths in the early days of nuclear power but it's making a lot of safe energy now. Wind and solar combined make very little energy, and you compare that to worker deaths from electrocutions and falls and nuclear has them beat by an order of magnitude on safety. Nuclear is better for the environment too, less carbon produced per energy than wind or solar. Pretty sure nuclear kills fewer birds and bats too.
I just heard on the radio today of the health effects of the sound made by windmills. I think they called it "infrasound", it's the low frequency hum made by windmills that cause headaches, hearing loss, and all kinds of crazy stuff. Maybe that's a bunch of pseudoscience, I don't know.
I see a lot of comparisons of wind and solar to coal and natural gas. Why not compare it to nuclear? I know why. By comparison wind and solar is expensive, dirty, deadly, and did I mention expensive?
If these articles want to convince me that I need wind and solar power then they need to compare it to nuclear too. But they don't. Again, I know why.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Economist here, people are generally considered to have an intrinsic value. It's how we decide if we should put up a barrier on the edge of a road or not.
I hear the point you are trying to make and there some validity to it if the study is suspect.
But consider this.
Any pollution associated with wind or solar or electricity generation is going to be highly localized. And it's going to be in one place - easier to scrub, filter, and contain.
The only pollution from an electric vehicle going down the road is rubber from the tires (same as other vehicles) and brakes (which is about 1/10th as much due to regenerative braking.
By comparison, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles emits their own weight in pollutants into the atmosphere each year.
Source: OHIO EPA.
The following pollutants are in car exhaust:
(If you skip to the bottom, you'll see PM10's are a huge threat from ICE vehicles.
Pollutants from Car Exhaust
CO2 â" carbon dioxide. This gas is naturally present in the atmosphere at low concentration (approximately 0.035%). It absorbs infrared energy and is thus a greenhouse gas (a contributor to global warming). Concentrations of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere appear to be increasing. This could have a substantial effect on the climate. The internal combustion engine contributes to the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of carbon dioxide, however, is felt worldwide. It does not have a great impact on the immediate urban environment2. Nor are car engines the greatest producers of this pollutant.
CO â" carbon monoxide. The main source of CO in cities is the internal combustion engine, where it is produced by incomplete combustion. Anthropogenic sources account for approximately 6% of the 0.1 ppm concentration of CO in the earth's atmosphere globally. In an urban area, the concentration (and the percentage anthropogenic contribution) can be much higher. During a city rush hour, for example, concentrations of CO can reach 50 or even 100 ppm, which greatly exceeds the safe level. CO is highly toxic: it binds to haemoglobin more strongly than oxygen does, thus reducing the capacity of the haemoglobin to carry oxygen to the cells of the body. CO also has the nasty habit of sticking to haemoglobin and not coming off. This means that a fairly small amount of it can do a lot of damage.
CO can be oxidised to the far less harmful CO2 if there is enough O2 available. At higher air-fuel ratios the level of CO emission goes down. The fuel has undergone complete, or more nearly complete, combustion. CO can also be oxidised to CO2 in a catalytic convertor.
NOx â" oxides of nitrogen. While some nitrogen may be present in the fuel (as mentioned earlier), most oxides of nitrogen are produced when elemental nitrogen (N2) in the air3 is broken down and oxidised at high temperatures (approximately 1000 K or greater) and pressures within the internal combustion engine. Nitrogen monoxide (NO) is produced in higher concentration than nitrogen dioxide (NO2) but the two species are in any case interconvertible by means of photochemical interactions. Other oxides of nitrogen, such as N2O4, may occur; but are more rare. Because hydrocarbons compete with nitrogen for oxygen, NO is formed to a greater extent in cars with a 'lean mixture', that is, a low fuel-air ratio.
NO and NO2 are toxic species. Oxides of nitrogen also play a major role in the formation of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
HC â" hydrocarbons. 'Much of the hydrocarbon fuel passes through the process unconsumed and is expelled into the atmosphere along with other exhaust fumes'. This remark was made earlier in passing. Fuel close to the wall of the combustion chamber may be quenched by the relative coolness of that area and not be burned. If the engine is poorly designed or is not in proper working order the proportion of unburned fuel rises. Hydrocarbons are also released to the atmosphere by evaporation from fuel tanks. Hydrocarbons can be dangerous to human health and are also part of the makeup and cause of photochemical smog, which is discussed below.
C6H6 â" Benzene and its
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Fuck 'em. I got a few bucks. I'll fight the case.
http://sci-hub.io/saveme/16a8/...
If the direct link doesn't work, search the DOI.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Since nuclear has such a wildly greater EROEI than wind and solar,
No, you're wrong. Here is the science. Short answer negative EROEI on nuclear.
why isn't this story about the trillions of lives and quintillions of dollars saved by nuclear over the last 50 years?
Because there isn't any story to tell.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles emit pollution that weighs roughly as much as the vehicle- every single year.
Electric cars emit tire rubber dust (same as ICE) and brake dust (but only 1/10th as much).
That's it. No micro particulates, no unburnt hydrocarbons, no leaing fluids, no CO2, CO, or Sulphur.
Any pollution created by the cars manufacture is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable.
Any pollution created by electrical generation is going to be highly localized, containable, and filterable (even coal).
If your town has 1 million ICE vehicles in it on a given day, replacing them would remove 4 billion pounds of pollution per year from your town.
That's going to help many over 65, and anyone with breathing problems, probably cut cancer noticeably due to the reduction of PM10 combustion emissions.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The so called Liquidators alone are more or less all dead:
At the peak of the cleanup, an estimated 600,000 workers were involved in tasks such as building waste repositories, water filtration systems, and the "sarcophagus" that entombs the rubble of Chernobyl
One advocacy group, the Chernobyl Union, says 90,000 of the 200,000 surviving liquidators have major long-term health problems.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
Sorry, no idea where you have your numbers from, but I saw several thousand dead bodies myself.
Keep in mind: the Liquidators where 17 - 19 year old recruits of the soviet army, they should be about 50 now, more than 2/3rds are dead.
And that does not even include the civil persons that died in the area around the plant.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The worst nuclear accident in history may have killed "up to" a million. Coal kills a million every year (air pollution in general kills 5.5M a year) in normal operation without an accident (and also has numerous accidents that kill thousands every year).
Coal only kills about 13,000 Americans a year these days, but is much worse in most of the world. For example, "researchers found that coal use shaves off 5.5 years of the average lifespan of a person living in northern China compared to the someone in the south." (source) In China alone Coal kills 670,000 a year.
This space intentionally left blank
No, not really. You see, elderly people who're most at risk of dying due to the increased pollution are those with pre-existing respitory conditions that by themselves are already expensive to treat.. What do yu think is one of the driving factors of causing those people to have said conditions? Pollution. So by cutting down pollution, you reduce the amount of elderly people in need of care, thereby decreasing costs. And it's not as if only young people fall to these illnesses. They're at a heightened risk obviously, but inhaling pollutants does increase mortality risk in all age-groups.
Take London during the industrialization for example with its massive amounts of coal-smoke. There too, the vast majority of people outside factory and mine-workers that suffered and died of smog-induced illnesses were older people. By your logic it should have been fine to leave London covered in smog, because 'nah, it really just kills older folks they're going to die anyway'.
Or look at modern day Chinese megacities with pollution so bad, that in certain areas just going outside to breathe the air is equivalent to smoking 1-2 packs of cigarettes a day.. You think the chinese are interested in cutting down pollution en masse just because they wanna appear green, or because they've done that math and figured out that having an explosion of respitory illnesses will cost them a metric fuckton in lost years of employment as well as treatment costs?
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
If you believe in any form of government then you believe in re-distributive taxation. The question from there is not the morality of such a thing, anyone who has agreed that government is necessary has already agreed to that. The real question is what money should be spent on.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Let's step away from Chernobyl for a second and get back to the implicit question: is nuclear power "safe"?
I think that is "begging the question". Before we ask whether nuclear technology is safe, we need to know whether its the technology we have to be worrying about or the organizations that are using it that are the problem.
I think it's the organizations that are using the technology that are the danger. That's a bit like the way everyone thinks they're a better than average driver; they are, on their best days. And that's how we judge ourselves, by how we are when we're at our best. But when you're talking about safety, you have to judge yourself by how you are on a bad day.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs that would be considered unacceptable by modern standards. And yet, in both cases the catastrophic failure can ultimately be traced to failures in organizational decision-making. Chernobyl failed because of a safety test that was compromise by pressure to minimize power delivery disruptions that eventually put a reactor that was outside its normal operating envelope in the hands of an operations shift that didn't have the expertise to handle it. Fukushima's failure can be traced to TEPCO's failure to respond to the information that the tsunami statistics under which the plant was designed grossly underestimated a hundred year tsunami; all they had to do was to stage portable power generation equipment on the high ground surrounding the plant, but instead they raised the on-site backup generators by a few inches -- in effect they made a token response, which showed they got the message but didn't take it seriously.
Look around at the crappy, semi-competent or corrupt companies you have to deal with. In a world with only a few reactors, you have some chance of making sure none of the companies running them would be like those. In a world where nuclear reactors are ubiquitous, you have to design them so you'd be comfortable with companies like Comcast or Wells-Fargo running them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's the EPA's standard figure based on the average total contribution a person makes to the economy over the course of an entire lifetime. It's not just how much you pay him to drive the bus - it's all the money every business loses if he doesn't show up to drive the bus because their workers can't get to the factory.
And if there's a problem with that figure, it's that it's way out of date and hasn't been inflation adjusted since the study that produced it was done in the 1990s - the real figure from the same study would be a LOT higher now. But it remains the best studied, and most comprehensively an accurately calculated average financial value of a human life that exists in all of science.
There's another problem with it though - it doesn't calculate the emotional loss to family members when you die, the lost productivity to the economy for your funeral and the reduced productivity as they deal with the many difficulties of grieving, the bad impacts when a primary breadwinner dies and a formerly self-sufficient family is forced to use welfare to make ends meet or any of those things.
If you were to put a number on those losses, then even without inflation adjustment the number is probably low-balling it by at least 30%.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Followed your link, searched for EROEI (from your post), found this:
The energy return on energy investment (EROEI) is here defined as the ratio of the energy delivered to grid over the energy investments, both measured over the full cradle-to-grave (c2g) period. The energy return on energy investments of the world averaged nuclear energy systems are EROEI = 2-3 under the current conditions, but will decline over time when leaner uranium ores are to be exploited
https://www.stormsmith.nl/i12.html
Now, 2-3x isn't great, but it is more than 1.
Also, a chart from that source indicates that EROEIs of greater than 1 will last until after 2070.
https://www.stormsmith.nl/Resources/eroeitime070v2.jpeg
Perhaps I read the wrong part of your article, but it is also possible you were just hoping no one would follow your link.
Say what you will about CO2, that its emission must be curtailed to limit warming, etc. But _it is not a pollutant_, and calling it that is bullcrap spin.
Anybody want a peanut?