The release last month of a joint announcement by Greenpeace and Facebook marks the end of one of the most interesting green campaigns of recent years. Greenpeace first targeted Facebook 20 months ago, after the social media giant announced a new purpose-built data center, which it turned out would depend on electricity mainly generated from coal. Facebook cited its commitment to building an energy-efficient data center, but Greenpeace argued that ignoring the prime source of energy for the site undermined other green elements of the strategy.

According to the new statement, Facebook is now committed to using renewable energy in future data centers and also offers to promote this approach to other companies:

Facebook is committed to supporting the development of clean and renewable sources of energy, and our goal is to power all of our operations with clean and renewable energy. Building on our leadership in energy efficiency (through the Open Compute Project), we are working in partnership with Greenpeace and others to create a world that is highly efficient and powered by clean and renewable energy.

A number of specific activities are also mentioned in the statement. Facebook has committed to adopting a siting policy that states a preference for access to clean and renewable energy supply, and funding research into energy efficiency that will be shared through the Open Compute Project. The company will also “Engage in a dialogue with our utility providers about increasing the supply of clean energy that power Facebook data centers.”

Greenpeace, meanwhile, will help support for the Open Compute Project, by encouraging companies to join in, use the technology, and share their own efficiency innovations, and will encourage utilities to offer ways for customers to get their utility data.

Purists may decry the lack of specific goals or actions relating to existing data centers, but the statement clearly marks an acceptance by Facebook of Greenpeace’s basic argument. The biggest irony of the campaign of course is that Greenpeace used the facilities of Facebook to campaign against Facebook. More than 700,000 people signed up to the organization’s Unfriend Coal page on Facebook (which now includes a timeline description of campaign). Now that same platform (though not necessarily that page) will be used to encourage energy efficiency and to convince other companies to adopt clean energy sources.

The Open Compute project mentioned in the statement was started by Facebook as a means of sharing its own work on energy efficiency in the data center. While the initiative sought to counter some of the flack being received from Greenpeace, it also addressed an important criticism of many of the major Internet companies with regard to their secrecy over their data center operations. The new sense of cooperation between Facebook and Greenpeace is likely to put more pressure on other Internet and cloud providers to increase their transparency in this area. The campaign demonstrates the importance and visibility that is now attached to data center facilities and the fact that citing a low power usage effectiveness (PUE) rating isn’t enough to satisfy environmental campaigners.

The power of Facebook, Twitter and other social media is now becoming evident on a daily basis. In our recent report Social Media in the Utility Industry, for example, we estimate that in 2011 more than 57 million utility customers worldwide will use some form of social media to engage with their electricity providers, and that number will grow to 624 million by the end of 2017. As Facebook found, important conversations are already going on that will impact your business, whether you’re involved or not.

Eric Woods is an analyst at Pike Research who focuses on the smart grid and green information technology.

Related posts:

• What Color Is the Cloud?
• Green Facebook – Time to End the Friendship with Coal?
• A Strong Climate Treaty Could Mean More Jobs
• Mattel Vows to Stop Using Paper from Accused Asian Clear-Cutter
• A Green Cloud Is a Transparent Cloud

A coal-powered plant in West Yorkshire has launched the UK’s largest carbon capture initiative, a pilot project expected to siphon off about 100 tons of carbon dioxide daily.

The equipment, which was added to the 200-megawatt Ferrybridge Power Station, will capture only 2.5 percent of the plant’s total emissions, but is a sign of some progress in a carbon capture and sequestration industry that has endured setbacks this year.

The project will not attempt to store the carbon, but instead test the CO2 scrubbing, or removal, phase of the process. Proponents hope it will represent a bridge between smaller-scale pilot projects and commercially viable CO2-capture technology.

UK officials this week postponed the investment of £1 billion into a full-scale pilot project, and earlier this year the most ambitious carbon-capture project at a U.S. coal-fired plant was shelved because of a lack of climate legislation and state support.

While carbon-capture technology is in its early stages — and remains cost-prohibitive on a commercial scale — advocates say it could become a critical option in reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Key CO2 Capture Project Is Suspended by Major U.S. Utility
• U.S. Carbon Capture Projects Selected for Further Development
• Improved CO2 Capture Methods Are Investigated
• Carbon Storage Projects Expanded in 2010 Despite Economic Challenges
• ‘Moonlanding’ Carbon Capture Project Delayed in Norway

FuelCell Energy is a Danbury, Connecticut, manufacturer of ultra-clean fuel cell power plants. Their Direct Fuel Cell (DFC) systems are currently producing electricity at more than 50 locations worldwide and have generated over 850 million KWh of power.

FuelCell was recently named by the Department of Energy as the recipient of a $2,994,108 award to utilize its DFC power plant to capture carbon emitted from a conventional coal fueled power plant.

The DFC utilizes FuelCell’s patented hybrid fuel cell system.

FuelCell owns U.S. Patent No. 6,356,290, entitled “High-Efficiency Fuel Cell System” (’290 Patent). The ’290 Patent describes a carbonate fuel cell system that produces electricity through a series of chemical reactions.

Heat produced from the reactions can be used to drive an unfired turbine generator. Figure 1 of the ’290 Patent depicts a heat engine (3), shown as a turbine generator, having a gas compressor (3A), and a gas decompression section (3B). By using the exhaust heat from the carbonate fuel cell reaction to drive a turbine, the plant is able to increase its overall energy output and efficiency.

Figure 1:

Fuel cell technology is efficient because it produces energy without going through the combustion process. Rather, fuel cells use an electro-chemical process to produce electricity and heat.

As a result, unlike conventional combustion based power plants, there are no harmful NOx’s or SOx’s produced. Learn more about fuel cells here and here.

The electro-chemical process used in the DFC fuel cell, based on the ’290 Patent, involves three chemical reactions depicted below:

Reaction One (Internal Reforming): CH4 + 2H2O –> 4H2 + CO2

Reaction Two (Anode Reaction): 4H2 + 4CO3 –> 4H2O + 4CO2 + 8e-

Reaction Three (Cathode Reaction): 2O2 + 4CO2 + 8e- –> 4CO3

The first reaction takes a fuel source such as methane and combines it with steam to produce hydrogen gas and CO2. The hydrogen gas produced in the first reaction is combined with a carbonate in the anode reaction to produce water, CO2 and electrons (electricity).

The third reaction (cathode reaction) uses oxygen, CO2 and electrons to produce a carbonate and heat. The carbonate is then used in the anode reaction. The heat produced in this reaction is used to drive a turbine generator.

FuelCell’s DFC technology may be able to utilize flue gases from a fossil fuel power plant, such as a coal power plant, for use in the above process. Flue gases can be concentrated so that the CO2 can be separated from the remaining air and NOx gases.

The air and CO2 can be used in the cathode reaction. The CO2 from both the flue gases and the fuel cell reactions can be collected, stored and sold in either gas or liquid form.

According to a recent FuelCell Press Release:

FuelCell Energy’s carbonate fuel cell technology separates and concentrates CO2 as a side reaction during the power generation process. DFC carbon capture research conducted by FuelCell Energy has demonstrated the DFC is a viable technology for the efficient separation of CO2 from a variety of industrial facility flue gases such as cement plants and refineries. In addition to the carbon capture, the research also verified that DFC technology is capable of destroying some of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in flue gas streams, thus, reducing the cost of NOx removal equipment. This award from the DOE will advance DFC carbon capture technology further by funding research to assess the capability of DFC technology to seperate the CO2 within the flue gas emitted by existing coal fired power plants in a cost-effective manner.

A Department of Energy Press Release states the Department’s goal for FuelCell’s award is to achieve at least 90 percent CO2 capture from flue gas of an existing plant with no more than a 35 percent increase in the cost of electricity produced.

FuelCell states, “Technology currently in use to capture CO2 from the emissions of coal fired power plants are energy-intensive with high operating costs. DFC power plants potentially represent an efficient and cost-effective approach to separating CO2 while generating ultra-clean power rather than consuming power, as required by current CO2 capture technologies.”

If FuelCell is able to caputure CO2 from a coal plant while producing excess electricity, it will represent a dramatic departure from current carbon capture systems, which require large amounts of energy and are net energy consumers. FuelCell’s DFC may make the illusive goal of efficient clean coal a reality.

Article by David Gibbs, appearing courtesy Green Patent Blog.

Related posts:

• Scenes From The Disaster In The Gulf
• Energy’s Biggest Horizon Post Deepwater
• Deepwater Horizon – A Love Canal Moment
• BP to Commit Up to $500 Million to Oil Spill Research
• US Interior Department Fails to Deliver Clean Energy

In many cities air pollution is reaching levels that threaten people’s health according to an unprecedented compilation of air quality data released yesterday by the World Health Organization (WHO). The information includes data from nearly 1100 cities across 91 countries, including capital cities and cities with more than 100,000 residents. WHO estimates more than 2 million people die every year from breathing in tiny particles present in indoor and outdoor air pollution. PM10 particles, which are particles of 10 micrometers or less, which can penetrate into the lungs and may enter the bloodstream, can cause heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and acute lower respiratory infections. The WHO air quality guidelines for PM10 is 20 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as an annual average, but the data released today shows that average PM10 in some cities has reached up to 300 µg/m3.

India, Pakistan and Mongolia were also amongst the worst for pollution in cities whilst Canadian and American cities had some of the best scores. For example, Washington has a score of just 18 micrograms per cubic meter of airborne particles smaller than 10 micrometers.

The WHO report found that the Iranian city of Ahvaz had the highest measured level of airborne particles smaller than 10 micrometres. The recommended upper limit for these particles set by the WHO is 20 micrograms per cubic metre- in Ahvas the annual average was a substantial 372 micrograms per cubic metre which is 19 times over the limit. Another Iranian city, Sanandaj had 254 micrograms per cubic meter.

In both developed and developing countries, the largest contributors to urban outdoor air pollution include motor transport, small-scale manufacturers and other industries, burning of biomass and coal for cooking and heating, as well as coal-fired power plants. Residential wood and coal burning for space heating is an important contributor to air pollution, especially in rural areas during colder months.

“Local actions, national policies and international agreements are all needed to curb pollution and reduce its widespread health effects” said Dr Michal Krzyzanowski, Head of the WHO European Center for Environment and Health in Bonn, Germany. “Data from air quality monitoring that is released today, identify regions where action is most needed and allows us to assess the effectiveness of implemented policies and actions.”

The world’s average PM10 levels by region range from 21 to 142 ug/m3, with a world’s average of 71 ug/m3. The eastern Mediterranean have some of the worst area followed by Africa and the Western Pacific.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Exporting Pollution
• Looking for Climate Change Leadership? Try Mexico City
• Which Cities are the Best for Public Transportation?
• Tiny Bubbles Used to Clean Oil-Contaminated Water and Soil
• Can “Green Cities” Like Masdar Really Translate In Abu Dhabi?

Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change. The study by Tom Wigley, who is a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), underscores the complex and sometimes conflicting ways in which fossil fuel burning affects Earth’s climate. While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it also releases comparatively large amounts of sulfates and other particles that, although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight. As always the final picture of climate effect is very complicated to put together.

Wigley’s computer simulations indicate that a worldwide, partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change through at least 2050, even if no methane leaked from natural gas operations, and through as late as 2140 if there were substantial leaks. After that, the greater reliance on natural gas would begin to slow down the increase in global average temperature, but only by a few tenths of a degree.

The burning of coal releases more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, as well as comparatively high levels of other pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particles such as ash. Since natural gas emits lower levels of these pollutants, some energy experts have proposed greater reliance on that fuel source as a way to slow down global warming and reduce the impacts of energy use on the environment.

But the effects of natural gas on climate change have been difficult to calculate. Recent studies have come to conflicting conclusions about whether a shift to natural gas would significantly slow the rate of climate change, in part because of uncertainty about the extent of methane leaks.

Wigley’s new study attempts to take a more comprehensive look at the issue by incorporating the cooling effects of sulfur particles associated with coal burning and by analyzing the complex climatic influences of methane, which affects other atmospheric gases such as ozone and water vapor.

By running a series of computer simulations, Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (less than 0.1 degree Celsius). The reliance on natural gas could then gradually reduce the rate of global warming, but temperatures would drop by only a small amount compared to the 5.4 degrees F (3 degrees C) of warming projected by 2100 under current energy trends.

The main direct effect of sulfates on the climate involves the scattering of light, effectively increasing the Earth’s albedo. This effect is moderately well understood and leads to a cooling from the negative radiative forcing, partially offsetting the larger warming effect of greenhouse gases. The effect is strongly spatially non-uniform, being largest downstream of large industrial areas.

For further information:  http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy ENN.

photo:

Related posts:

• New EPA Report: US Emissions Down, Still a Need to Act on Climate Change
• Coal Costs U.S. $500 Billion In ‘Hidden’ Costs Annually, Study Says
• Carbon Sequestration – an optimal clean technology?
• Exploring Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture
• No Coal-Fired Power Plants Built in Past Two Years

Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock that has become the world’s most used energy source. Because it is so abundant and therefore cheap, much research has been done to see what other kinds of uses it can have other than direct burning for electricity production. The liquefaction of coal is one concept that is being given new life due to higher petroleum prices. Currently it is cost-prohibitive and environmentally unfriendly. But according to a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as early as 2015 and without a solid climate policy, coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel may be economically viable in the US and China.

CTL fuels have been in existence since the 1920s, and were used extensively by Germany in the 1940s. At the time, it produced about 90 percent of their national fuel needs. Then Middle Eastern oil became dirt cheap and CTL technology was largely abandoned. The only country that still uses it in a significant way is South Africa where it covers about 30 percent of their fuel needs.

The production of liquefied coal has a large carbon footprint, much larger than that of petroleum fuel production. One method of production is carbonization where the coal is coked at temperatures up to 1,380 F to produce coal tars rich in hydrocarbons. The coal tar is then further refined into fuels. The process produces a large amount of carbon dioxide emissions. If done without carbon capture and storage technologies, the life-cycle carbon footprint is about double that of crude oil.

The new MIT study examined different future scenarios with variables such as potential climate policies, the availability of biofuels, and other economic and regulatory factors. They found that in 2015, CTL technology will be economically viable in coal-rich countries like the US and China. In other regions, it could be viable by 2020 or 2025. In this scenario, carbon capture technology would not be used because it would raise the costs too much. In this scenario, liquefied coal would account for a third of the world’s liquid fuel supply by 2050.

The study notes that the viability of CTL will by vary greatly on whether or not certain regions adopt prohibitive climate policies. If lower-carbon fuels are available, CTL would not be considered as an option. Liquefied coal may only be available in developing nations with lax environmental rules, and where low-carbon alternatives are not available.

One of the study’s authors, John Reilly, stated, “Various climate proposals have very different impacts on the allowances of regional CO2 emissions, which in turn have quite distinct implications on the prospects for CTL conversion. If climate policies are enforced, world demand for petroleum products would decrease, the price of crude oil would fall, and coal-to-liquid fuels would be much less competitive.”

Article by David A Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Smaller Nuclear Reactors Recommended as Good Option for U.S.
• U.S. Trucking Companies Making Shift to Liquid Natural Gas
• Capturing CO2 from the Air Remains Cost-Prohibitive, Study Says
• Cleaning Up Coal
• Global Gas? An International Market Survey

US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar likes to tout his department’s support for clean energy development on federal lands. But a decision last week to open 7,400 acres in Wyoming to increased coal mining calls into question how strong the Interior Department’s commitment to clean energy really is. If we’re serious about transforming the US economy to run on clean energy, expanding coal mining is a major step backwards. By flooding the market with dirty coal mined in Wyoming, the Interior Department risks derailing progress on renewable energy and will make it all the more difficult to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Wyoming already produces more coal than any other state in the US: in 2010 it supplied almost 40% of coal used to generate electricity. Much of this mining goes on in the Powder River Basin, which spans the border between Wyoming and Montana. Every day between seventy and eighty trains leave the Powder River Basin, transporting coal to be burned in power plants around the country. Since coal is the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, mining in the Powder River Basin is a major contributor to climate change as well as emissions of pollutants that hurt human health.

Considering how harmful coal is to public health and the climate, why would the Interior Department open up even more land to coal mining? Construction of new coal plants is at a standstill in the United States—thanks to pressure from environmentalists, not a single new plant has broken ground since 2008. Meanwhile old coal plants are being taken offline as the health cost of keeping smokestacks running becomes evident. With clean energy sources like wind and solar power becoming cheaper all the time, the idea of expanding coal mining seems almost nonsensical—unless you understand where most new coal from the Powder River Basin will likely be headed.

With the age of coal coming to a close in the US, coal companies are looking to ship their product overseas. Companies like Ambre Energy and Arch Coal are seeking permission to build coal export terminals on the west coast of North America, to funnel Powder River Basin coal to the international market. While China and India get a cheap source of energy, mercury and other pollutants from burning coal will blow west across the Pacific Ocean and rain down on the US west coast. Carbon emissions from coal burned in these countries will of course affect the whole planet. The politically powerful coal industry has persuaded the Interior Department to come down on its side, putting our clean energy future at risk.

With enough wind energy for utility-scale production, Wyoming has potential to help transform the US electricity grid. Yet as long as coal remains at the center of Wyoming’s energy policy, it isn’t likely to get on the renewable bandwagon. Coal mining is a dangerous distraction from the clean energy solutions the US should be pursuing. By dumping more coal on the international market, the Wyoming and the Interior Department threaten to make the US an extraction-based resource colony for countries like India and China.

I can guarantee this plan to ramp up coal mining and sacrifice clean energy will run into heavy opposition in the US. New coal leases in Wyoming aren’t going to move forward unchallenged. At the same time, proposal to build coal export terminals have already run into opposition on the west coast. Those who believe in a clean energy future can’t afford to let the Interior literally auction away Wyoming’s energy. The stakes are simply too high.

Article by Nick Engelfried, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• Gifts, Sex and Drugs: Energy Agency to be Split as Result of Oil Spill
• From Sand to Solar
• Kicking Off National Energy Awareness Month
• Director of Offshore Drilling Regulatory Agency Fired
• Dept. of Interior Signs First-Ever Offshore Wind Energy Lease in U.S.

“Energy access is a human right and a rapidly rising need”, said Peabody Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gregory H. Boyce, who spoke at CERAWeek, 2011. Boyce presented coal as the fuel to provide for global energy demand into the future. Just for the four days of the conference Boyce highlighted that 70 million tons of coal would be used globally.

Access to energy supplied responsibly is, with little question, essential in society today and should be available. Classifying access to energy as a right creates the illusion that that access to energy is on the same level as the right to clean air and water, among others. Globally 3.6 billion people have limited access or no access at all to electricity, according to Boyce.

Prior to providing electricity to these 3.6 billion people, they should be informed about the options available to them. If informed, it is not likely that these people would knowingly sacrifice clean air, clean water, the health of the environment and the public for continual access to electricity. Particularly when the same electricity can be provided by clean and sustainable sources like solar, wind, and hydro.

Oh, You’re Using “that” Definition of Sustainable
Peabody Energy posted a press release correlating with Boyce’s presentation stating: “Coal is the only sustainable fuel, at scale, that can meet the world’s growing electricity needs.” Peabody Energy seems to have a firm grasp on the message that language or a specific word can provide. Peabody Energy changed their name from Peabody Coal though they still only work with coal. Peabody believes “black is the new green”.

There is an adage that advises upon realizing you’re are digging yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Peabody presents alternatives like solar and wind as not being ready to meet global demand. Boyce presented the growth of coal consumption as having almost doubled in the last 10 years with projections of the same in the next decade. This rate considerably outpaces every other fuel source.

Peabody presents coal as the affordable and readily available fuel source for the globe. Coal is “affordable” only because the external costs of damage to the environment and public health are not included. If coal is so readily available, why is it shipped from North America to Asia and Europe?

Technological advances in carbon capture and sequestration are needed to make coal the clean alternative Peabody wants it to be. These advancements will take considerable investments. Peabody is a partner in China’s GreenGen coal plant which claims it will be a near-zero emissions plant. Many environmental groups are skeptical of the claim and are waiting for proof. The considerable investments needed to make coal cleaner would be significant if applied to renewable technologies like solar and wind. The need for significant investment on both sides greatly reduces any momentum coal has today.

Article by Adrian King, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• Climate Change Inaction is the Real War on the World’s Poor
• Using Enzymes from Termites To Make Biofuel from Agricultural Waste
• Gas Helps (Not Hurts) Renewables And 7 Other Reasons Gas Can Be Green
• Ethiopia Moves Toward Carbon Neutrality
• Will the Electric Car Put Money in Your Pocket?

In 2009 China became a net-importer of coal. In 2006 the New York Times reported that China was already using “more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.” Today the amount of coal demanded in China is greater than ever. The coast of China is 7,000 miles (11,265 km) from the land-locked Powder-River Basin coal deposits of eastern Montana and Wyoming, U.S.A. (For information on the developing dispute over the proposed Longview coal export terminal please read “True Colors: Ambre Is Not Green”.)

Coal mined from the Powder-River Basin is low BTU coal, meaning more coal must be mined, transported, and burned in order to obtain the same energy as high BTU coal. The lower the BTU rating of coal the greater the emissions from burning compared to high BTU coal. Put simply, to receive the same amount of energy more low BTU coal must be burned and more emissions will be released.

Considerable concern is already being given to the emissions from coal today. The Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, released “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal” in January, 2011, stating in regard to air pollution from the combustion of coal:

“Lung disease: Particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer (2005). Heart disease: 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.”

These numbers are from only the combustion of coal. The mining and transportation of coal also contribute to the decline of human and environmental health. Almost 1,400 miles of the 7,000 mile supply chain is by rail in the U.S. The Sierra Club article “Digging a Hole for China” states:

“Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway estimates that each car loses a minimum of 500 pounds of coal for every 500 miles traveled.”

The Harvard report (summary) discusses the impact of transporting coal by rail, “70% of U.S. rail traffic [is] dedicated to shipping coal” and there are 246 deaths annually as a result of the rail transport of coal in the U.S. These numbers are prior to any additional coal transportation by rail form the Powder-River Basin.

China added the ability to produce approximately 51 gigawatts of electricity via coal in 2009. 2010 estimates show an additional 51 gigawatts of production potential via coal. Despite efforts to diversify in the renewable energy industry, China continues to build coal-fired power plants to meet electricity demand. Forecasts of continued growth indicate that building new coal-fired plants is not likely to slow in the near future. China now produces over 28% more gigawatts of electricity from coal than in 2007.

Article by Adrian King, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• Is Business Sustainability Localizing Supply?
• Greening the Supply Chain
• What Outsourcing Trends Might Mean to Sustainable Supply Chain Management
• China: The World’s Biggest Energy Consumer
• Study of CO2 ‘Supply Line’ Urges Carbon Price at Point of Extraction

Coal production costs the U.S. up to $500 billion each year in hidden health, economic, and environmental impacts, according to a new study by Harvard researchers.

Researchers at the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School found that the public health costs in the Appalachian region alone are $75 billion annually; health impacts of air pollution from coal-fired power plants cost $187 billion; impacts of mercury emissions cost $29 billion; and greenhouse gas emissions and related climate change effects climb can reach $206 billion.

In addition, coal mining and combustion leads to billions in “smaller” costs, including land disturbances, environmental cleanups, property value effects, and crop damage, according to the report, which will be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

While the study concludes that coal production is an “integral part of our daily lives,” it also carries economic implications that go “far beyond the prices we pay for electricity.”

The study said that if these hidden costs were factored into the true cost of electricity, consumers would be paying more than double the current average price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Growth of Geothermal Power Helping Colleges to Cut Energy Costs
• Forests Absorb One-Third of Fossil Fuel Emissions, Landmark Study Finds
• Capturing CO2 from the Air Remains Cost-Prohibitive, Study Says
• Cost of Solar Energy Lower Than Usually Reported, Study Says
• Liquefied Coal May Become an Economically Viable Fuel Option