As an eight-year solar energy industry veteran, I admit that I do have a dog in this fight. Nevertheless, there are certain indisputable facts that are not being discussed in our national energy debate. For example, there are numerous costs associated with energy production and consumption that are not reflected in the price per gallon (or kilowatt-hour) that the American consumer pays. What are some of those costs?
First, when Americans get sick or die from pollution due to power plant or vehicle emissions, that cost is not borne by fossil fuel producers. According to Scientific American, there are 30,100 premature deaths and 5.13 million lost workdays every year due to power plant emissions alone. Those costs, plus all related medical costs, are borne by individuals, insurance companies and American businesses.
In addition to pollution costs, workers are killed each year during the dangerous processes of extracting and refining fossil fuels. Nearly 4,800 workers were killed between 1968 and 2011 due to accidents in the coal, oil and natural gas extraction and refining industries. While employers do bare a financial cost for industrial accidents, society bares an additional burden (both economic and emotional) for every life lost.
Finally, the combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are having a measurable effect on our climate right now. While some still doubt the veracity of the studies and models, the scientific community and the rest of the developed world are in substantial agreement that human-caused climate change is a reality. Right now the costs associated with increased extreme weather events due to climate change are being borne by insurance companies and governments, leading to higher premiums and taxes. I consider myself a conservative when it comes to climate change: I hope that the models showing devastating effects over the next century (especially in the highly vulnerable third world) are wrong, but I would certainly like to hedge against that optimism by making every effort to reduce our carbon emissions in the near term. The alternative – continuing business as usual based on the notion that the preponderance of climate science might be wrong – seems reckless and short sighted.
While RE technologies are not immune to externalities such as those listed above, they are not nearly as susceptible as fossil fuels. Although the manufacture of devices like wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) cells does produce some pollutants, the amount pales in comparison to fossil fuel-based energy production. Similarly, we can expect some work-site deaths and injuries as the installation of RE systems increases, but they will be few compared to those from mining and drilling which are among the most dangerous professions in the country. And when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the energy that it takes to manufacture and install RE systems is typically recouped in less than 3 years, providing for 17 – 35+ years of emissions-free electricity.
Fossil fuels play a vital role in our economy in many ways, such as in the the manufacturing of plastics and fertilizers. In the future we may look back in disbelief that we chose to burn such a valuable and finite resource just to produce energy, a resource that can be generated in so many other ways. I do not know the best way to account for all of the external costs that are currently being left out of our energy equation, but I do think that the American people deserve a more realistic picture of what the playing field looks like as our national energy mix continues to evolve.