Clean Energy More Cost Efficient, Study Suggests

Wind turbines and solar panels are more cost effective than coal-fired power plants when climate change-related costs and health impacts are accounted for, a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences shows.

Taking this one step further, the study, which used official US government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels, suggests it is cheaper to replace the typical coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the plant running.

Based on these results, Laurie Johnson, the chief economist for the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that the United States could cut carbon pollution from power plants in a manner that is cost-effective if it were to replace coal-fired plants with cleaner options, such as wind, solar and natural gas.

"Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity," Johnson said. "There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power. We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming."

Power plants currently account for 40 percent of the nation's carbon footprint. "And yet, there are no federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants may release," Johnson said. "That's wrong. It doesn't make sense. It's putting our future at risk. We limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, soot, and other harmful pollution from these plants. It's time to cut this carbon pollution."

Critics have argued that setting federal limits on power plant emissions could raise costs, prompting government officials to develop the "social cost of carbon" (SCC), or the economic costs imposed by carbon, including its effect on health and the environment. For example, officials estimate that every ton of carbon pollution emitted in 2010 cost $33.

"These damages are only likely to increase if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution," Johnson concluded.