The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Many people find it difficult to calculate the true cost of their electricity. Special duties, taxes and subsidies all add up to influence prices, not to mention the environmental and health costs that aren't included in the final calculations. Researchers from Green Budget Germany (GBG) have taken a closer look at these extra costs in a recent study. Their work calculated, among other things, the environmental and health expenses related to available energy sources.
Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.
Many people find it difficult to calculate the true cost of their electricity. Special duties, taxes and subsidies all add up to influence prices, not to mention the environmental and health costs that aren't included in the final calculations.
Researchers from Green Budget Germany (GBG) have taken a closer look at these extra costs in a recent study. Their work calculated, among other things, the environmental and health expenses related to available energy sources.
Green Keynesianism "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
If these costs were added up and passed on to consumers, the surcharge for conventional energy would be 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly 3 times higher than the current surcharge for renewable power, according to the study "Was Strom wirklich kostet" conducted by Green Budget Germany on behalf of power provider Greenpeace Energy and the German Wind Energy Association (BWE).
But, hey, this isn't methodologically valid either!
Using the most optimistic (and likely wrong) value, nuclear comes out at 5.0 ct/kWh, below wind and water -- but only slightly. Using the most pessimistic (and likely wrong too) value, nuclear goes off the scale.
A loose end in an otherwise interesting report. (What I would have done is take the median of literature values: this would be somewhat robust against both the unduly optimistic and unduly pessimistic results.)
by Oui - Apr 17
by Oui - Apr 161 comment
by Oui - Apr 1612 comments
by Oui - Apr 156 comments
by Oui - Apr 14
by Oui - Apr 145 comments
by Oui - Apr 131 comment
by Oui - Apr 12
by Oui - Apr 112 comments
by Oui - Apr 10
by Oui - Apr 93 comments
by Oui - Apr 91 comment
by Oui - Apr 83 comments
by Oui - Apr 69 comments
by Oui - Apr 6
by Oui - Apr 55 comments
by Oui - Apr 56 comments
by Oui - Apr 43 comments