FUD is a term that stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. According to Wikipedia, "FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs."
Renewable energy options such as solar power have certainly captured the public’s imagination, with many more people around the world now demanding a clean and sustainable energy future.
However, there’s a lot at stake in the current energy status quo and for parties wishing to discredit renewable energy, the most effective way to do so during these tough financial times is to exaggerate the costs to be borne by consumers.
Over the last few weeks there’s been an increasing number of stories in the news about how much extra consumers will need to pay as the result of an increasing amount of renewable energy being introduced into the mains grid. For example, in the UK, the estimates have varied wildly – anything from £92 annually (approximately AUD $188) to a massive £320 per year quoted by some news outlets.
There’s something very important that’s missing from some of these stories, aside from the questionable accuracy of their claims. Whichever way the world chooses to go, whether with filthy fossil fuel or clean energy from wind, tide, geothermal and sun; it is going to hit the hip pockets of all – but a business as usual approach to energy generation will cost even more.
Most consumers don’t realise that the fossil fuel industry is very heavily subsidised already. People are paying more than what is stated on their utility bill indirectly through income and consumption taxes.
There’s also the issue of peak oil – new oil reserves are becoming harder to find and what is available is becoming more difficult and costly to extract. There’s also the issue increased environmental damage being wrought through these extraction processes; such as in the case of Canada’s tar sands.
While coal is still plentiful, it’s undeniably a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions; a major driver behind global warming and climate change. The coal industry has been trying to beat the drum for "clean coal"; but the reality is that even if the concept were commercially viable, it would require vast amounts of extra coal to be mined in order to provide the energy needed to create "clean coal" power. The expectation is that the cost increase for clean coal technology will be in the order of 50 to 75% of current power generation costs.
Along with costs of various subsidies and sanitising strategies for dirty power, marginal price increases due to developing renewable technologies need to be weighed against the potential costs across economies of fossil fuel related health issues, frequent extreme weather events, droughts, fires, floods, ocean warming, acidification and level rise; plus the failure to create new industries.
For example, a recent study from the West Virginia University Institute for Health Policy Research found the costs of illness and premature deaths in Appalachia related to coal mining far outweigh economic benefits the industry brings to the region. While coal mining contributed USD $8 billion to Appalachia in 2005, the costs of shortened life spans associated with coal operations ranged from $16.979 billion to $84.544 billion, the study found.
The Stern Review of 2006, commissioned by the British Government, put the global projected cost of global warming and its effects at $A9 trillion – more than the combined cost of the two world wars and the Great Depression. It also represents 20% of the global economy.
Nuclear power has also enjoyed new-found favour, but the cost of electricity generated by new nuclear reactors would be far higher than increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sourced power. New nuclear reactors now cost seven times as much as the cost projection for the first reactors of the Great Bandwagon Market.
Yes, renewable energy will cost more – but even an extra 50 cents a day to source our electricity via clean, renewable means seems a very small price to pay as insurance against even higher costs involved by continuing with our fossil fuel addiction; or even pursuing nuclear power.
