The Human life cost of Power Generation Methods?

[superduper]

New forum poster by the way.

I'd like to know if anyone has ever thought about this topic. Please no nit-picking, and I'll try to be as clear as I can with my question/idea.

Coal is thought of as an inexpensive means of power generation. The renewable means of power generation are seen as more "expensive". This is in terms of monetary units, be it dollars/pounds/initial/resources/etc.

Has a study ever been done of the human life cost (deaths related to) associated with the generation of electricity via coal vs. the human life cost associated with the other power generations means.

For example: Since 1900 or so: Deaths in coal mines (recent disasters in VA, Utah, others bring this to mind) + deaths in coal fired steam plants/boilers + deaths related to electrocution from transmitting power to homes = NUMBERAAA in lives
Total power generated by coal = NUMBERBBB in Gigawatts.

Divide NUMBERAAA by NUMBERBBB to get lives per Gigawatt.

Do the same thing for any other "green" power generation method and compare numbers.


As a side note, as we watch this disaster in Utah coal mines play out, should we add in the cost in human lives before we think of coal fired electricity as "cheap"?

Thoughts here or a link to a similar study would be awesome,

Thanks and always hug a tree.

D

[greenhammer]

Hi and welcome to the forums!

You bring up an interesting point. I don't know enough to run the numbers but there's definitely validity in what you're saying.

Keep in mind, though, that there will always be a use for coal/oil, at least until we run out, so there will ALWAYS be coal miners, and accidents will happen.

But in the overall scheme of things, I think it's safe to say renewable energy comes at a cheaper price when you consider all the factors.....especially long-term sustainability.

[mobius]

I think you should also add deaths among the local/regional population. Coal is responsible for thousands of premature deaths each year. If you do find such a study that your talking about, I would love to see it.

[superduper]

We'll see, but I really would like more information on this topic, and basically anything less than a fullscale university quality study would be deemed unreliable by many (probably me included).

I mean there are SO many factors to consider, but it seems to me that if you put (excuse the idealizing of the issue here) the deaths/injuries (and costs associated with those casualties) related to the

obtaining of fossil fuels + transportation of said fuels + storage of said fuels + usage of said fuels + transmission of power from said fuels

and compare it to deaths/injuries (related $$$)

research of solar and/or wind power + manufacture of panels/solar H20 heaters/wind turbines + any misc transport deaths (ie a trucker dies while delivering a PV panel to a home in California or so)

You can't help but see the trend.

It seems (to my uninformed mind) that the 2nd sum would be basically zero while the first (My father is a mechanic at a steam plant in Alabama) is going to be highly, highly significant. By they way, so many accidents (at least under Southern Company / Alabama Power) go unreported due to managerial pressure / incentives that it isn't funny.

Maybe I'm just restating my initial post, but I'm frustrated that someone informed and "learned" hasn't thought of this topic before.

[Tripholiada]

That is actually really interesting. It would have an even more dramatic impact if you added the amount air polution coal causes......

[superduper]

I suppose, but the magnitude of the research involved is still pretty staggering.

[Ecolugar]

Discover Magazine, August, 2007, page 60:

"Particulates and other air pollutants from coal-fired power plants cause somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 premature deaths in the United States each year."

Quite a range but indicates magnitude (about half that of traffic accidents/year).