12. Examination of Global Warming: Health Effects of Warming and Mitigation Using Electrical Power

12

Health Effects of Global Warming and Electricity Generation from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources

Energy production and consumption is a fundamental component to economic development, poverty alleviation, improvements in living standards, and ultimately health outcomes. The unintentional consequences of energy production can, however, also result in negative health outcomes. The production of energy can be attributed to both mortality (deaths) and morbidity (severe illness) cases as a consequence of each stage of the energy production process: this includes accidents in the mining of the raw material, the processing and production phases, and pollution-related impacts

Today the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates climate change causes 150,000 deaths per year (https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/) while the WHO estimated death toll due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is between 4,000 and 9,000 and 400 for Fukushima (https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/). The WHO estimates approximately 250,000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050 (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf).

12.1 Global Warming

Compared with a future without climate change, the World Health Organization (WHO) projects following additional deaths for the year 2030: 38, 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48, 000 due to diarrhea, 60, 000 due to malaria, and 95, 000 due to childhood undernutrition. The WHO projects a dramatic decline in child mortality, and this is reflected in declining climate change impacts from child malnutrition and diarrheal disease between 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, by the 2050s, deaths related to heat exposure (over 100, 000 per year) are projected to increase. Impacts are greatest under a low economic growth scenario because of higher rates of mortality projected in low- and middle-income countries. By 2050, impacts of climate change on mortality are projected to be greatest in south Asia. These results indicate that climate change will have a significant impact on child health by the 2030s.

Under a base case socioeconomic scenario, the WHO estimate approximately 250, 000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050. These numbers do not represent a prediction of the overall impacts of climate change on health, since they could not quantify several important causal pathways. A main limitation of this assessment is the inability of current models to account for major pathways of potential health impact, such as the effects of economic damage, major heatwave events, river flooding and water scarcity. The assessment does not consider the impacts of climate change on human security, for example through increases in migration or conflict. The included models can capture only a subset of potential causal pathways, and none account for the effects of major discontinuities in climatic, social or ecological conditions.

Overall, climate change is projected to have substantial adverse impacts on future mortality, even considering only a subset of the expected health effects, under optimistic scenarios of future socioeconomic development and with adaptation. This indicates that avoiding climate-sensitive health risks is an additional reason to mitigate climate change, alongside the immediate health benefits that are expected to accrue from measures to reduce climate pollutants, for example through lower levels of particulate air pollution. It also supports the case for strengthening programmes to address health risks including undernutrition, diarrhea, vector-borne disease and heat extremes, and for including consideration of climate variability and change within programme design. The strong effect of socioeconomic development on the projections of future risks emphasizes the need to ensure that economic growth, climate policies and health programmes particularly benefit the poorest and most vulnerable populations. (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

12.2 Impact of Electrical Generation Sources on Health

Note: The principle strategy to mitigate climate change is to transition from fossil fuels to electricity produced by either sources that do not emit CO2 or capturing and storing carbon emitted fossil fuels used in the production of electricity.

The carbon footprint is a common way to measure environmental impact of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources.

The table below (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4512b7e7709b) lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates and are rounded to two significant figures.

The health effects of electricity generation can most easily be assessed by a bottom-up approach, in which emissions and hazards from each stage of the power generation cycle are measured and tracked to the endpoints at which they cause harm to individuals. The effects are calculated for specific technology and location—i.e., for a given power station using specified fuel sources.

The effects are referred to as external costs because the party generating the emissions does not take full account of these effects of his or her actions when deciding on how to generate electricity. Methods based on this approach were first used in the early 1970s and have become increasingly sophisticated. One major set of studies for Europe is the ExternE programme, which is the result of over 15 years of research supported by the European Union (EU). The following table summarizes the main health effects that have been estimated for different fuel cycles by the ExternE approach. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17876910)

A 2014 study found that in spite of media-inspired misconceptions, nuclear fission is among the safest energy technologies in terms of health effects and fatalities (Tables 5 and 6). This is true notwithstanding the three major nuclear accidents that have occurred, namely at Three Mile Island (TMI) in the U.S.A., at Chernobyl in Ukraine, and at Fukushima in Japan. Of these three, only the Chernobyl accident caused a number of fatalities, namely among those persons that were directly exposed to high radiation doses during the urgent initial part of the cleanup operation. However, the number of these fatalities is relatively small (less than one hundred) if compared to the number of annual fatalities in the coal and oil/gas industry. As an example, global average values of the mortality rate per billion kWh, due to all causes as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), are 100 for coal, 36 for oil, 24 for biofuel/biomass, 4 for natural gas, 1.4 for hydro, 0.44 for solar, 0.15 for wind and 0.04 for nuclear (Table 6).

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272406182_Why_nuclear_energy_is_sustainable_and_has_to_be_part_of_the_energy_mix)

Mortality rate worldwide in 2018, by energy source (in deaths per thousand terawatt hour)

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/)

When compared to other zero carbon sources of electric power nuclear is the safest.

12.2.1 Nuclear Generation Impact on Human Health

In May 2019 the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its first report addressing nuclear power in nearly two decades. With nuclear power facing an uncertain future in many countries, the world risks a steep decline in its use in advanced economies that could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions. (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/may/steep-decline-in-nuclear-power-would-threaten-energy-security-and-climate-goals.html). Given its uncertain future what are the health effect risks of nuclear power.

12.2.1.1 Early Estimates

A 1976 estimate (American Scientist Vol. 64, No. 5 (September-October 1976, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27847467?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents) of the deaths due to operation of 400 1000 MW nuclear power plants is

*Worst case estimate

This gives a death rate of between 0.005 and 0.17 deaths per TWh. In September 2007 the Lancet published an Energy and health series (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61259-8/fulltext) Which included a paper on Electricity generation and health (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext) in which a death rate for nuclear power in Europe was calculated as 0.074 deaths per TWh. This compares favorably to the death rate calculated 30 years previously.

12.2.1.2 Chernobyl and Fukushima

When it comes to the health effects of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

How many deaths did each of these events cause?

The potential risks of nuclear energy are real: in both Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths occurred as a result of direct nuclear impacts, radiation exposure and psychological stress. Nonetheless, of the two largest nuclear disasters, the death toll was of the order of thousands to tens of thousands in one, and thousands to one in the latest. Arguably still too many, but far fewer than the millions that die to global warming.

The WHO highlights air pollution as the number one reason for environment-related deaths in the world. It’s estimated to be the cause of seven million premature deaths every year – 4.3 million from outdoor air pollution, and 2.6 million from indoor pollution. With historical links to development and economic growth, we expect the number of deaths from outdoor pollution to grow (largely in Asia and Africa). (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution-post)

who die every year from impacts of other conventional energy sources (https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima).

12.3 Health Effects of Carbon Capture and Storage

The potential health risks of CCS include asphyxiation of humans and animals, compromise of safe drinking water supplies, in addition to the well-known cardiorespiratory disease and mortality consequences of continued coal combustion.

High concentrations of carbon dioxide interfere with cellular metabolism and are lethal to humans and animals. Under normal circumstances, carbon dioxide is a trace gas composing less than 0.04% of gases in ambient air. Concentrations of carbon dioxide of more than 7% to 10% pose an immediate threat to human life. Elevated partial pressures of carbon dioxide in the blood cause carbon dioxide narcosis with delirium, somnolence, and coma.

When released in large quantities, carbon dioxide accumulates at ground level in natural depressions and closed spaces because it is heavier than air. A large inadvertent release of carbon dioxide (as must be considered in a nationwide, full-scale CCS program) would pose significant risks for asphyxiation to humans and animals in surrounding areas. A number of case reports document human fatalities in atmospheres of high carbon dioxide concentration.

In 1986, an estimated 100 000 tons of carbon dioxide were released from a volcanic lake near Lake Nyos, Cameroon. The carbon dioxide spread over a 15-mile radius from the lake and led to carbon dioxide concentrations of more than 10% in the surrounding communities. More than 1700 individuals died and hundreds more developed skin lesions and memory loss. The carbon dioxide released from this event was equivalent to approximately 1 week of carbon dioxide emissions from a single coal-fired power plant. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/185135 and http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.9396&rep=rep1&type=pdf)