Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Dangerous nuclear energy: Exposure to radiation causes birth defects or abnormal sex ratios

Two recent studies found that mothers' low-level exposure to radiation on the job can cause birth defects and long distance exposure to radiation is related with abnormal sex ratios at birth. These findings show that living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants are a real threat to people's health.

First, Wiesel et al. (2011) found that the birth defect rate of infants born from mothers who were occupationally exposed to radiation is significantly higher than those babies from the unexposed reference group. Mothers working with radiation dosimeter were exposed to ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is used in the medical industry to examine human bodies and treat diseases.
Researchers from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany analyzed data on 3,816 infants who were born in south-west Germany between January 2007 and February 2008. 161 babies (4.3%) out of 3,787 reference group newborns whose mothers were not exposed to radiation showed birth defects. However, among 29 newborns whose mothers wore radiation dosimeter occupationally in the first trimester of pregnancy, four babies (13.8%) were born with defects.
Workers in nuclear power plants can be exposed to the same kind of radiation that the women working in the medical industry. Nuclear industry advocates may disagree with me. If so, how about the people exposed to radiation still being emitted from suspectedly at least partially melted-down six reactors of the Fukushima Dai-ichi (福島 第一) nuclear power plant in Japan? Since myths about nuclear power's safety are debunked now, nobody can tell future mothers that neighborhood nuclear power plants are safe for their pregnancy.

Second, radiation exposure causes abnormal sex ratios. Scherb and Voigt, researchers from German Research Center for Environmental Health investigated both time series birth data and compared sex ratios between babes born near nuclear power plants and those born in locations far from nuclear power plants.
Independent variables in this study are: presence of nuclear power plants within 35 km, atmospheric atomic bomb tests, and Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.

Before introducing the results, I want to clarify the meaning of the term 'sex odds.'
[Sex Odds] = [male births]/[female births]
Sex odds is an indicator of reproductive health. Strikingly, this German study found statistically significant differences of sex odds between babies born areas (or times) affected by radiation and those from reference areas (or times).
(1) Effects of atmospheric radioactive fallout are not seen yet

From 1950 to 1963, sex odds decreased in both Europe and the USA.
Although atomic bomb tests were conducted during this period, its effects were not evident.
(2) Radioactive fallout due to atomic bomb tests
From 1964 to 1975, sex odds increased.
From 1976 to 1986, sex odds decreased again.
It was in 1963 when Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty went into effect. Before 1963, atomic bomb tests were conducted around the world. However their effects effects were observed after the treaty became in effect. The researchers assume radioactive fallouts were delayed.
(3) Radioactive fallout due to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster
From 1987 to 2000, there was a upward shift in sex odds in Europe which is near Chernobyl.
From 1987 to 2002, sex odds decreased in the USA which is far from Chernobyl.

Another finding in this study is that sex odds of babies born within 35 km from German and Swiss nuclear power plants are higher than those born outside the radius area.
In sum, higher ratios of boys are born in times or areas that are affected by radiation from atomic bomb tests, nuclear disaster, or nearby nuclear power plants in normal operating conditions. It is not because more boys were born but because boy births were less decreased than girl births.
However, this study manifests that even low-level exposure to radioactive materials that have traveled long distance through atmosphere can cause genetic damages in people or survival rate changes in human embryos or fetuses.

My conclusions drawn from these two studies are simple.
If any parents want to have a healthy baby, they had better do two things:
(1) They have to live at least 35 km away from nuclear power plants.
(2) They have to live at least one continent away from possible nuclear tests or disasters.



Sources:

Wiesel, A., Spix, C., Mergenthaler, A., & Queißer-Luft, A. (2011). Maternal occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and birth defects. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00411-010-0350-9

Scherb, H., & Voigt, K. (2011). The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0462-z

Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. (2011). Seismic Damage Information. Press Releases. Retrieved since March 12, 2011 from http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/press/index.html

Friday, March 4, 2011

Two ideas to reduce Levelized Cost of PV electricity down to 5 or 8 cents per kilowatt-hour

Recently, two institutes published their own ideas to reduce the levelized cost of photovoltaic electricity (LCOE of PV) down to 5 or 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Targets are achievable NOW or in the NEAR future! (Yes, we don't have wait so long for technological break-through.)
In comparison, the average retail price of electricity to residential sector in 2010 was 11.63 cents per kilowatt-hour (US EIA, 2011a).


(1) GW Solar Institute: LCOE of PV = 5 ¢/kWh, NOW!
Ken Zweibel from "GW Solar Institute" based in the George Washington University in Washington, DC, does not agree with assumptions about PV panel's lifespan. Although the inverters need periodic managements and replacements, PV's durability will ensure 100 years' operation, although energy conversion efficiency might drop to 50~80% of its initial condition eventually.
He computes that the 100-year-lifespan can bring down the current LCOE of 20-year-lifespan PV, which is 16 cents per kilowatt-hour, down to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (at 0% discount rate).
Actually, even 53-year-lifespan is enough to match PV's LCOE with that of nuclear power plants and 42-year-lifespan can achieve PV's LCOE parity with coal power, assuming 3% fuel cost inflation per year.


(2) Rocky Mountain Institute: LCOE of PV = 8 ¢/kWh, in the NEAR future!
In terms of PV's lifespan, researchers from the "Rocky Mountain Institute" are not so ambitious as Zweibel. They assume 25-30 years for that. Instead, they propose so-called "systems approach" to reduce "Balance of system" (BoS) costs (all costs except the PV module) in three areas such as:
(1) physical system design
(2) business process
(3) industry scale
If their recommendations are readily implemented, up to 50% of the BoS costs can be saved right away, they argue.
With regard to LCOE only, by optimizing the physical system design, LCOE of PV drops to 8 cents per kilowatt-hour (7.8 ¢/kWh, to be exact). (LCOE of PV is estimated to be 22 cents per kilowatt-hour n North California where San Francisco or famous Napa-Sonoma wine counties lie in.)
The optimization includes:
(a) improved electrical system efficiency reaching 94%
(b) 25-year-lifespan inverters
(c) reduced BoS capital costs
(d) reduced module costs
In addition to the lower LCOE, RMI argues that minimizing cost and uncertainty of business processes and ensuring PV industry's rapid growth and maturation will low-cost large-scale solar industry.
Although they admit this proposal requires dedicated efforts across the value chain, they repeatedly declare it is attainable "in the short term."


Here are my thoughts.
(1) From February 2010 to February 2011, the uranium spot price (U3O8) jumped from low-40 dollars per pound to around 70 dollars. (Ux, 2011)
(2) From beginning to end of 2010, NYMEX coal futures settlement price jumped from 51 dollars per ton to 80 dollars. (US EIA, 2011b)
I'm not saying the prices are too high now. I'm saying fuel price of conventional "base load power" is too volatile.
Since solar power as as stable as it gets, we should find ways to make the above-mentioned ideas into reality.


Sources:


Bony, L., Doig, S., Hart, C., Maurer, E., & Newman, S. (2010). Achieving Low-Cost Solar PV: Industry Workshop Recommendations for Near-Term Balance of System Cost Reductions. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute. [Full-text available at http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/BOSReport.pdf]


Zweibel, K. (2010). Should solar photovoltaics be deployed sooner because of long operating life at low, predictable cost? Energy Policy, 38(11), 7519-7530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.040

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011a). Electric Power Monthly, February 2011 Edition (DOE/EIA-0226 (2011/02)). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011b). NYMEX Central Appalachian Coal Futures Near-Month Contract Final Settlement Price History. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/nymex/nymex_historical.html

The Ux Consulting Company. (2011). Weekly Spot Ux U3O8 Price. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Suicide Rates and Energy Consumption: Countries and U.S. States

I wanted to see if more energy can make people happier. So I collected data on energy consumption and suicide rates for world countries and U.S. States.
However, there was no significant relationship between the two. In other words, the "R square" value of a simple linear regression between energy consumption and suicide rates was mere 0.058. I can say,
"Affluent energy does NOT assure happy life."

Table. Suicide Rates and Energy Use: Countries and U.S. States
(All energy and U.S. suicide rates data are from the year 2007. Global suicide rates are from the latest data available.)
Country/State
Suicide Rate
(deaths per 100,000 people)
Energy Consumption in 2007
(kg of oil equivalent per capita)
Maldives
0.3
883
Azerbaijan
0.6
1,833
Barbados
0.7
1,669
Peru
0.9
576
Bahamas
1.0
5,235
Dominican Republic
1.6
786
Kuwait
2.0
11,423
Philippines
2.1
348
Georgia
2.2
891
Guatemala
2.3
426
Armenia
2.4
1,875
Tajikistan
2.6
996
Greece
3.0
3,528
Bahrain
3.1
18,627
Cyprus
3.6
3,040
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
3.7
752
Venezuela
3.8
2,974
Albania
4.0
869
Paraguay
4.1
1,753
Mexico
4.3
1,687
Brazil
4.6
1,313
Uzbekistan
4.7
2,072
Colombia
4.9
785
Italy
5.2
3,442
Israel
5.5
3,164
Panama
5.7
1,817
Grenada
5.9
898
Malta
6.0
2,595
District of Columbia
6.1
8,026
United Kingdom
6.1
3,868
Spain
6.5
3,744
Ecuador
6.8
840
El Salvador
6.8
574
New Jersey
6.9
7,991
New York
7.2
5,272
Nicaragua
7.2
334
Puerto Rico
7.4
2,727
Australia
7.5
6,764
Belize
7.6
1,399
Connecticut
7.7
6,287
Saint Lucia
7.7
915
Luxembourg
7.8
10,441
Thailand
7.8
1,482
Argentina
7.9
2,052
Portugal
7.9
2,627
Zimbabwe
7.9
376
Costa Rica
8.0
1,144
Macedonia
8.0
1,464
Massachusetts
8.0
5,902
Netherlands
8.5
6,657
Illinois
8.6
7,943
Turkmenistan
8.6
4,877
Kyrgyzstan
9.0
992
Rhode Island
9.1
5,206
Maryland
9.2
6,678
Germany
9.5
4,338
California
9.9
5,882
Bulgaria
10.1
2,887
Canada
10.2
10,766
Nebraska
10.2
9,868
Norway
10.2
10,539
Texas
10.2
12,507
Chile
10.3
1,662
Singapore
10.3
12,310
Slovakia
10.3
3,639
Georgia (US)
10.4
8,291
Hawaii
10.4
6,781
Mauritius
10.4
1,223
India
10.5
423
Denmark
10.6
4,030
Iowa
10.8
10,433
Delaware
11.0
8,830
Minnesota
11.0
9,115
Michigan
11.2
7,590
Romania
11.2
1,944
Ohio
11.3
8,890
Sweden
11.4
6,258
Virginia
11.4
8,545
Iceland
11.5
16,972
United States
11.5
8,496
Ireland
11.6
3,941
Pennsylvania
11.6
8,129
Bosnia and Herzegovina
11.8
1,521
North Carolina
11.9
7,525
New Hampshire
12.0
6,035
South Carolina
12.0
9,682
Trinidad and Tobago
12.0
16,843
Louisiana
12.2
21,702
Cuba
12.3
821
New Zealand
12.3
5,380
Czech Republic
12.4
4,024
Indiana
12.5
11,551
Alabama
12.8
11,612
Austria
12.8
4,669
South Dakota
12.8
9,253
Wisconsin
13.0
8,311
Seychelles
13.2
3,935
Washington
13.4
8,076
Mississippi
13.6
10,692
Missouri
13.7
8,419
Tennessee
13.7
9,551
Kansas
13.8
10,309
China
13.9
1,500
Poland
13.9
2,525
Arkansas
14.2
10,234
Florida
14.2
6,373
Utah
14.3
7,605
Vermont
14.3
6,582
Suriname
14.4
1,912
Maine
14.5
8,727
Oklahoma
14.7
11,234
France
14.9
4,533
Idaho
14.9
8,921
North Dakota
14.9
16,911
Croatia
15.0
2,215
Switzerland
15.1
4,262
Hong Kong
15.2
4,103
Kentucky
15.3
12,033
Moldova
15.7
774
Uruguay
15.8
1,294
Oregon
15.9
7,477
Arizona
16.0
6,257
West Virginia
16.6
11,841
Colorado
16.7
7,698
Slovenia
17.3
3,941
Belgium
17.6
6,669
Estonia
18.3
4,738
Finland
18.3
6,400
Nevada
18.4
7,668
Wyoming
19.3
23,904
Japan
19.4
4,535
Serbia
19.5
1,991
New Mexico
20.4
9,117
Montana
20.5
12,174
Latvia
20.7
2,077
Korea, South
21.5
5,070
Sri Lanka
21.6
268
Alaska
21.8
26,770
Hungary
21.8
2,791
Ukraine
22.6
3,450
Guyana
22.9
721
Kazakhstan
26.9
3,825
Russia
30.1
5,342
Lithuania
31.5
2,719
Belarus
35.1
3,078

Sources:
European Union suicide data: Eurostat. (2011). Death due to suicide, by gender - [tps00122]; Total. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://j.mp/EU_Suicide

Non-EU OECD suicide data: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Health: Key Tables from OECD. Retrieved from http://j.mp/OECD_Suicide

Non-OECD country suicide data: World Health Organization. (2011). Mental Health: Country reports and charts. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://j.mp/WHO_Suicide

U.S. States suicide data: American Association of Suicidology. (2011). U.S.A. Suicide: 2007 Official Final Data. Retrieved from http://j.mp/USA_Suicide

Energy Information Administration. (2011). International Energy Statistics. Retrieved from http://j.mp/EIA_World

Energy Information Administration. (2010). Annual Energy Review 2009. Retrieved from http://j.mp/EIA_US (1.6 State-Level Energy Consumption, Expenditures, and Prices, 2007)

Conversion Factor (Source: http://www.iea.org/stats/unit.asp)
1 Million Btu = 25.1995796 kg of oil equivalent