How Many Jobs Are Created by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy?

"[...] if you've ever seen the look on someone's face the day they get a job, [...] they look like they could fly. And unless we start tapping into that kind of spirit again, there's no way we're gonna fix anything in this country." -- Dave Kovic (impersonating U.S. President Mitchell in the 1993 movie Dave)

You don't have to cite the IPCC's fourth assessment report if you want to persuade people to adopt renewable energy technologies or buy energy efficient appliances, cars, and buildings. If they know they will have more jobs in the sustainable energy future, they will listen to clean (green) energy advocates.

Above all, what are green jobs? The UNEP defines green jobs as "work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality." (Worldwatch Institute, 2008) If you want to know specific names of green jobs, there are extensive lists of green increased demand occupations, green enhanced skills occupations, green new and emerging occupations according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), which are online at the O*NET Resource Center (2009).

Perhaps the most influential paper on this topic after the UNEP's 2008 green jobs report mentioned above is Wei, et al.'s Energy Policy article (2010). While the UNEP study or the WWF's similar study for Europe (Ghani-Eneland, et al., 2009) calculated specific number of jobs that are created or could be created by green economics, Wei, et al. brilliantly extracted an average number of jobs per unit energy output by technology.
Their meta-analysis is quoted in a summary table as this:

Energy technology	Capacity factor	Equipment lifetime (years)	Average employment over life of facility (total job-years per GWh)
Biomass	85%	40	0.21
Geothermal	90%	40	0.25
Landfill Gas	85%	40	0.72
Small Hydro	55%	40	0.27
Solar PV	20%	25	0.87
Solar Thermal	40%	25	0.23
Wind	35%	25	0.17
Carbon Capture & Storage	80%	40	0.18
Nuclear	90%	40	0.14
Coal	80%	40	0.11
Natural Gas	80%	40	0.11
Energy Efficiency	100%	20	0.38

Although some technologies' capacity factors or lifetimes are arguable, it shows strong potential for large job creation from most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Conventional technologies like fossil fuel, nuclear, and wind technologies had relatively lower employment multiplier effect.

The Center for American Progress (Pollin, et al., 2009) has a different calculation. They calculated numbers of new jobs per unit monetary output. (Wei, et al. compared total numbers of jobs between technologies.)

Energy source		Direct new jobs per $1 million in output	Indirect new jobs per $1 million in output	Total job creation per $1 million in output
Fossil fuels	Oil and natural gas	0.8	2.9	3.7
	Coal	1.9	3.0	4.9
Energy efficiency	Building retrofits	7.0	4.9	11.9
	Mass Transit / Freight Rail (90% MT, 10% FR)	11.0	4.9	15.9
	Smart grid	4.3	4.6	8.9
Renewables	Wind	4.6	4.9	9.5
	Solar	5.4	4.4	9.8
	Biomass	7.4	5.0	12.4

In this study, the energy efficiency sector's employment potential is higher than the previous table. Renewable energy sources' job creation power is stronger than that of fossil fuels.

There have been doubts to clean energy industry's employment potential. For example, Lesser (2010) asserted that higher electricity price due to higher penetration rates of costly (or subsidized) renewable electricity will actually decrease overall employment. Mostafaeipour (2010) pointed out that renewable industry's (in this article, wind power) workforce is predominantly male.
Lesser's assertions can be deputed by recent studies promising renewable energy's grid-parity even without subsidies, one of which I introduced in my previous post (http://j.mp/PV_LCOE_Reduction).
Although gender injustice against women in employment doesn't seem the renewable energy sector's exclusive issue, it is an important issue I'll look into later.

However, for now, I can say there're empirical evidence for better employment opportunities in the sustainable energy future.

Sources:

Ghani-Eneland, M., Renner, M., & Chawla, A. (2009). Low Carbon Jobs for Europe: Current Opportunities and Future Prospects. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_Low_Carbon_Jobs]

Lesser, J. A. (2010). Renewable Energy and the Fallacy of 'Green' Jobs. The Electricity Journal, 23(7), 45-53. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2010.06.019]

Martinez-Fernandez, C., Hinojosa, C., & Miranda, G. (2010). Greening Jobs and Skills: Labour Market Implications of Addressing Climate Change. OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, (2010/2). [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmbjgl8sd0r-en]

Mostafaeipour, A. (2010). Productivity and development issues of global wind turbine industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 1048-1058. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.031]

O*NET Resource Center. (2009). The Green Economy, from http://www.onetcenter.org/green.html

Pollin, R., Heintz, J., & Garrett-Peltier, H. (2009). The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy: How the economic stimulus program and new legislation can boost U.S. economic growth and employment. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CAP_Clean_Jobs]

Wei, M., Patadia, S., & Kammen, D. M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy, 38(2), 919-931. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044]

Worldwatch Institute. (2008). Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [Full-text at http://j.mp/UNEP_Green_Jobs]

Two grave nuclear-related difficulties governments cannot resolve, but nuclear moratorium can

There are two grave difficulties that governments cannot resolve with science and technology, but can totally avoid by declaring nuclear moratorium.

The first difficulty of governments is persuading people to accept financial uncertainties in nuclear power plant proposals.
Above all, people never know the full costs of the proposed nuclear power plant. Let alone non-monetary externalities, there are direct and indirect subsidies hidden in its capital and O&M cost estimation.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an interesting (and helpful) report (written by Doug Koplow) on economics of nuclear power. Its title (Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies) tells it all. Currently, the subsidies for nuclear power sum up to 11.42 cents per kilowatt-hour, while EIA's average electricity price estimation spans between 5.4~5.9 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Notable subsidies are:

• Nuclear power purchase mandates ("clean energy" portfolio standards)
• Nuclear production tax credit
• Reactor loan guarantees or direct loans (domestic and foreign)
• Accelerated depreciation
• Recovery of construction/work-in-progress (regulated utilities only)
• Government research and development
• Tax-exempt public reactors; no required rate of return
• Subsidized site approval and licensing costs
• Transfer of stranded asset liabilities
• Traditional rate regulation (return on “prudently incurred” investments even if not used or economically competitive)
• Regulatory-delay insurance
• Shifting of health-related liabilities to taxpayers
• Reduced property tax burdens for new plants at state or county level
• Subsidized access, bonding on public lands for uranium mining
• Percentage depletion on uranium extraction
• Legacy costs of uranium mining, milling sites (contamination costs staying with taxpayers)
• Federal uranium-stockpile management
• Free or subsidized use of large quantities of cooling water
• Cap on accident liability: reactors, contractors, fuel-cycle facilities, shippers ("Price-Anderson" cap)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission services not paid by user fees
• U.S. funding of proliferation oversight abroad by the IAEA
• Plant security/low design-basis requirements for attacks
• Tax breaks for reactor decommissioning
• Nationalization of nuclear waste management

Obviously, these subsidies reduce the costs of nuclear energy and cause injustice on renewable energy sources. Zelenika-Zovko & Pearce (2011) assessed  possibility of divesting those subsidies from nuclear energy giving to solar energy in the United States. According to their analysis, subsidy transfer from nuclear to solar will result in dramatic increase in photovoltaic power production, which will eventually surpass nuclear electricity production from 2046.

The second difficulty governments have to handle is people's distrust in their governments once any nuclear accident takes place.
Because every pro-nuclear government has been championing the safety of nuclear power plants, they can hardly admit adverse health effects or fatality of radioactive materials coming from failed nuclear facilities. Consequently, people cannot trust a government's delayed or summarized announcements. Since Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plant accident occurred, nuclear apologists tell us radiation levels in our neighborhood (whether it is in America, Europe or Asia) are so low that they do not affect our health. That can be true, although nobody won't actually dare to feed their children with irradiated milk or lettuce.
But sometimes psychological effects of nuclear accidents can exploit people's health even the actual radiation level is negligibly low. This is an important issue that Becker (2011) raises in his editorial of the journal BMJ.

Psychological effects of a nuclear accident are: anxiety disorders, depression, a persistent subjective sense of ill health, deep fatalism about the future, and multiple unexplained physical symptoms. Becker cites World Health Organization's conclusion about the Chernobyl nuclear accident that psychological effects had been "the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date."

Becker points out importance of people's 'trust' in a government to protect people from nuclear emergencies. He stresses that it is more important for a government to gain people's confidence than to explain them how low the radiation level is. He makes this point clear by saying,
"the provision of timely, accurate, clear, and credible information may be the single most important way to save lives, reduce injuries and illnesses, prevent psychosocial effects, and help maintain people’s trust and confidence."

Therefore, my conclusion is: "Governments, declare nuclear moratorium!"


Sources:
Becker, S. M. (2011). Protecting public health after major radiation emergencies. BMJ, 342, 717-718. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1968]
Koplow, D. (2011). Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Nuke_Subsidies]

Zelenika-Zovko, I., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). Diverting indirect subsidies from the nuclear industry to the photovoltaic industry: Energy and financial returns. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2626-2632. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.031]

A free pdf book on costs and risks of nuclear power's global expansion

I found a free pdf book on costs and risks of nuclear power's expansion. It was prepared by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) and published at the end of 2010.

Sokolski, H. (Ed.). (2010). Nuclear Power's Global Expansion: Weighing Its Costs and Risks. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NuclearExpansion]

----------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................vii

Overview............................................  1

1. Nuclear Power, Energy Markets, and Proliferation.  3

Henry Sokolski

Part I: Nuclear Power's Economic, Environmental,

 and Political Prospectus........................... 51

2. Mapping Nuclear Power's Future Spread............ 53

Sharon Squassoni

3. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?............. 93

Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, Alex Markevich

4. The Credit Crunch and Nuclear Power..............125

Stephen Thomas

5. Taxpayer Financing for Nuclear Power: Precedents

 and Consequences...................................149

Peter A. Bradford

Part II: Expanding Nuclear Power in Existing and to

 Future Nuclear States..............................187

6. Nuclear Power Made in France: A Model?...........189

Mycle Schneider

7. What Will Be Required of the British Government

 to Build the Next Nuclear Power Plant?.............279

Stephen Thomas

8. A Case Study of Subsidies to Calvert Cliffs......335

Doug Koplow

9. Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and

 Turkey: How Cost Effective?........................383

Peter Tynan and John Stephenson

10. Civilian Nuclear Power in the Middle East: The

 Technical Requirements.............................423

James M. Acton and Wyn Q. Bowen

Part III: Making and Disposing of Nuclear Fuel......477

11. Nuclear Fuel: Myths and Realities...............479

Steve Kidd

12. The Costs and Benefits of Reprocessing..........525

Frank Von Hippel

Part IV: Using Market Economics to Price Nuclear

 Power and Its Risks................................553

13. Third Party Insurance: The Nuclear Sector's

 'Silent' Subsidy in Europe.........................555

Antony Froggatt and Simon Carroll

14. Market-Based Nuclear Nonproliferation...........627

Henry Sokolski

About the Contributors..............................641

----------------------------

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

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

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