Subscription Center
Aug 18, 2009 05:25 PM | 13
Mining is the second most dangerous occupation in the U.S., averaging roughly 27 deaths for every 100,000 workers per year. That's nearly nine times higher than the overall fatality rate for U.S. industry as a whole, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau (pdf).
So it stands to reason that energy derived from renewable resources such as the sun and wind might cause fewer workplace deaths than energy industries—coal, oil and natural gas—that rely on mining, drilling and otherwise extracting fossil fuels. And that's exactly what doctors from Medical College of Wisconsin and Duke University Medical Center found in an analysis published in JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association on August 19.
"Current trends suggest that more than 1,300 worker deaths could be averted in the coming decade" through the shift to power produced from renewable resources rather than burning fossil fuels, Peter Layde and Steven Sumner write. "On average, extraction activities in the oil and gas industries account for more than 100 deaths annually and extraction activities in the coal industry account for more than 30 deaths annually."
The two doctors analyzed the full lifecycle of energy production—fuel extraction, raw materials extraction, construction, equipment manufacturing, transport, energy generation, power distribution and byproducts disposal—to come up with their figures, as well as drawing on a comparison of wind power versus coal and oil done as part of the European Union's ExternE project.
Of course, this does not mean renewables are without risk. Wind farms have been responsible for some fatalities in construction and accidents; photovoltaic manufacture has been associated with toxic pollution and can require the use of the dangerous gas silane, which explodes on contact with air; and biofuels, such as ethanol, offer no better risk than fossil fuels. That's in part because agriculture is the most dangerous U.S. occupation—nearly 29 deaths per 100,000 workers—and it also relies on petroleum-derived fertilizers and pesticides.
But in addition to the health benefits delivered by renewables in terms of reduced air pollution, energy independence and avoided catastrophic climate change, one can add improved worker health and safety for the estimated 700,000 Americans employed in the energy industry.
Image: Courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories
Tags:
wind,
power,
renewable,
oil,
coal,
solar,
gas,
fossil fuels,
renewables,
natural gas,
energy,
renewable energy
More News Blog:
Next: Sample-return mission pulls a building block of life from a comet
Previous: Justice indicts three for alleged role in U.S.'s largest financial info heist
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
13 Comments
Add CommentTo Author David Biello: Hydroelectric power is also a "renewable", zero emission energy source. Hydroelectric power supplies 7% of the nation's electricity compared to wind energy's 1.5%, and solar energy's 0.2%. I see that you have, once again, neglected any mention of this renewable energy source while highlighting wind and solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with hydroelectric is that there is no significant capacity increase to be made. So gains can be made by installing new, more efficient turbines and generators, but new facilities will be very few. So it's not cool to talk about this stagnant tech. So the news will be on wind, solar and wave energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that when ,wind,wave and solar, reach power production levels equal to fuel systems, death and injury will match or exceed the replaced systems. This is based on over 50 years experience with the above systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stagnant technolagies of fission and hydro are only stagnant because the ECO's will do anything to stop their use. There plenty of not used hydro sites, even California could produce 10 times the electricity they need with hydro and would increase the available useful water as well. This is not a problem of capablities, It is a problem of intents.
"Renewable" energy sources are diffuse and cannot support a modern, industrial, technological society. Concentrated sources of energy such as petroleum and nuclear (terrestrial) are required for base load. Please, please read http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewable energy is better for worker's health?? I can't access the study referenced, but can find some statistics for comparison purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the U.S. Bureau of Labor 2007 data, the injury and illness rate for mining was 3.1 injuries per 100 workers. For construction the rate was 5.4 and for manufacturing 5.6. Even "Healthcare and social services" had a higher injury rate than mining at 5.6. I conclude that a job in mining for non-renewable energy is likely safer than a job constructing renewable energy facilities, at least in terms of your chances of being injured or sickened on the job.
When we look at fatality rates, coal mining has a rate of 29.5 deaths per 100,000 workers and oil extraction 15.5 deaths per 100,000 workers. I would compare these rates to certain other jobs which would be important to extract energy from the sun and wind for a valid comparison. Jobs such as structural steel (45.5 deaths per 100,000 workers), roofers (solar panel installation on roofs) (29.4), powerline installation (29.1) and farmer (for biofuel crop production (39.5). Thus I conclude that a career in oil extraction is much safer than many jobs in renewable energy in terms of the chances of being killed. A job in mining coal is about as safe as other renewable energy jobs in terms of your chances of being killed.
By the way, all my stats were from the US Bureau of Labor based on 2007 data. The study uses cumulative data from 1970 through 2006. I believe the latest data is the best due to changes in industry practices between 1970 and the present. Also, the 2007 data has more subdivisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJokuknen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are 80,000 existing dams in the U. S. utilized for irrigation, municipal water supplies, flood control, etc; and only 3% are used to produce electricity. (Reference Hydro Review magazine, Sept 2006, "National Inventory of Dams"). It is estimated that 23,000 MW of electrical power could be generated from the "existing" dams (this means no additional dam structures would have to be built) if some federal impetus was given to this program.(Reference Hydro Review magazine, Aug 2007, "Renewable Energy in the U.S.: Achieving 25% by 2025"). This is the equivalent of approx. 23 nuclear plants, or 11, 500 two MW wind generators, which no one wants in their backyard.
In addition, my old firm (I'm retired) is now installing 300 MW of hydropower at four Lock & Dams on the Ohio River. The Lock & Dams will have to be upgraded, and the power facility added. There are many Lock & Dams in the U.S. where this could be accomplished. In fact, there are 26 Lock & Dams on the Mississippi, and only 3 are used to generate electricity. An additional 1500 MW could easily be generated from these lock and dams.
Concerning new hydro facilities in the U.S., the DOE (Department of Energy) completed a resource assessment of the 49 states (not Hawaii) in 2007; and identified 5,677 hydro sites that could produce an additional 30,000 MW of electricity (Reference www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/hydro_potential.html).
Considering that hydro is a zero emission, renewable energy source that is both more efficient than wind, and which can supply electricity on demand; I suggest we utilize all the existing hydro sites to obtain "cheap" electricity before we build 20,000 wind generators which sell electricity at an exorbitant rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut they didn't include military, civilian Iraqi deaths which comes to well over 100k for oil. Nor does it count the pollution deaths from coal.
There is enough kinetic hydro river/tidal power to replace coal with little impact, constant base load power. Tidal power can be steady by localing the generator fields in different areas as tide happen at different times in different places. You only need water moving at 2 mph or more.
Terrestrialenergy at 02:03 AM on 08/19/09 wrote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Renewable" energy sources are diffuse and cannot support a modern, industrial, technological society. Concentrated sources of energy such as petroleum and nuclear (terrestrial) are required for base load. Please, please read http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
What a crock. You mean it's not easy for large corps to control it. Here in Fla we get on a small home's roof of 1ksq', 100kw of high grade heat/light for free 3-7hrs/day. I don't call that defuse, but free energy. Though it costs to catch it.
In much of the country a 14'dia 2kwwind generator makes 10-40kw/day and only costs $4k with the inverter to grid tie.
A CSP solar 5hp steam/heat engine, a 200sq' trough collector and a 3kw alternator makes 8-27kwhrs/day plus more heat than one can use. Such a thing would cost about $3k/kw in mass production.
Such equipment gets paid off in 2-4 yrs and almost free after that for their 50 yr life.
So stop spreading lies that RE isn't doable. For the homeowner, small business it very doable.
.
Renewable energy is diffuse. It's not a crock perpetrated by evil corporations. The consequence is very high capital requirements per kw.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf capital requirements fall sufficiently to make it economical, you will have won the argument. There will be a tidal wave of movement toward renewable energy. Until these things can stand on their own without government subsidy, your arguments are in vain, because the need for the subsidy is sufficient proof against your contentions.
I think you will find that on the basis of deaths/injuries per energy produced, renewables do not fare so well; particularly wind (falls from high structures, climbing injuries, ice thrown from blades).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better source for health and safety assessment: External Cost, Research Results on Socio-environmental Damages due to Electricity and
Transport , Study EUR 20198, 2002, European Commission, Directorate of General Research.
I think you will find that on the basis of deaths/injuries per energy produced, renewables do not fare so well; particularly wind (falls from high structures, climbing injuries, ice thrown from blades).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better source for health and safety assessment: “External Cost, Research Results on Socio-environmental Damages due to Electricity and
Transport”, Study EUR 20198, 2002, European Commission, Directorate of General Research.
I read your article, It describes how we are pollute their environment. and averaging roughly 27 deaths for every 100,000 workers per year. now we have to control this. By using renewable energy products in their home, in organization, in companies, industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this