Saving Lives and Money: The Potential of Solar to Replace Coal

Authored by mtu.edu and submitted by shiruken

By swapping solar photovoltaics for coal, the US could prevent 51,999 premature deaths a year, potentially making as much as $2.5 million for each life saved.

In a new study published in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.119), a team from Michigan Technological University calculated the cost of combusting coal in terms of human lives along with the potential benefits of switching to solar.

Tens of thousands of Americans die prematurely each year from air pollution-related diseases associated with burning coal. By transitioning to solar photovoltaics (PV) in the US, up to 51,999 American lives would be saved at $1.1 million invested per life.

"Unlike other public health investments, you get more than lives saved," says Joshua Pearce, a professor of materials science and electrical engineering at Michigan Tech. "In addition to saving lives, solar is producing electricity, which has economic value."

Using a sensitivity analysis on the value of electricity, which examines the different costs of electricity that varies by region throughout the country, saving a life by using solar power also showed potential to make money—sometimes as much as several million dollars per life, says Pearce.

"Everybody wants to avoid wasting money. Just based off the pure value of electricity of the sensitivities we looked at, it's profitable to save American lives by eliminating coal with solar," he explains.

Certain geographic regions are harder hit by coal-related deaths from air pollution.

Pearce worked with energy policy doctoral student Emily Prehoda on the study, and their main goal was to better inform health policy. They gathered data from peer-reviewed journals and the Environmental Protection Agency to calculate US deaths per kilowatt hour per year for both coal and solar. Then they used current costs of solar installations from the Department of Energy and calculated the potential return on investment.

Pearce and Prehoda also analyzed the geographic impact of coal-related deaths. "Here, we have solid numbers on how many people die from air pollution and what fraction of that is due to coal-powered plants in each state."

To fully replace all the coal production in the US with solar PV, it would take 755 gigawatts—a significant increase compared to the 22.7 gigawatts of solar installed in the US currently. The total cost of installing that much solar power totals $1.5 trillion, but that investment is figured into Pearce and Prehoda's calculations, and is a profitable investment.

As Pearce sums it up: "Solar has come down radically in cost, it's technically viable, and coupled with natural gas plants, other renewables and storage, we have ways to produce all the electricity we need without coal, period."

He says resisting the rise of solar energy is akin to if computer manufacturers kept using vacuum tube switches instead of upgrading to semiconductor transistors.

"My overall take away from this study," Pearce says, "is that if we're rational and we care about American lives—or even just money—then it's time to end coal in the US."

The World Health Organization reports that millions die each year from unhealthy environment, air pollution notably the largest contributor to non-communicable diseases like stroke, cancers, chronic respiratory illnesses and heart disease. Future work can expand this study globally.

"There's roughly seven million people who die globally from air pollution every year, so getting rid of coal could take a big chunk out of that number as well," Pearce says, adding that another goal of future research is to dig deeper into the life cycles of coal production as this study only looked at air pollution related deaths. Doing so will continue to illuminate the multiple positive impacts of solar power and its potential to do more than keep the lights on.

Abiv23 on June 3rd, 2017 at 00:06 UTC »

how are they calculating the 2.5 million

these coal workers aren't stepping into other lucrative careers

LsRVA on June 2nd, 2017 at 22:14 UTC »

I generally agree with what this article is presenting; but how is this quantifiable?

shiruken on June 2nd, 2017 at 18:36 UTC »

To everyone wondering why they specifically used 51,999 deaths/year instead of rounding up, there's actually a reason. Previous epidemiological research estimates that coal-fired electrical generation in the United States causes 52,000 deaths/year. This study estimates photovoltaics (including production, installation, and maintenance) cause 1 death/year. So the net premature deaths avoided per year is 51,999.

Yes, the significant figures are probably wrong.

E. W. Prehoda, J. M. Pearce, Potential lives saved by replacing coal with solar photovoltaic electricity production in the U.S. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 80, 710–715 (2017).

Abstract: Poor air quality from coal combustion adversely impacts human health including mortality and morbidity effects on respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous, urinary, and digestive systems. However, the continued use of coal are no longer necessary to provide for society's electrical needs because of advances in solar photovoltaic (PV) technology. In order to inform health policy this paper reviews the data for quantifying the lives saved by a replacement of U.S. coal-fired electricity with solar PV systems. First the geospatial correlation with coal fired power plants and mortality is determined for the U.S. at the state level. Then, current life cycle mortality rates due to coal combustion are calculated and current energy generation data is collated. Deaths/kWh/year of coal and PV are calculated, and the results showed that 51,999 American lives/year could be saved by transitioning from coal to PV-powered electrical generation in the U.S. To accomplish this, 755 GW of U.S. PV installations are needed. The first costs for the approach was found to be roughly $1.45 trillion. Over the 25 year warranty on the PV modules the first cost per life saved is approximately $1.1 million, which is comparable to the value of a human life used in other studies. However, as the solar electricity has value, the cost per life is determined while including the revenue of the solar electric generation using a sensitivity analysis on the value of the electricity. These results found that for most estimations of the value, saving a life by offsetting coal with PV actually saved money as well, in some cases several million dollars per life. It is concluded that it is profitable to save lives in the U.S. with the substitution of coal-fired electricity with solar power and that the conversion is a substantial health and environmental benefit.