Report - UNDP Russia
Report - UNDP Russia Report - UNDP Russia
operated by housing utilities, is only 13%, butheat & power plants and boiler facilities areoften located adjacent to residential areas,causing a health risk. More of these facilitiesmay now be switched from natural gas to coal.The most detailed research into impact of suchdecisions on the environment and publichealth has been carried out in the city ofNovgorod, which is currently supplied by CHP-20 and by municipal and industrial boilerfacilities. Increase of the share of coal in thecity’s energy balance, including coal burning atthe CHP would greatly increase air pollutionrisks. Mortality caused by particulate matter(PM 10 ) and SO 2 emissions could almost double;disturbances of the lower respiratory passagesamong children would triple and bronchitisamong children would rise by 15%; incidenceof acute bronchial asthma would rise by 35%,and carcinogenic risks due to soot emissionswould be 30% higher than at present. Theauthors therefore believe that the proposedinvestment project for reconstruction of themunicipal heating system and changeover ofCHP-20 to coal is hazardous for the localpopulation 43 . Implementation of thisdangerous project has currently beenpostponed.Researchers of the KrzhizhanovskiyEnergy Institute and the Kurchatov Institute(Russian Scientific Center) have carried outcomparative analysis of health risks fromemissions produced by burning varioustypes of coal 44 . Economic damage caused bysuch emissions was estimated for severalTPPs in European Russia (Kashira, Ryazan,Shatura). Impact is shown in volume termsas units of specific pollutants (1 kg or 1tonne) and per unit of generated power(1 KWh or 1 MWp.a.). Impacts werecalculated based on specific emissionindexes shown in Table 4.4.Table 4.4Emissions of TPPs using various types of coal (g/KWh) 45,46TPP Coal Ash, total SO 2 NO x ** SolidsMoscow brown 240 54 2.2 10.0Donetsk hard coal 100 22.0 2.8 4.0OperatingKansko-Achinsk brown 30 2.6 1.5 1.2Ekibastuz 250…420 11.5 3.6 10.0…17.0Kuznetsk hard coal 80 3.3 2.5…3.7 0.8…3.3***Planned* Kuznetsk hard coal 80 0.7 2.0 0.4…0.8* Technical requirements for new TPPs** For comparison: emissions of gas-fired TPPs are 0.4g/KWh***Particle trapping index (96-99%)43S.L.Avaliani, V.A.savin, A.A.Golub et al. Additional benefits from implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Velikiy Novgorod // ClimateChanges – the Russian View / Chief Author V.I.Danilov-Danilyan, M., TEIS, 2003, pp.355-38144M.A.Kulikov, E.I.Gavrilov, V.F.Demin, I.E.Zakharchenko, Health risks caused by power plant emissions // Teploenergetika, 2009 No.1,pp.71-7645V.F.Demin, A.P.Vasilyev, D.A.Krylov, Procedures and methods of comparative assessment of environmental risks from various methodsof electric power generation // The challenges of assessing surface and ground water pollution by the fuel & energy sector: coll. of sci.pap. / OJSC Gazprom; VNIIGAZ LLC, M., 2001, pp135-14546D.A.Krylov, E.D.Krylov, V.P.Putintseva, Estimates of ambient air emissions of SO 2 , NO x , solids and heavy metals from operation of coalfiredheat & power plants using coal from the Kuznetsk and Kansko-Achinsk basins // Nuclear Power Bulletin, 2005 No.4, pp. 32-3686 National Human Development Report in the Russian Federation 2009
In order to assess impact of theseemissions on public health the authors usedeconomic impact parameters from materialsof the Coordination Council of the RussianMinistry for Atomic Energy, which are usedfor risk assessment in the nuclear sector 47(Table 4.5).As shown in Table 4.6 economic impactfrom coal burning is quite high compared withimpact from gas burning. Commissioning of newcoal-fired generating facilities will increase thenegative impact on public health.The authors of this interesting researchconclude that public health impact from plannednew coal-fired TPPs is 2.5 times lower than thatof units that are already operating, but muchhigher than impact of gas-fired stations(Table 4.7).4.3.3. The hydropower sectorTable 4.5Economic parameters of risk assessmentHealth riskReduction of lifeexpectancyImpact unitCost perimpact unit,rubles1 man-year 600.000Chronic bronchitis 1 disease 1.500.000Days lost due to illness 1 day 1.000have impact on health. There is also a dangerof migration by infected animals anddischarge of toxic chemical substances andindustrial waste.The hydro-electric sector istraditionally regarded as the most acceptablesource of power generating as regards impacton public health. However, health risks fromconstruction of giant water dams have beenlittle studied. Such construction projectscause high levels of stress among localpeople, who must choose whether to live nextto the facility or move away. Such stress mustTable 4.6Mean specific values of public health impact per tonne of pollutants 444.4. Summaryand recommendationsDevelopment of the energy sector inRussia must take account of both the existingsituation in various regions and newenvironmental directives of WHO, EU andother international organizations. Many fuelproduction and power generating facilities arePollutantLife expectancy lossMean specific impact in natural units, gChronic bronchitis,N illnesses / m.t.Morbidity rate,N days / m.t.Mean specific impactβ, 10 3 rubles/tonne.MR CR OR MR CR OR MR CR OR MR CR ORParticles 0.08 0.03 0.026 0.020 0.010 0.006 8.5 3.0 3.0 90 36 25NO x 0.16 0.07 0.018 0.037 0.020 0.004 19.0 7.0 2.1 170 80 19SO 2 0.11 0.04 0.013 0.025 0.012 0.003 13.0 5.0 1.4 120 47 13N illnesses – number of chronic bronchitis cases; N days – number of days lost to illness; MR – Moscow Region; CR – Central Russia;OR – Omsk Region47I.L.Abalkina, V.F.Demin, S.I.Ivanov et al., Economic parameters of risk assessment for calculating damage to public health due to varioushazards // Risk assessment challenges, 2005, Vol.2, No.2, pp 132-13887
- Page 37 and 38: Immigration by young and highly ski
- Page 39 and 40: energy regions exacerbate the incom
- Page 41 and 42: Khanty-Mansi and Yamal-Nenets Auton
- Page 43 and 44: the Ministry for Regional Developme
- Page 45 and 46: various other long-term problems in
- Page 47 and 48: is also associated with the fuel an
- Page 49 and 50: Republic of Mordovia 8051 0.732 68.
- Page 51 and 52: Legislative control of impact audit
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter 3Personal Incomes, the Ener
- Page 55 and 56: than any other sources of income -
- Page 57 and 58: Are wages now the main instrument f
- Page 59 and 60: comparison of month-on-month develo
- Page 61 and 62: • The unemployed, people who aree
- Page 63 and 64: Employment in the energy sector acc
- Page 65 and 66: The share of household expenditures
- Page 67 and 68: subsidization practices in the regi
- Page 69 and 70: in power use between regions now de
- Page 71 and 72: Electricity prices for households h
- Page 73 and 74: • Steady decrease in the percenta
- Page 75 and 76: 1. The number of graduates with eng
- Page 77 and 78: As well as requiring better fuelcom
- Page 79 and 80: Box 4.1. The village of Kolvain Uss
- Page 81 and 82: continue to use solid fuel for a lo
- Page 83 and 84: Box 4.3. Ambient air pollution andp
- Page 85 and 86: either by large power generating fa
- Page 87: Box 4.6. A city at riskNovocherkass
- Page 91 and 92: generation facilities through safer
- Page 93 and 94: achieved in developed countries. So
- Page 95 and 96: equires 2-6 times more capital inve
- Page 97 and 98: government) should set targets and
- Page 99 and 100: networks. In 2007 government budget
- Page 101 and 102: enhancement is also important. Ener
- Page 103 and 104: energy efficiency of the transport
- Page 105 and 106: Box 5.1. Programme of the Ministry
- Page 107 and 108: educational and informational suppo
- Page 109 and 110: mechanism for using national quota
- Page 111 and 112: Figure 6.2Share of electricity gene
- Page 113 and 114: One of the major benefits of renewa
- Page 115 and 116: odies; outdoor air; rocks and soil;
- Page 117 and 118: Design and construction of geotherm
- Page 119 and 120: Box 6.3. Prospects for nuclear powe
- Page 121 and 122: consists of out-dated equipment at
- Page 123 and 124: ConclusionThe world’s nuclear pow
- Page 125 and 126: 7.1. Impact of the fuel& energy sec
- Page 127 and 128: Table 7.5Solid waste from productio
- Page 129 and 130: Table 7.7Areas of disturbed and rec
- Page 131 and 132: nature of the impact (atmospheric e
- Page 133 and 134: Further, the economic cost ofenviro
- Page 135 and 136: trends continued the damage would a
- Page 137 and 138: What the government needs to do ino
In order to assess impact of theseemissions on public health the authors usedeconomic impact parameters from materialsof the Coordination Council of the <strong>Russia</strong>nMinistry for Atomic Energy, which are usedfor risk assessment in the nuclear sector 47(Table 4.5).As shown in Table 4.6 economic impactfrom coal burning is quite high compared withimpact from gas burning. Commissioning of newcoal-fired generating facilities will increase thenegative impact on public health.The authors of this interesting researchconclude that public health impact from plannednew coal-fired TPPs is 2.5 times lower than thatof units that are already operating, but muchhigher than impact of gas-fired stations(Table 4.7).4.3.3. The hydropower sectorTable 4.5Economic parameters of risk assessmentHealth riskReduction of lifeexpectancyImpact unitCost perimpact unit,rubles1 man-year 600.000Chronic bronchitis 1 disease 1.500.000Days lost due to illness 1 day 1.000have impact on health. There is also a dangerof migration by infected animals anddischarge of toxic chemical substances andindustrial waste.The hydro-electric sector istraditionally regarded as the most acceptablesource of power generating as regards impacton public health. However, health risks fromconstruction of giant water dams have beenlittle studied. Such construction projectscause high levels of stress among localpeople, who must choose whether to live nextto the facility or move away. Such stress mustTable 4.6Mean specific values of public health impact per tonne of pollutants 444.4. Summaryand recommendationsDevelopment of the energy sector in<strong>Russia</strong> must take account of both the existingsituation in various regions and newenvironmental directives of WHO, EU andother international organizations. Many fuelproduction and power generating facilities arePollutantLife expectancy lossMean specific impact in natural units, gChronic bronchitis,N illnesses / m.t.Morbidity rate,N days / m.t.Mean specific impactβ, 10 3 rubles/tonne.MR CR OR MR CR OR MR CR OR MR CR ORParticles 0.08 0.03 0.026 0.020 0.010 0.006 8.5 3.0 3.0 90 36 25NO x 0.16 0.07 0.018 0.037 0.020 0.004 19.0 7.0 2.1 170 80 19SO 2 0.11 0.04 0.013 0.025 0.012 0.003 13.0 5.0 1.4 120 47 13N illnesses – number of chronic bronchitis cases; N days – number of days lost to illness; MR – Moscow Region; CR – Central <strong>Russia</strong>;OR – Omsk Region47I.L.Abalkina, V.F.Demin, S.I.Ivanov et al., Economic parameters of risk assessment for calculating damage to public health due to varioushazards // Risk assessment challenges, 2005, Vol.2, No.2, pp 132-13887
Change language