Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 12, 2014

Assessment of the radiological health damage costs of the Yeniköy and Kemerköy lignite-fired power plants in Muğla

Beurteilung der Kosten radiologischer Gesundheitsschäden durch die Yeniköy und Kemerköy Braunkohle-Kraftwerke in Muğla
A. Ç. Köne and T. Büke
From the journal Kerntechnik

Abstract

The health impacts and corresponding damage costs of radioactive emissions of Yeniköy and Kemerköy lignite-fired power plants in Muğla have been assessed by using the simplified impact pathway approach. Radiation dose and risk calculations have been carried out by the code CAP88-PC around the power plants. Specific isotopes, 226Ra, 232Th, 40K and 238U in the flying ash samples are considered as radioactive sources. The estimated total collective doses around Yeniköy and Kemerköy power plants are 3.15 × 10−4 man Sv/year and 3.77 × 10−4 man Sv/year. Health effects and the corresponding damage costs around the power plants due to radioactive emissions from the power plants are negligible.

Kurzfassung

Die gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen und die entsprechenden Kosten der Schäden der radioaktiven Emissionen der Yeniköy und Kemerköy Braunkohle-Kraftwerke in Muğla wurden mit Hilfe des vereinfachten Wirkungspfadansatzes geprüft. Strahlendosis und Risiko-Berechnungen wurden mit Hilfe des Codes CAP88-PC rund um die Kraftwerke durchgeführt. Bestimmte Isotope 226Ra, 232Th, 40K und 238U in Flugascheproben wurden als radioaktive Quellen berücksichtigt. Die geschätzten Kollektivdosen rund um die Yeniköy und Kemerköy Kraftwerke liegen bei 3.15 × 10−4 man Sv/year und 3.77 × 10−4 man Sv/year. Gesundheitliche Auswirkungen und entsprechenden Schadenskosten aufgrund der radioaktiven Emissionen aus den Kraftwerken sind vernachlässigbar.


* Corresponding Author E-mail: ;

References

1 Martin, J. E.; Lee, C.: Principles of radiological health and safety. New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience; 2003Search in Google Scholar

2 External costs: research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport. Eurepean Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Development, Report No. EUR 20198, Brussels, 2003Search in Google Scholar

3 Economic and commercial conditions of Muğla. Industry and Trade Center of Muğla, Muğla, 2007, (in Turkish)Search in Google Scholar

4 Annual report: 2012. Electricity Generation Company of Turkey, Ankara, 2012, (in Turkish)Search in Google Scholar

5 Clean coal technologies. World Energy Council, Turkish National Committee Working Group, Ankara. 2010, (in Turkish)Search in Google Scholar

6 General description of Yeniköy and Kemerköy power plants. Electricity Generation Cooperation, Ankara, 2006, (in Turkish).Search in Google Scholar

7 ExternE: Externalities of energy, methodology annexes. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Development, Brussels, 1995Search in Google Scholar

8 Hainoun, A.; Almoustafa, A.; Seif Aldin, M.: Estimating the health damage costs of Syrian electricity generation system using impact pathway approach. Energy35 (2010) 628638 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.10.034Search in Google Scholar

9 Sakulniyomporn, S.; Kubaha, K.; Chullabodhi, C.: External costs of fossil electricity generation: Health-based assessment in Thailand. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews15 (2011) 34703479 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.004Search in Google Scholar

10 Review of NukPacts: An environmental assessment package. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003Search in Google Scholar

11 Parks, B.; Chaki, S. P. E.: CAP88-PC Version 2.0 Updated User's Guide, Report No: EPA 402-R-00-004, Las Vegas, 2000Search in Google Scholar

12 Annals of the ICRP: The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Publication 103, The International Commission on Radiological Protection, Elsevier, UKSearch in Google Scholar

13 Spadaro, J. V.: AIRPACTS input data: monetary unit costs. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002Search in Google Scholar

14 Spadaro, J. V.: AIRPACTS input data: exposure response functions. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002Search in Google Scholar

15 Annual meteorological conditions in Yeniköy and Kemerköy 1975–2012 periods. Turkish State Meteorological Service. Ankara, 2012Search in Google Scholar

16 Turkisk Statistical Institute. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul. (Accessed date 15 May 2013)Search in Google Scholar

17 Çam, F.; Yaprak, G.; Candan, O.; Bayram, A.; Onat, B.; Tanıl, H. et al.: Natural radioisotopes (226Ra, 232Th, 40K and 210Pb) determination around the coal-fired power plants in the southwestern part of turkey due to radioactivity emissions from the power plants and radiological risk assessment. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Project, Project No: 103Y57, Ankara, 2006, (in Turkish)Search in Google Scholar

18 Technical specifications and measured air pollutant emission rates from lignite-fired power plants of Turkey. Ankara: Electricity Generation Cooperation, 2010, (in Turkish)Search in Google Scholar

19 World Development Indicators. World Bank, http://ddp-xt.worldbank.org. (Accessed date 15 May 2013)Search in Google Scholar

20 Büke, T., Köne, A. Ç.: Valuing health effects of natural radionuclides releases from Yatagan Power Plant, Thailand. Energy and Power Engineering1 (2010) 4652 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/epe.2010.21008Search in Google Scholar

21 Aslan, M.: A typical example of the discussion about the environmental impacts of coal fired thermal power plants in Turkey: Yatağan thermal power plant experience, Symposium on Environmental effects of Electricity Production from Coal, Ankara, 1995Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2013-10-30
Published Online: 2014-03-12
Published in Print: 2014-03-17

© 2014, Carl Hanser Verlag, München

Scroll Up Arrow