Nearly all energy systems entail some significant forms of health, environmental, or socio-political risks. But there is considerable difference among various energy systems in the magnitude, timing, and nature of their associated risks. It is this difference that allows a degree of choice, or policy, with regard to selecting energy alternatives. The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems compiled a detailed analysis of risks associated with different types of energy use. A condensed table of that analysis is presented. The issue of assessing risks is also discussed, to give the reader an idea of the complications involved in making valid risk assessments, and the worth of risk assessment as a public policymaking device. Among questions raised: Can risks and benefits be measured in the same units? Can we, for example, compare the risk of climatic change with the risk of accidental injury or death? How much do we value the future? Are we willing to invest money today to save a life tomorrow? (This is known as valuing or discounting the future, a difficult economic value question.) Moreover, public perception of risks affects policy response to risks. There are, of course, uncertainties. The likelihood exists that many factors have not yet been assessed and that unidentified risks of a serious nature could surface. As more and more aspects are studied, additional risks will be uncovered. Because of the uncertainties and diversity of both risks and benefits associated with alternative energy systems, our embryonic methods of risk analysis must be improved. The public and its leaders must be familiar with the basics of risk analysis and be able to distinguish between issues of fact, and value issues. It is clear that we cannot rely solely on one form of energy. Diversity will provide a hedge against unforeseen risks. Risks will be proportional to the total energy produced and consumed by society. Therefore, it is essential that global population be kept in check so that total energy usage can be minimized, while per capita consumption is not too low. If more and more people use energy to improve standards of living, the ultimate adverse health, environmental and social impacts could well outweigh the benefits.
Read full abstract