Comparing the health and environmental hazards of different energy systems

Energy and environment can pose difficult challenges for policy makers and scientists. Assessing health impacts of different energy sources requires synthesis of research results from many different disciplines into a rational framework. Information is often scanty; qualitatively different risks, or energy systems with quite different end uses, must be put on a common footing. Risk-assessment methods reviewed include examples drawn from work of the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division at Brookhaven National Laboratory and elsewhere. Coal and nuclear fuel cycles are compared in respect to morbidity and mortality. Other cycles (oil, gas and renewables) are also examined. In broadening comparisons to include new technologies, one must include the impact of manufacturing the energy-producing devices as part of an expanded fuel cycle, via input-output methods. Input-output analysis allows comparisons of direct and system-wide impacts. Throughout the analysis, uncertainties must be explicitly recognized in the results, including uncertainty in validity of data and uncertainty in choice of appropriate models. No single method of comparative risk assessment is fully satisfactory; each has its limitations. By use of several methods progress has been made in understanding the relative impact of energy technologies