Relative energy risk: is solar energy riskier than nuclear

The discussion of risk analysis is divided into three parts: (a) a brief discussion of the methodology which can be used, (b) a listing of some of the major assumptions, and (c) the results of a comparison of eleven energy systems. The energy systems considered here can be divided into two groups: conventional, i.e., those in fairly widespread use, like coal or nuclear, and non-conventional, i.e., all others, like solar and wind. In general, although some of these non-conventional systems have been described as risk-free, they are not. In fact, compared to some conventional systems like natural gas and nuclear, technologies like solar and windpower have relatively high risk. The reason is simple. Because of the dilute nature of the energy they handle, solar and wind systems, when compared on the quantity of their energy production, require a considerable amount of apparatus as compared to other systems. In turn, this apparatus requires a large amount of material and construction labor to build and install. Associated with each ton of material and hour of labor is a definite number of accidents, diseases and deaths, according to labor statistics. When the risk is summed up in this way, we find that non-conventional systems generally have high risk. In particular, to answer the question posed in the title of this talk, solar energy seems to have a higher risk than nuclear power, when the methodology outlined below is used