Perspectives on the comparison of risks from alternative energy production sources

Many studies have attempted to compare the risks of alternate sources of energy production with mixed degrees of success. A review has been made of these many studies to determine what is valid and useful in such studies, and what should be discarded. Results show that at least three major factors confound such studies. First, the differences among classes of alternative energy sources may be larger or smaller than differences within a single energy alternative due to choice of site, specific technological design, sources of fuel, and other factors of a specific nature. Thus, any such study must balance the internal consistency of specific designs within an energy alternative with external consistency across all energy alternatives studied. Secondly, risks to individuals, collectives, workers, public, mortality, morbidity, property damage, accidents, disease, etc., are often not separate. Value judgments used to aggregate these factors are arbitrary and easily challenged. In addition, few studies have found means to present their information in both a valid and meaningful manner. Thirdly, the comparisons, including the whole fuel cycle, are based partly on statistical, partly on predictive data, which are sometimes intermingled and provided without specifying the spread or error bands. Finally, risk-risk comparisons of this kind can, under certain conditions, be a useful tool for the technical community, decision makers, and the public. There is no generic method that works for all uses and these three classes of users. However, limited success may occur when the use of the analysis is matched to the user