Health and environmental hazards of different energy systems

The health risks from different energy systems are compared and the methods of risk analysis assessed. Emphasis is placed on comparison of the coal and nuclear fuel cycles but oil, gas and renewables are also considered. Increases in acid rain are examined as an example of the excruciatingly painful choices that must be faced. A comparison of nuclear and coal-electric systems is made on the Reference Energy System (RES) basis. Coal-mining accidents and occupational disease, transport accidents and air pollution health effects are emphasized. The latter dominate uncertainty ranges in the health effects of coal (0 to 77 deaths per GW(e).a). For nuclear fuel cycles, the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) III linear model was chosen as an upper boundary estimate of the health effects of low LET radiation exposure. Estimates of the effects of catastrophic accidents in the nuclear fuel cycle are discussed. Reactors account for most of this risk. An estimate of 0.1 deaths per GW(e).a for reactor accidents is derived. This is in line with the suggestions of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Electric Power Research Institute review groups, although it is lower than the 2.4 death per reactor-year estimate of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Uncertainty in the numbers of man-years worked per GW(e).a and its contribution to occupational cancer are examined. For comparison with renewable energy systems, indirect effects associated with materials supply must be included. The risk per worker is currently similar for coal, nuclear and most renewables. Indirect effects range from one-third to two times direct effects. None of the renewable technologies has a lower total impact than nuclear