Letters/energy: calculating the risk

Journal Article · Fri May 04 00:00:00 EDT 1979 · Science (Washington, D.C.); (United States)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.432649· OSTI ID:5503740

Lemberg, R; Caputo, R

A discussion of H. Inhaber's analysis of risks with energy from conventional and nonconventional sources showed that the use of this data with the removal of the risks of creating an energy facility and the risk due to the conventional backup for a nonconventional plant had the effect of reversing Inhaber's conclusion, i.e., nonconventional systems are less risky than conventional systems. Although Inhaber relied heavily on data gathered by R. Caputo and co-workers, Inhaber's estimates of total health risk, compared with Caputo's were: 15 times greater for coal; 100 times greater for solar thermal electric and solar photovoltaic power; and about the same for a nuclear plant.

• Research Organization: Lemberg Consultants Ltd., Oakville, Ontario
• OSTI ID: 5503740
• Journal Information: Science (Washington, D.C.); (United States), Journal Name: Science (Washington, D.C.); (United States) Vol. 204:4392; ISSN SCIEA
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

14 SOLAR ENERGY
140000 -- Solar Energy
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS
200000 -- Fossil-Fueled Power Plants
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS
210000 -- Nuclear Power Plants
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY
290300* -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Environment
Health
& Safety
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
DATA
DATA COMPILATION
DATA COVARIANCES
FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS
HAZARDS
HEALTH HAZARDS
INFORMATION
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER PLANTS
POWER PLANTS
RISK ASSESSMENT
SAFETY STANDARDS
SOLAR POWER PLANTS
SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANTS
STANDARDS
THERMAL POWER PLANTS