Author
Listed:
- D. J. Ball
- L. E. J. Roberts
Abstract
This paper examines, on a full fuel cycle basis, routine operational risks associated with the generation of electricity by seven options available to the United Kingdom. These options are tidal power, on-shore and off-shore wind, nuclear power, and coal, oil and gas-fired power. To facilitate comparison, risk estimates are normalised per GWa of electricity produced. Risks to the workforce and the public are considered as distinct items. So far as occupational risks are concerned, it is concluded that when such risks are combined for each cycle, they range from about 0.1 to 0.2 to a maximum of about 1 to 2 fatalities per GWa, with tidal power and gas lying at the lower end of this range, and coal and off-shore wind at the higher end. With the exception of the renewable cycles, for which significant public health risks of the type included within the remit of this project were not identified, the estimation of risks to the public presents many challenges. For example, while individual radiation doses to the public from the nuclear (and fossil) cycles are found to be insignificant compared to those from natural background radiation, collective doses may appear otherwise when integrated over thousands of years and continental or global populations. However, the meaning of such estimates in terms of health cannot be assessed, and in any event the estimates pale into insignificance when compared with those resulting from exposure to natural radiation were this to be calculated on the same basis. The problem of comparing public risks associated with the nuclear and fossil cycles is further compounded on considering the copious quantities of solid, liquid and gaseous waste products which are generated, particularly by the fossil cycles. These waste streams contain heavy metals, carcinogens and known respiratory irritants, but neither the short-term nor long-term public health implications can be quantified at present with confidence. Despite the uncertainties, our broad conclusion is that the routine operational risks of all these cycles are comparatively modest for modern, well-run systems and that the more important factors in energy choice are likely to entail considerations of security of supply, employment, optimum utilisation of the nation's resources and wider environmental considerations.
Suggested Citation
D. J. Ball & L. E. J. Roberts, 1995.
"Risks of Seven UK Electricity Generation Options Part 1: Routine Operation,"
Energy & Environment, , vol. 6(4), pages 283-335, June.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:engenv:v:6:y:1995:i:4:p:283-335
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X9500600402
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:6:y:1995:i:4:p:283-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.