COMPARATIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF THE SPS AND ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL GENERATION SYSTEMS L. J. Habegger - J. R. Gasper -C. D. Brown Argonne National Laboratory - Argonne, Illinois 60439 A comparative analysis of health and safety risks is presented for the satellite power system (SPS) and five alternative baseload electrical generation systems: a low-Btu coal gasification system with an open-cycle gas turbine combined with a steam topping cycle (CG/CC); a light water fission reactor system without fuel reprocessing (LWR); a liquid metal fast breeder fission reactor system (LMFBR); a central station terrestrial photovoltaic system (CTPV); and a first generation fusion system with magnetic confinement. For comparison, risk from a decentralized "roof-top" photovoltaic system with battery storage (DTPV) is also evaluated. Quantified estimates of public and occupational risks within ranges of uncertainty were developed for each phase of the energy system on the basis of 1000 MWe average system output. A load factor of 70% was assumed for each system except the CTPV and DTPV for which 25% and 12% load factors, respectively, were used. Back-up energy systems were not included in the evaluation. More detailed system descriptions are provided in a companion paper.1 Components of the analytical procedure are illustrated in Fig. 1. Also discussed in the paper is the potential significance of related major health and safety issues that remain unquantified. For a comparative assessment that includes the more capital-intensive advanced technologies it is essential that risks from on-site construction and risks from both direct and indirect facility component production be evaluated. The latter indirect component production requirements (e.g., copper mining to produce electrical equipment) were obtained from 1972 input-output tables of the U.S. economy. As illustrated in Fig. 2, these indirect production risks comprise a significant fraction of the relatively large construction phase impact of the solar technologies. Although not shown, similar relative technology differences are obtained for non-fatal person-days-lost from occupational accident and disease. The construction phase impacts, when averaged over an assumed 30-yr plant lifetime, bring the solar technology life cycle impacts to within the range of uncertainty of the quantified risks for the LWR, LMFBR, and fusion nuclear technologies (Fig. 3). The relatively large CG/CC risks per 1000 MWe-yr illustrated in Fig. 3 result primarily from public exposure to long-range transport of air pollutants (4-74 premature deaths; adapted from ref. 2), coal transport accidents, and coal mine disease and accidents. The relatively high risks of the DTPV system are related to the lower load factor and resultant higher material requirements, production risks for the storage batteries, and greater construction and maintenance requirements for the small, dispersed units. In general, the more defined technologies (e.g., CG/CC, LWR) have a greater number of quantifiable risks and fewer unquantifiable risks. The opposite is true for the less-defined technologies (e.g., fusion, SPS). In contrast to the apparent public willingness to accept limited known risks of energy systems, recent experience with light water fission systems indicates that perceived major risks that are less quantifiable or predictable may restrict or completely halt energy system deployment if adequate assurances of very low impact probability cannot be given. For this reason potentially major, but unquantified, risks should be given prominence comparable to the quantified risks discussed above. Table 1 is a listing of potentially major unquantified issues
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==