4.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY* 4.3.1 Introduction The evaluation of health and safety risks is of high priority in the assessment of alternative energy systems because of the increasing U.S. demand for energy as well as societal concern regarding the risks associated with energy technologies. Ideally, health and safety evaluations sum all risks associated with each system under comparison. However, this sort of evaluation is not currently feasible because of uncertainties surrounding system designs and risk estimates. In addition, an evaluation based solely on a summing of impacts would obscure the differences between energy systems that result from different societal perceptions of "acceptable" risks, which are important considerations for the policymaker. This section describes an assessment taxonomy and results of the comparison of health and safety impacts from six energy systems: the SPS; a light water fission reactor system without fuel reprocessing (LWR); a low-Btu coal gasification system with an open-cycle gas turbine combined with a steam topping cycle (CG/CC); a liquid-metal, fast breeder fission reactor system (LMFBR); a central-station, terrestrial photovoltaic system (TPV); and a first generation fusion system with magnetic confinement. Two levels of analysis are included in this assessment: the unit health and safety risks associated with 1000-MW average electrical generation for each technology and the cumulative risks of alternative scenarios with different electrical generation technology mixes for the period 2000 to 2030. It must be stressed that the results described in this section are based on highly uncertain factors, and therefore the numbers are subjective; they should not be taken as strictly quantitative, but can provide only a qualitative view of the future. 4.3.2 Methodology Assessing the health and safety risks of each technology required three major tasks: detailed characterization of each phase of the system as a basis for identifying the major health and safety issues associated with each of those phases; analysis of the magnitude of risk associated with each identified issue; and accumulation of risks by technology, by category of risk, and by generation scenario. Figure 4.27 illustrates this process and identifies the technology system activities and major sources of risk considered. Detailed descriptions^»52 of alternative, year-2000 baseload generation systems were compiled on a consistent basis for comparison as part of the larger SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program. The design for the coal system with low-Btu gasification was based on an SO2 emission factor of 0.2 lb SO2/I06 Btu of gas, or 0.326 lb SO2/I06 Btu of coal. Load factors of *The contents of this section are primarily a summary of results in Ref. 51, which includes a more comprehensive list of basic references.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==