Risk with Energy from Conventional and Nonconventional Sources

Inhaber, Herbert

doi:10.1126/science.419404

Cited by 90 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The examination specifically focuses on the vulnerability of different energy systems to natural disasters, and the subsequent impact or benefit that the energy system can have in disaster situations. Because the study examines energy systems under unusual circumstances of natural disasters, it does not take into account the standard operational impacts which are the consideration of most of the standard literature on risk and the externalities of energy [41][42][43]. The alternative energy systems considered in this assessment are representative of the key modern energy sources-both conventional fossil fuels and the more recently expanding renewable energy technologies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience, Sustainability and Risk Management: A Focus on Energy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The natural and subsequent human disasters of March 11, 2011 in Japan have brought into focus more than ever the importance of resilience and risk mitigation in the construction of energy infrastructure. This article introduces some of the critical issues and discusses the implications of energy in alleviating or exacerbating the risks of natural disasters. Additionally, it presents a framework for considering the risks of energy systems from a broad perspective. The connection is drawn between design for sustainability and the risks associated with energy systems in natural disasters. As a result of the assessment, six criteria are proposed for energy systems to contribute to societal resilience in the face of natural disasters—they should be: (1) Continuous; (2) Robust; (3) Independent; (4) Controllable; (5) Non-hazardous; and (6) Matched to demand

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience, Sustainability and Risk Management: A Focus on Energy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nuclear energy was again the topic of a seminal paper in which Inhaber ( 15 ) compared health risks associated with a variety of conventional and nonconventional sources of electricity. Concerned that nuclear power risks were misperceived by people outside the industry, he demonstrated that nuclear and natural gas were substantially safer than oil, coal, wind, methanol, and solar (ocean thermal and hydroelectricity were intermediate).…”

Section: Historical Cases: Precision and Disputementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, they showed that credible changes of some critical assumptions completely changed the comparison profile, even using Inhaber's metric of “total man‐days lost.” The Holdren et al critique was particularly telling in that Inhaber's analysis relied heavily on Holdren's earlier work. ( 15,16 ) A second critique ( 17 ) similarly reported flaws in assumptions and methods, while concluding that more careful analysis could lead to more useful conclusions.…”

Section: Historical Cases: Precision and Disputementioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades

Hassenzahl¹

2006

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews five published "second-order" risk comparisons from the past four decades that implied precise understanding, and hence clear relationships or orderings, of the underlying risks. "Second order" here refers to efforts that extract information from original sources with the goal of relating diverse findings. All five of these publications have frequently been cited in the peer-reviewed literature and/or in risk regulatory debate in the United States. Each is associated with at least one contemporaneous critique that the findings were excessively precise. None of these critiques suggested that an alternative relationship or ordering of the risks evaluated was more appropriate. Instead, each critique concluded that alternative, contradictory relationships were at least as plausible given data and/or analytical limitations. In one case, the critique led to the withdrawal of the original publication. The original findings have been propagated or used uncritically in subsequent literature, including political support for cost-effectiveness analysis. In other cases, the critiques have been used to discredit quantitative risk analysis in general, especially in the cases of nuclear power and cost-benefit analysis. Both of these outcomes are undesirable. Future risk comparisons should avoid excessive precision, include explicit discussion of uncertainty, and differentiate between plausible estimates and expected values.

show abstract

“…Here is an example from the politics of risk. In 1979, a consultant to the nuclear energy industry published a study in Science, concluding that nonconventional energy sources are more risky than nuclear and other conventional sources of energy (Inhaber, 1979). The study, which was widely publicized by the nuclear industry, was immediately attacked by scientists who held opposing views on the the risks of nuclear power (e.g., Holdren, Smith, and Morris, 1979), largely on grounds of inappropriate assumptions and calculations.…”

Section: Implications For Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication

Stern

1991

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological conflicts are commonly seen as rooted in problems of risk perception and risk communication. This view is scriously deficicnt in that it does not fully appreciate that despite their technical content, the conflicts are at bottom political. Conflict of interests and values is evident even in differences over scientific agendas, methods, and interpretations, mid especially in the inevitable cacophony of messages describing scientific knowledge to nonexperts. Efforts to produce clear, accurate, and unbiased messages about risks will not even solve communication problems, let alone reduce conflict, because 'unbiased' is undefinable. Clear and accurate messages can always be devised to support a variety of policy positions, and they will be, whenever controversy persists. The article substantiates these points and outlines some realistic approaches to risk communication that enable nonexperts to learn through conflict what they cannot learn from carefully crafted risk messages.Over the past two decades, political debates about technological choices have frustrated many of the participants in them. Persistent acrimonious conflicts over nuclear power, hazardous chemicals, food additives, and the like have not been resolved either by accumulations of scientific evidence or expressions of public sentimcnt. In many quarters, it has bccomc fashionable to define the problem in terms of perception and communication. Many veterans of technological controversies believe that if people perceived the likely costs and benefits of the alternatives more accurately or if scientists, government agencies, and the mass media communicated more effectively about the risks, conflicts about the attendant choices would be easier to resolve and the society would be better for it. 2There are at least four serious deficiencies in this formulation. The first is a failure to appreciate fully that the conflicts are embedded in a democratic system. Technological decisions must be scientifically informed because there may be options that almost all citizens would reject if enough science were known to foresee the consequences. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision power is vested in officials answerable to the electorate. Democracy presumes that the political system embodies greater wisdom than any specialized community, even that of scientists. Democratic principles are inconsistent with a view that would give scientists or any other select group the right to determine how citizens should perceive their policy choices.The second deficiency of the fashionable view is that it treats the nature of knowledge as politically unproblematic. It assumes that risks can be assessed and the assessments explained in a value-free and politically neutral manner. lqut as the next section explains, political issues are at stake even in setting

show abstract

Risk with Energy from Conventional and Nonconventional Sources

Cited by 90 publications

References 8 publications

Resilience, Sustainability and Risk Management: A Focus on Energy

Resilience, Sustainability and Risk Management: A Focus on Energy

Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades

Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About