The controversy over energy‐production risks is in part due to uncertainties and disagreements over the specification of these systems and their characteristics and in part due to the lack of a solid conceptual framework for comparisons between qualitatively different types of risks. The difficulties in specifying energy risks arise primarily from the necessity of using oversimplified descriptions of energy systems and their effects. The major simplifications include the use of marginal analysis (even when inappropriate), the omission of indirect risks, and the incorrect specification of the systems to be analyzed. Comparisons between qualitatively different risks are hampered by the lack of a solid basis for treating occupational risks relative to public risks, catastrophic risks versus chronic risks, and risks distributed differently in time. The difficult problems encountered when social values relating to risk change rapidly lead to delay and indecision. The choice of analytical simplifications and the specification of values systems for energy analysis are best made by considering the context and application of the analysi