2 ms·

If they were so passionate then they should've known more. It was likely just something done as part of a class assignment. Sure, I don't understand nuclear pe

If they were so passionate then they should've known more. It was likely just something done as part of a class assignment. Sure, I don't understand nuclear perfectly - it's their job to convince me of their platform and that involves educating. Yes, I'd say solar was still more dangerous if it resulted in more deaths per kWh. The context was the US so I was talking about statistics in the realm of US safety standards. Even worldwide nuclear gets a better score than worldwide everything else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents I said in my post that the economics of the operation was a valid point. It was also the only point the students at the table didn't give. My overall point was that it was disappointing how they wouldn't just use the real argument and instead relied on faulty reasoning like "it's old." Being nice how? If you're putting up a table to convince people of some position, swaying people on the fence is what you signed up for.

Spooky23 9y ago
> Yes, I'd say solar was still more dangerous if it resulted in more deaths per kWh. That's a statistic that inherently favors nuclear because: - It focuses death vs. injury. - It doesn't normalize for states with tough regulation of falls. Is it reasonable to attribute shoddy labor practices with an energy source? Injuries will be lower in states like New York because employers have 100% liability for falls, and insurance carriers require safety measures. - It compares installation of solar panels to operational run state for nuclear. - There are no reliable statistics re: deaths and injuries for construction or operational workers building nuclear plants 40-50 years ago. An apples to apples comparison that was meaningful would be "Build / Installation Injuries per kWh of Rated Capacity". For operational comparison something like "Injuries per kWh of Generated Capacity". It's actually a hard comparison that requires some judgement, as operationally a large professionally managed system like a nuclear plant is a low risk, high impact profile for injury and death. Distributed, unmanaged solar generation is likely going to generate more incidents (accidents, transformer fires, etc) but have a lower (and scoped) impact.

Spooky23 9y ago

> Yes, I'd say solar was still more dangerous if it resulted in more deaths per kWh. That's a statistic that inherently favors nuclear because: - It focuses death vs. injury. - It doesn't normalize for states with tough regulation of falls. Is it reasonable to attribute shoddy labor practices with an energy source? Injuries will be lower in states like New York because employers have 100% liability for falls, and insurance carriers require safety measures. - It compares installation of solar panels to operational run state for nuclear. - There are no reliable statistics re: deaths and injuries for construction or operational workers building nuclear plants 40-50 years ago. An apples to apples comparison that was meaningful would be "Build / Installation Injuries per kWh of Rated Capacity". For operational comparison something like "Injuries per kWh of Generated Capacity". It's actually a hard comparison that requires some judgement, as operationally a large professionally managed system like a nuclear plant is a low risk, high impact profile for injury and death. Distributed, unmanaged solar generation is likely going to generate more incidents (accidents, transformer fires, etc) but have a lower (and scoped) impact.