6 ms·

Actually renewables are rather famous for not being very safe at all. Turns out that mounting heavy glass plates on rooftops ... can end with a very quick trip

Actually renewables are rather famous for not being very safe at all. Turns out that mounting heavy glass plates on rooftops ... can end with a very quick trip to ground with a heavy (and if broken: sharp) glass plate right behind you. Example [1]. Wind turbines need a lot of mechanical components mounted 50 meters (up to 150) off the ground. Needless to say, these components aren't what anyone would call roomy. One component is a big gearbox, or as the technicians call it a "meatgrinder" [2]. TLDR: Nuclear: 0.1 deaths/PWh (US) 90/PWh (global). Wind: 150 deaths/PWh Solar: 440 deaths/PWh [3] Note that Coal and Oil numbers exclude health impact of the intoxication that is highly visible in places like India and China, but really also plays in many US cities. Even if they're not quite at the point where the sky turns brown and acutely toxic. Only Hydro power is even remotely competitive with nuclear power in deaths. (global for nuclear means believing the numbers claiming Chernobyl caused more deaths than 2 US nuclear bombs, or you could more reasonably interpret it as including all deaths due to nuclear weapons. You can freely add in all deaths due to radiation research (low 3 digits), it won't affect the numbers) In a way it's funny. Solar has already killed more people than nuclear (realistic Chernobyl numbers), including the 2 bombs. And will pass the threshold of adding all numbers together just after this decade ends. Somehow that's never mentioned. So taking the most pessimistic numbers, Nuclear is 60% safer than Wind turbines, and a staggering 500% safer than solar power. If taking the optimistic numbers for nuclear ... it's absolutely ridiculous. [1] https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20171019/corona/corona-50th-avenue-construction-accident-deadly-killed/ https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20171019/corona/corona-50th... [2] https://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/content/siemens-technician%E2%80%99s-harness-snared-wind-turbine-gearbox https://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/content/siemens-techni... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

strainer 8y ago
Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on safety measures. It should be obvious when you think about it; if "it'll never happen" (because it can't or hasn't happened) is true, then insurance actuaries could establish that and there would be no problem with insuring the "safest source of power", but governments have to wave the responsibility for full liability instead. There is a real probabilistic risk of great and persistent tragedies from nuclear plants, the more there are the greater that risk. Fortunately wind, solar and storage are cheaper already than nuclear [1] and their prices are continuing to drop fast. There may be a good case for improving safeguards on these industries too - it should not be as expensive as trying to fully safeguard nuclear has been. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Thank you. Whenever I see someone compare nuclear deaths to solar deaths (lot of solar death are falling off a roof), I slap my forehead when they suggest full speed ahead with nuclear (despite it being too expensive, uninsurable without government backing, and no waste disposal plans) instead of...making it harder to fall off of roofs when installing rooftop solar.
  - pimmen 8y ago
    We allow cities close to the ocean even though the Japanese tsunami damages cost more than ten times as much as the nuclear accident it caused. We allow cities on fault lines as well, even though earth quakes could kill hundreds of thousands of people. What does ”uninsurable” mean? If nuclear power plants are uninsurable Silicon Valley is uninsurable.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Uninsurable means a nuclear generator cannot obtain commercial liability insurance due to black swan events that could incur hundreds of billions of dollars in liability. Silicon Valley is insurance because the liability exposure is substantially less.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    By refusing to support an alternative solution, you are supporting the status quo. It is easy to bring up problem after problem with alternatives. It is not easy to show why the status quo is somehow better, because it is not. A death is a death. Someone dieing because they fell off a roof is equally as bad as dieing due to radiation.
    - kd5bjo 8y ago
      ‘toomuchtodo is supporting an alternate solution: taking measures to reduce the rate at which solar installers fall of of roofs.
    - C_J_H 8y ago

strainer 8y ago

Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on safety measures. It should be obvious when you think about it; if "it'll never happen" (because it can't or hasn't happened) is true, then insurance actuaries could establish that and there would be no problem with insuring the "safest source of power", but governments have to wave the responsibility for full liability instead. There is a real probabilistic risk of great and persistent tragedies from nuclear plants, the more there are the greater that risk. Fortunately wind, solar and storage are cheaper already than nuclear [1] and their prices are continuing to drop fast. There may be a good case for improving safeguards on these industries too - it should not be as expensive as trying to fully safeguard nuclear has been. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Thank you. Whenever I see someone compare nuclear deaths to solar deaths (lot of solar death are falling off a roof), I slap my forehead when they suggest full speed ahead with nuclear (despite it being too expensive, uninsurable without government backing, and no waste disposal plans) instead of...making it harder to fall off of roofs when installing rooftop solar.
- pimmen 8y ago
  We allow cities close to the ocean even though the Japanese tsunami damages cost more than ten times as much as the nuclear accident it caused. We allow cities on fault lines as well, even though earth quakes could kill hundreds of thousands of people. What does ”uninsurable” mean? If nuclear power plants are uninsurable Silicon Valley is uninsurable.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Uninsurable means a nuclear generator cannot obtain commercial liability insurance due to black swan events that could incur hundreds of billions of dollars in liability. Silicon Valley is insurance because the liability exposure is substantially less.
- stale2002 8y ago
  By refusing to support an alternative solution, you are supporting the status quo. It is easy to bring up problem after problem with alternatives. It is not easy to show why the status quo is somehow better, because it is not. A death is a death. Someone dieing because they fell off a roof is equally as bad as dieing due to radiation.
  - kd5bjo 8y ago
    ‘toomuchtodo is supporting an alternate solution: taking measures to reduce the rate at which solar installers fall of of roofs.
  - C_J_H 8y ago