4 ms·

Where would solar and wind be in this chart? It's definitely not zero (falls from height, etc).

by kozak 7y ago

jartelt 7y ago
Deaths from solar and wind are almost entirely due to falls during installation and service. I looked into this a few years ago while writing my thesis and death rate per TWhr for different energy sources was: coal (29), oil (18), natural gas (2.8), biofuel/biomass (4.6), hydro (1.4), solar (0.11), wind (0.06), and nuclear (0.052).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikece 7y ago
My guess it would be related to gas. It's my understanding that new utility-grade wind and solar installs have to have generating capacity equal to or greater than the nominal generation capacity of wind/solar to maintain a stable base load when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining and that natural gas powered two-stage plants tend to be the "insurance" layer (they are relatively clean, start fast, can throttle up/down far more flexibly than other modes of generation...)
malcolmwhy 7y ago
> Note: Figures include deaths resulting from accidents in energy production and deaths related to air pollution impacts. Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total. Based on that note it sounds like it might be pretty close to 0.
calebegg 7y ago
This older article has estimates for more production types including those: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
classic959 7y ago
Exactly what I was thinking. I'd expect it to be quite high (deaths per TWh) while the technology is new or advancing fast, both because the energy production will be low, and because there must be more risk in newer industrial-scale technologies. Deaths per TWh in Offshore wind vs Onshore wind production would be interesting to see too.
CoolGuySteve 7y ago
Ya I wanted to see solar in the chart because I always wonder what the lifecycle costs are for solar. It seems like recycling a solar panel would be as labor intensive and toxic as most other electronics.
perlgeek 7y ago
Also missing: water power. There were lots of deaths from hydro power dam failures. (Update: fixed typo, thanks :D)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
trothamel 7y ago
Rooftop Solar is 0.44 deaths/TWh, wind is 0.15 deaths/TWh, Hydro is 1.4 or 0.1, depending on if you count the biggest accident or not. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... I don't think that would count natural gas emissions for backing renewables.
- pcl 7y ago
  The referenced hydro accident is the Banqiao Dam failure, which Wikipedia says resulted in between 171,000 and 230,000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I'd expect deaths from big solar farms to be quite a bit lower than that, possibly lower than nuclear even.
wtdata 7y ago
I know it's not completely related since it's not about human deaths, but wind is quite disruptive for the local fauna actually. My country invested a lot in wind generated energy in the past decade (and that's a good thing), but the bird populations in those areas clearly suffered for it.
evandijk70 7y ago
One of the first hits on google. Deaths are per 1000 TwH, and numbers are somewhat different, probably illustrating how hard it is to estimate casualties from pollution. Nuclear is still safest, followed by solar and wind. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy...
mbell 7y ago
I'd guess that hydro is worse than solar/wind by this metric. While rare there have been some pretty bad dam breaks, the Banqiao Dam failure alone killed ~200,000 people.
GuB-42 7y ago
Hydro is missing too. Hydro has a pretty terrible track record with regard to safety, most of it because of a single accident: the Banqiao Reservoir Dam failure, which caused 230000 deaths. And even if much less dramatic, dam failure still happen regularly, costing deaths, property and environmental damage. And while I tend to think of hydro as the ideal energy source (renewable, on demand, with built-in storage), safety is not one of its strong points. Or at least, not with the way it is managed now.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  It is pretty good. It has a few other problems: * Can't be built in lots of areas due to geography * Struggles seriously in droughts * Large reservoirs emits significant biogenic methane (especially in warm areas) [1], which is a powerful greenhouse gas * Messes with fish * Gets scary in major rainfalls [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Dams are protecting from floods. Sometimes they fail to protect, but net effect is positive. https://www.fema.gov/benefits-dams https://www.fema.gov/benefits-dams
NickM 7y ago
Perhaps because installers are knowingly and willingly choosing to take the risk of falling off a roof, and are getting paid to accept that risk. It doesn't seem right to compare that type of death with people dying from lung cancer caused by air pollution that they have no direct control over.

Where would solar and wind be in this chart? It's definitely not zero (falls from height, etc).

by kozak 7y ago

Where would solar and wind be in this chart? It's definitely not zero (falls from height, etc).

Deaths from solar and wind are almost entirely due to falls during installation and service. I looked into this a few years ago while writing my thesis and death rate per TWhr for different energy sources was: coal (29), oil (18), natural gas (2.8), biofuel/biomass (4.6), hydro (1.4), solar (0.11), wind (0.06), and nuclear (0.052).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mikece 7y ago

My guess it would be related to gas. It's my understanding that new utility-grade wind and solar installs have to have generating capacity equal to or greater than the nominal generation capacity of wind/solar to maintain a stable base load when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining and that natural gas powered two-stage plants tend to be the "insurance" layer (they are relatively clean, start fast, can throttle up/down far more flexibly than other modes of generation...)

malcolmwhy 7y ago

> Note: Figures include deaths resulting from accidents in energy production and deaths related to air pollution impacts. Deaths related to air pollution are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total. Based on that note it sounds like it might be pretty close to 0.

calebegg 7y ago

This older article has estimates for more production types including those: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

classic959 7y ago

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd expect it to be quite high (deaths per TWh) while the technology is new or advancing fast, both because the energy production will be low, and because there must be more risk in newer industrial-scale technologies. Deaths per TWh in Offshore wind vs Onshore wind production would be interesting to see too.

CoolGuySteve 7y ago

Ya I wanted to see solar in the chart because I always wonder what the lifecycle costs are for solar. It seems like recycling a solar panel would be as labor intensive and toxic as most other electronics.

perlgeek 7y ago

Also missing: water power. There were lots of deaths from hydro power dam failures. (Update: fixed typo, thanks :D)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

trothamel 7y ago

Rooftop Solar is 0.44 deaths/TWh, wind is 0.15 deaths/TWh, Hydro is 1.4 or 0.1, depending on if you count the biggest accident or not. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... I don't think that would count natural gas emissions for backing renewables.

pcl 7y ago
The referenced hydro accident is the Banqiao Dam failure, which Wikipedia says resulted in between 171,000 and 230,000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Symmetry 7y ago
I'd expect deaths from big solar farms to be quite a bit lower than that, possibly lower than nuclear even.

wtdata 7y ago

I know it's not completely related since it's not about human deaths, but wind is quite disruptive for the local fauna actually. My country invested a lot in wind generated energy in the past decade (and that's a good thing), but the bird populations in those areas clearly suffered for it.

evandijk70 7y ago

One of the first hits on google. Deaths are per 1000 TwH, and numbers are somewhat different, probably illustrating how hard it is to estimate casualties from pollution. Nuclear is still safest, followed by solar and wind. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy...

mbell 7y ago

I'd guess that hydro is worse than solar/wind by this metric. While rare there have been some pretty bad dam breaks, the Banqiao Dam failure alone killed ~200,000 people.

GuB-42 7y ago

Hydro is missing too. Hydro has a pretty terrible track record with regard to safety, most of it because of a single accident: the Banqiao Reservoir Dam failure, which caused 230000 deaths. And even if much less dramatic, dam failure still happen regularly, costing deaths, property and environmental damage. And while I tend to think of hydro as the ideal energy source (renewable, on demand, with built-in storage), safety is not one of its strong points. Or at least, not with the way it is managed now.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
It is pretty good. It has a few other problems: * Can't be built in lots of areas due to geography * Struggles seriously in droughts * Large reservoirs emits significant biogenic methane (especially in warm areas) [1], which is a powerful greenhouse gas * Messes with fish * Gets scary in major rainfalls [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023102/
v_lisivka 7y ago
Dams are protecting from floods. Sometimes they fail to protect, but net effect is positive. https://www.fema.gov/benefits-dams https://www.fema.gov/benefits-dams

NickM 7y ago

Perhaps because installers are knowingly and willingly choosing to take the risk of falling off a roof, and are getting paid to accept that risk. It doesn't seem right to compare that type of death with people dying from lung cancer caused by air pollution that they have no direct control over.