3 ms·

So if a technology kills workers but not the public, that's ok, because the workers made that choice? I don't think that stands to much scrutiny. Most workers c

So if a technology kills workers but not the public, that's ok, because the workers made that choice? I don't think that stands to much scrutiny. Most workers choose careers of opportunity. Besides, the direct short-term deaths from commercial nuclear nearly all came from Chernobyl first responders, where staff and firefighters were the ones who got ARS (they chose hazardous careers too). For the "up to 4000" latent deaths from Chernobyl, I think you have a good point. 1960s nuclear is worse than wind and solar in latent deaths. I'm hoping advanced nuclear with passive decay heat removal and low pressure coolants will even that out. I also didn't mention the reasons behind deaths from wind, which include hazardous maintenance and ice throw. Deaths from these things are exceedingly low per kWh, just like they are for nuclear. That's the point I'm trying to convey: nuclear is roughly on par with wind/solar in terms of deaths/kWh. Anyway, where is the best data on what kind of solar is currently being built?

pfdietz 7y ago
I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying its different. And it IS clearly different, in regulation. Risks to the uninvolved public are subject to stricter control than to workers, in the energy industry and elsewhere. One could make the case that the public is also subject to risk from solar, for example from traffic accidents transporting the materials to and from large scale installation sites. But the "falls from roof tops" argument isn't doing that.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  It's definitely different. I agree. I should adjust the falls from rooftops talk. I don't want to malign the variable renewables. I need to figure out how to explain to people that nuclear deaths/kWh are extremely low compared to our current mix, and yes they're even roughly as low or lower than the excellent characteristics of the wind/solar lifecycle. People often meet this idea wish shock: "But how can wind or solar hurt anyone? There are no Captain Planet episodes about that." So I have to explain some mechanisms of why huge distributed energy harvesting can harm people. If you have other suggestions on how to communicate this effectively I'd love the help.

pfdietz 7y ago

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying its different. And it IS clearly different, in regulation. Risks to the uninvolved public are subject to stricter control than to workers, in the energy industry and elsewhere. One could make the case that the public is also subject to risk from solar, for example from traffic accidents transporting the materials to and from large scale installation sites. But the "falls from roof tops" argument isn't doing that.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
It's definitely different. I agree. I should adjust the falls from rooftops talk. I don't want to malign the variable renewables. I need to figure out how to explain to people that nuclear deaths/kWh are extremely low compared to our current mix, and yes they're even roughly as low or lower than the excellent characteristics of the wind/solar lifecycle. People often meet this idea wish shock: "But how can wind or solar hurt anyone? There are no Captain Planet episodes about that." So I have to explain some mechanisms of why huge distributed energy harvesting can harm people. If you have other suggestions on how to communicate this effectively I'd love the help.