3 ms·

> It's not how many people have been harmed, it's how many people could be harmed. I don't understand. Why should there be any difference between these, unless

by shawnz 7y ago

> It's not how many people have been harmed, it's how many people could be harmed. I don't understand. Why should there be any difference between these, unless you're saying that the safety of solar/wind is improving faster than the safety of nuclear is improving?

beat 7y ago
Then you don't understand risk. There is no case in which the failure of a wind farm could cause death or injury to millions of people at once. The whole "safety" argument of solar is buried in flat-out bullshit analysis about how people fall off of roofs while installing panels. There's no safety concern to speak of with solar/wind.
- shawnz 7y ago
  I didn't claim to be any kind of expert. But I don't understand how the scenario you are describing is necessary for solar/wind to have a higher risk per MWh. What does the presence of catastrophic failure modes have to do with past versus future results?
  - beat 7y ago
    Let's put it in concrete terms. I'm going to toss a coin, you call it. If you win, you get $5. If you lose, you pay me $1. You probably do it, right? Next scenario. I'm going to roll a 100-sided die. If it comes up one, I'm going to shoot you in the head. Anything else, you get $100. Now, would you agree to that? Of course not. Even though you're 99% likely to get $100. It's that 1% chance of dying that stops you. That's because "risk" isn't just one number. Even at a very basic level, we distinguish between the likelihood of the risk, and the consequences of the risk. You're only considering the likelihood, not the consequences. That's where you're going wrong.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      > You're only considering the likelihood, not the consequences. I'm considering the likelihood of the same consequence: people dying. You are describing a totally different scenario with your coin toss example. You are making it sound like I'm weighing profits against lives and that is not correct. I'm weighing lives against lives.
      - beat 7y ago
        No, I understand what you're weighing, but you're still weighing it wrong. You're looking at individual deaths. What is the maximum number of deaths/injuries that can be caused by a solar power accident? Two, maybe? Now, what is the maximum number that can be caused by a nuclear accident? Millions. Someone stumbling off a roof will not cause the evacuation of a city. Period.
        LorenPechtel 7y ago
        The problem is you seem to think the bigger incident is automatically worse. Mr. Evil is sitting in a tower. He has two weapons, a rifle and a rocket launcher. Scenario A: He rolls a d100. If it comes up 1 he picks up the rifle and shoots at the first person he sees. He's competent, his target dies. Scenario B: He rolls two d100s. If both come up 1 he picks up the rocket launcher and fires at the first group of people he sees. The shrapnel from the rocket will kill 10 people. You live in the city he's in. Do you want him to roll one die or two?
        shawnz 7y ago
        Right, that's the whole pro-nuclear argument: individual deaths are what matter, not individual incidents. What relevance do the individual incidents have when you only need 1 nuclear plant for every 500000 solar panels?[1] If we are talking about overall utility to the human race, then why shouldn't we be looking at the overall death count? I just don't see how the potential magnitude of individual incidents factors into that when the overall deaths have already been taken into account. [1]: Based on an extremely generous estimate of 1000W per solar panel, and a fairly conservative estimate of 500MW per nuclear plant
        7y ago
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  The issue of falls is enough to put the death toll from solar above the death toll from nuclear. It's just the solar deaths are spread out thin enough they aren't even going to make the local news, the nuclear deaths are concentrated and make worldwide news. (And note that neither Three Mile Island nor Fukushima involved any nuclear deaths.)

by shawnz 7y ago

beat 7y ago

Then you don't understand risk. There is no case in which the failure of a wind farm could cause death or injury to millions of people at once. The whole "safety" argument of solar is buried in flat-out bullshit analysis about how people fall off of roofs while installing panels. There's no safety concern to speak of with solar/wind.

shawnz 7y ago
I didn't claim to be any kind of expert. But I don't understand how the scenario you are describing is necessary for solar/wind to have a higher risk per MWh. What does the presence of catastrophic failure modes have to do with past versus future results?
- beat 7y ago
  Let's put it in concrete terms. I'm going to toss a coin, you call it. If you win, you get $5. If you lose, you pay me $1. You probably do it, right? Next scenario. I'm going to roll a 100-sided die. If it comes up one, I'm going to shoot you in the head. Anything else, you get $100. Now, would you agree to that? Of course not. Even though you're 99% likely to get $100. It's that 1% chance of dying that stops you. That's because "risk" isn't just one number. Even at a very basic level, we distinguish between the likelihood of the risk, and the consequences of the risk. You're only considering the likelihood, not the consequences. That's where you're going wrong.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > You're only considering the likelihood, not the consequences. I'm considering the likelihood of the same consequence: people dying. You are describing a totally different scenario with your coin toss example. You are making it sound like I'm weighing profits against lives and that is not correct. I'm weighing lives against lives.
    - beat 7y ago
      No, I understand what you're weighing, but you're still weighing it wrong. You're looking at individual deaths. What is the maximum number of deaths/injuries that can be caused by a solar power accident? Two, maybe? Now, what is the maximum number that can be caused by a nuclear accident? Millions. Someone stumbling off a roof will not cause the evacuation of a city. Period.
      - LorenPechtel 7y ago
        The problem is you seem to think the bigger incident is automatically worse. Mr. Evil is sitting in a tower. He has two weapons, a rifle and a rocket launcher. Scenario A: He rolls a d100. If it comes up 1 he picks up the rifle and shoots at the first person he sees. He's competent, his target dies. Scenario B: He rolls two d100s. If both come up 1 he picks up the rocket launcher and fires at the first group of people he sees. The shrapnel from the rocket will kill 10 people. You live in the city he's in. Do you want him to roll one die or two?
      - shawnz 7y ago
        Right, that's the whole pro-nuclear argument: individual deaths are what matter, not individual incidents. What relevance do the individual incidents have when you only need 1 nuclear plant for every 500000 solar panels?[1] If we are talking about overall utility to the human race, then why shouldn't we be looking at the overall death count? I just don't see how the potential magnitude of individual incidents factors into that when the overall deaths have already been taken into account. [1]: Based on an extremely generous estimate of 1000W per solar panel, and a fairly conservative estimate of 500MW per nuclear plant
      - 7y ago
LorenPechtel 7y ago
The issue of falls is enough to put the death toll from solar above the death toll from nuclear. It's just the solar deaths are spread out thin enough they aren't even going to make the local news, the nuclear deaths are concentrated and make worldwide news. (And note that neither Three Mile Island nor Fukushima involved any nuclear deaths.)