4 ms·

Seems like at some point you also have to factor opportunity cost into this as well--so the numbers probably become even more compelling. So if a form of energ

Seems like at some point you also have to factor opportunity cost into this as well--so the numbers probably become even more compelling. So if a form of energy is especially expensive, that's dollars you could have spent on say healthcare, food, etc. To me this is the real indictment against things like solar, not the risk of people falling off roofs.

patio11 16y ago
Another problem is that solar is an alternative to nuclear in the same sense that sex is an alternative to food: no matter how much you enjoy it, attempting full substitution would be fatal. The alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels (+). Thus, you don't get the moderate increase in deaths from going nukes to solar, you get the massive increase in deaths from going nukes to fossil fuels. (And that's before you get to worrying about global warming, if that is your thing.) There are a variety of reasons for this: the necessity of meeting the base loads, the fact that solar is ridiculously geographically restricted, the cost issues, etc etc. + Or decreasing per capita energy needs to below that of the late 1800s, which has aesthetic appeal to some people but absolutely nothing else to recommend it. Among other reasons, it would condemn the worldwide poor to perpetual grinding poverty, which kills a heck of a lot more people prematurely than every other cause combined.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
brlewis 16y ago
It's dollars that would have been spent increasing the capacity of your local coal plant to handle peaks when evreybody's running an air conditioner. Solar electric isn't a substitute for large-scale power generation, but in many areas it's a great substitute. In China rooftop solar is used for water heating. I imagine this use is more economical: http://ourdoings.com/davidsky/2010-08-08 http://ourdoings.com/davidsky/2010-08-08

patio11 16y ago

Another problem is that solar is an alternative to nuclear in the same sense that sex is an alternative to food: no matter how much you enjoy it, attempting full substitution would be fatal. The alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels (+). Thus, you don't get the moderate increase in deaths from going nukes to solar, you get the massive increase in deaths from going nukes to fossil fuels. (And that's before you get to worrying about global warming, if that is your thing.) There are a variety of reasons for this: the necessity of meeting the base loads, the fact that solar is ridiculously geographically restricted, the cost issues, etc etc. + Or decreasing per capita energy needs to below that of the late 1800s, which has aesthetic appeal to some people but absolutely nothing else to recommend it. Among other reasons, it would condemn the worldwide poor to perpetual grinding poverty, which kills a heck of a lot more people prematurely than every other cause combined.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

brlewis 16y ago

It's dollars that would have been spent increasing the capacity of your local coal plant to handle peaks when evreybody's running an air conditioner. Solar electric isn't a substitute for large-scale power generation, but in many areas it's a great substitute. In China rooftop solar is used for water heating. I imagine this use is more economical: http://ourdoings.com/davidsky/2010-08-08 http://ourdoings.com/davidsky/2010-08-08