Why is it false? I'm talking about absolute numbers here, not TWh, and I'm comparing to fossil fuels, but even if we talk about just wind: > In England, there

Why is it false? I'm talking about absolute numbers here, not TWh, and I'm comparing to fossil fuels, but even if we talk about just wind: > In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources). > These are pretty low numbers. By contrast, in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-ea... I'm sure deaths are going to increase in the production, erection, and servicing of tens of thousands of wind turbines, by tens of thousands of employees. But you can simply tally up all the deaths for nuclear accidents, direct or indirect, and they're still less than other forms of energy generation. Presumably you're disputing the deaths, but the link you gave is deaths per TWh is lower. Except by absolute deaths it's.... higher. Which was my point, and is reinforced in the quote above. > Second, even with the correct metric, solar and wind are now beating nuclear and projected to continue to do so, widening the gap over time. Yes, deaths per TWh will go down, but power generation will go up, as there is more solar/wind, but so will deaths as more people build, install, and maintain those systems. Those absolute deaths keep rising.