5 ms·

> In terms of workers killed per watt-hour generated? > No, it isn't. It's not even close. Yo. This source says you are wrong. https://ourworldindata.org/grap

> In terms of workers killed per watt-hour generated? > No, it isn't. It's not even close. Yo. This source says you are wrong. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... What source were you using when making your claim?

philipkglass 4y ago
The rate used to be higher for solar, because it used to be the case that most solar modules were installed in small rooftop systems. Now most solar power comes from large ground level solar farms. In 2020, 68% of US solar generation came from utility-scale farms [1]. Over time the solar PV deaths-per-TWh ratio has decreased in 3 ways: 1) Ground level installations have a greatly diminished risk of dangerous falls during construction/maintenance and have come to account for more wattage than rooftop systems. 2) Installing a solar panel in a large farm instead of on a roof yields more energy output per year, since it usually has mechanical sun tracking [2] and will be oriented for optimum output even if installed with a fixed tilt. 3) Newer panels generate more annual energy output per panel, per kilogram, and per square meter. That means that the same number of full time solar installation workers now produce more energy over the system's lifetime than in the past. The information from OurWorldInData that you linked is more up to date and therefore shows low deaths-per-TWh for solar. Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report like this one from 10 years ago: 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... [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf page 9 [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/20/trackers-dominate-u-s-utility-scale-solar-wcharts/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/20/trackers-dominate-u-s...
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report No, I was talking about the United States. Not Chernobyl.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    So you've cherry picked the data to fit your narrative. You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building. That doesn't speak to the safety of nuclear. That speaks to different safety regulations on different types of construction sites or something similar. You need to look at causation, not correlation. There is nothing less safe about solar (even if we cherry pick the US) when compared to nuclear once you look at actual causes.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      I haven't "cherry-picked" anything. The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. Adding Chernobyl into the mix is like adding the (outrageously high) air crash rates from the Soviet Union into the mix and claiming that it's "evidence" that flying is dangerous. > You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. > but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. I think we're done here.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? > Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. That's absolutely false. 1961. Steam explosion and meltdown results in three fatalities at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One 1986. Feedwater line-burst at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 2013. One worker was killed and two others injured when part of a generator fell as it was being moved at the Arkansas Nuclear One. > I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. It's not. You're confusing correlation with causation. There is nothing particular about solar installations that would result in a higher fatality rate compared to building tall nuclear cooling towers. You'd need to point to some sort of causation to be believable. The real difference is probably something like big construction sites versus small construction sites. Which says nothing at all about the safety of nuclear vs. solar. In fact it would be a safe bet that large scale solar installations are far safer to build and maintain than nuclear installations.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
It appears that your source is including Chernobyl and Fukushima, while my original post was specifically about the United States nuclear power industry. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Even giving you the benefit of the doubt there, it's clear that nuclear is extremely safe. Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream").
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > it's clear that nuclear is extremely safe. It's clear that solar is extremely safe. And doesn't have a history in the US of evacuating over 150,000 people. Which nuclear does. > Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream" Modern solar works and continues to be installed at a rapid rate all over the world. Even France is phasing out nuclear. Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt over the Vogtle nuclear plant in discussion. The U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactor. It's not viable anymore compared to very quick and simple to maintain solar plants. The future is sunny. Which is after all just nuclear energy at a safe distance.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > And doesn't have a history in the US of evacuating over 150,000 people. Sorry, you don't get to count media hysteria as a "risk" of nuclear energy.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > Sorry, you don't get to count media hysteria as a "risk" of nuclear energy. It wasn't media hysteria. The evacuation was to protect people. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, it is rated Level 5. It was a partial meltdown, and there was a risk of explosion, releasing radiation into the general area. Not evacuating would have been grossly irresponsible. It is a matter of historical record that Met Ed had not informed state officials before conducting a steam venting from the plant. Convinced that the company was downplaying the severity of the accident, state officials turned to the NRC. Twenty-eight hours after the accident began, William Scranton III, the lieutenant governor, appeared at a news briefing to say that Metropolitan Edison, the plant's owner, had assured the state that "everything is under control". Later that day, Scranton changed his statement, saying that the situation was "more complex than the company first led us to believe". There were conflicting statements about radioactivity releases. Schools were closed and residents were urged to stay indoors. Farmers were told to keep their animals under cover and on stored feed. Governor Dick Thornburgh, on the advice of NRC chairman Joseph Hendrie, advised the evacuation "of pregnant women and pre-school age children...within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility". The evacuation zone was extended to a 20-mile radius on Friday, March 30. Where do you see the press taking action in any of the above except to repeat what state and NRC officials had decided? Can you name a US evacuation over a solar power accident?

philipkglass 4y ago

The rate used to be higher for solar, because it used to be the case that most solar modules were installed in small rooftop systems. Now most solar power comes from large ground level solar farms. In 2020, 68% of US solar generation came from utility-scale farms [1]. Over time the solar PV deaths-per-TWh ratio has decreased in 3 ways: 1) Ground level installations have a greatly diminished risk of dangerous falls during construction/maintenance and have come to account for more wattage than rooftop systems. 2) Installing a solar panel in a large farm instead of on a roof yields more energy output per year, since it usually has mechanical sun tracking [2] and will be oriented for optimum output even if installed with a fixed tilt. 3) Newer panels generate more annual energy output per panel, per kilogram, and per square meter. That means that the same number of full time solar installation workers now produce more energy over the system's lifetime than in the past. The information from OurWorldInData that you linked is more up to date and therefore shows low deaths-per-TWh for solar. Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report like this one from 10 years ago: 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... [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf page 9 [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/20/trackers-dominate-u-s-utility-scale-solar-wcharts/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/20/trackers-dominate-u-s...

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report No, I was talking about the United States. Not Chernobyl.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  So you've cherry picked the data to fit your narrative. You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building. That doesn't speak to the safety of nuclear. That speaks to different safety regulations on different types of construction sites or something similar. You need to look at causation, not correlation. There is nothing less safe about solar (even if we cherry pick the US) when compared to nuclear once you look at actual causes.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    I haven't "cherry-picked" anything. The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. Adding Chernobyl into the mix is like adding the (outrageously high) air crash rates from the Soviet Union into the mix and claiming that it's "evidence" that flying is dangerous. > You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. > but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. I think we're done here.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? > Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. That's absolutely false. 1961. Steam explosion and meltdown results in three fatalities at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One 1986. Feedwater line-burst at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 2013. One worker was killed and two others injured when part of a generator fell as it was being moved at the Arkansas Nuclear One. > I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. It's not. You're confusing correlation with causation. There is nothing particular about solar installations that would result in a higher fatality rate compared to building tall nuclear cooling towers. You'd need to point to some sort of causation to be believable. The real difference is probably something like big construction sites versus small construction sites. Which says nothing at all about the safety of nuclear vs. solar. In fact it would be a safe bet that large scale solar installations are far safer to build and maintain than nuclear installations.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

It appears that your source is including Chernobyl and Fukushima, while my original post was specifically about the United States nuclear power industry. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Even giving you the benefit of the doubt there, it's clear that nuclear is extremely safe. Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream").

tchaffee 4y ago
> it's clear that nuclear is extremely safe. It's clear that solar is extremely safe. And doesn't have a history in the US of evacuating over 150,000 people. Which nuclear does. > Plus it has the added benefit of, actually, you know, working (and by "working" I mean "producing energy in quantities sufficient to run a modern industrial society", not "works in someone's pipe dream" Modern solar works and continues to be installed at a rapid rate all over the world. Even France is phasing out nuclear. Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt over the Vogtle nuclear plant in discussion. The U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactor. It's not viable anymore compared to very quick and simple to maintain solar plants. The future is sunny. Which is after all just nuclear energy at a safe distance.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > And doesn't have a history in the US of evacuating over 150,000 people. Sorry, you don't get to count media hysteria as a "risk" of nuclear energy.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > Sorry, you don't get to count media hysteria as a "risk" of nuclear energy. It wasn't media hysteria. The evacuation was to protect people. On the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale, it is rated Level 5. It was a partial meltdown, and there was a risk of explosion, releasing radiation into the general area. Not evacuating would have been grossly irresponsible. It is a matter of historical record that Met Ed had not informed state officials before conducting a steam venting from the plant. Convinced that the company was downplaying the severity of the accident, state officials turned to the NRC. Twenty-eight hours after the accident began, William Scranton III, the lieutenant governor, appeared at a news briefing to say that Metropolitan Edison, the plant's owner, had assured the state that "everything is under control". Later that day, Scranton changed his statement, saying that the situation was "more complex than the company first led us to believe". There were conflicting statements about radioactivity releases. Schools were closed and residents were urged to stay indoors. Farmers were told to keep their animals under cover and on stored feed. Governor Dick Thornburgh, on the advice of NRC chairman Joseph Hendrie, advised the evacuation "of pregnant women and pre-school age children...within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility". The evacuation zone was extended to a 20-mile radius on Friday, March 30. Where do you see the press taking action in any of the above except to repeat what state and NRC officials had decided? Can you name a US evacuation over a solar power accident?