4 ms·

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

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
        > And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? I explain that with 1) outdated plant, 2) magnitude 9.0 (!) earthquake 3) devastating tsunami, 4) massive fire, 5) total loss of power to all control systems. Followed by: 6) still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks.

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
      > And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? I explain that with 1) outdated plant, 2) magnitude 9.0 (!) earthquake 3) devastating tsunami, 4) massive fire, 5) total loss of power to all control systems. Followed by: 6) still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks.