4 ms·

> nuclear has a better safety record, all in Better than... wind turbines? Solar panels? Hydroelectric?

by flir 4y ago

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Due to installation deaths, PV has higher deaths per kWhr install: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
- jefftk 4y ago
  Note that your source is specifically "rooftop solar", not solar overall.
jefftk 4y ago
The safety profile of hydro and nukes are dominated by large rare events, which makes prediction tricky. Hydro is much less safe historically because of a single event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Wind and solar don't have catastrophic failures, but people installing and repairing them do sometimes fall. Residential rooftop solar is especially bad here, since the deaths are divided over a relatively small amount of generation capacity. Still, overall wind and solar are safer than nukes, and data sources saying otherwise generally are using pre-Fukushima stats. More: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#what-are-the-safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#what-are-the-safes...
- prottog 4y ago
  > data sources saying otherwise generally are using pre-Fukushima stats. I thought only one person died as a direct result of the Fukushima meltdown? And the other deaths attributed to it were due to poor handling of the people who evacuated; basically frail people dying in temporary shelters, unrelated to the nuclear aspect.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    It has always been easy to lie with statistics. The "one" figure is such a lie, easy to parrot.
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      This is a serious accusation. Show the truth.
      - Arnt 4y ago
        The "one" figure ignores deaths caused by evacuation SNAFUs. But if some event causes an evacuation and the evacuation has a normal number of mishaps, then that event causes those mishaps. Evacuations are rare and happen under unusual circumstances, they will suffer from SNAFUs. You can't cause an evacuation, expect that it'll go perfectly and deny any responsibility when it doesn't.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    That's right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... I had thought that counting evacuation deaths was correct, since I'd thought the evacuation was to reduce the risk if far more radiation was released. But reading up on it now, it seems like the evacuation was after the risk of that was over, and was in response to the current levels of radiation? In which case it looks like a large overreaction.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Old stats is the answer, but not because of Nuclear. The wind and solar industries are ramping exponentially, and the death rates are usually done per TWh generated. The solar deaths are heavily weighted towards the start (mining, installation) while the energy produced lags and accumulates over decades. The stats used to show that rooftop solar was slightly more dangerous that nuclear per TWh, but the number is dropping faster for solar so it's not been true for years. The slighlty more important point is how far ahead nuclear solar and wind are, compared with fossil fuels. It's a stark difference.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Construction deaths are added to wind and solar, but people don't add mining and construction deaths to nuclear (that said, they don't add it for hydro either).
mrob 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
krzyk 4y ago
Wind turbines are a bit loud, and there is a reason why they can't be placed near places where people leave. Hydroelectric - if it is a damn, then again, there is a possibility of the damn breaking and flooding. Solar is the real alternative, but not effective enough, yet.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  I think it’s ‘dam’ in this, as opposed to ‘damn’ where something is condemned.

> nuclear has a better safety record, all in Better than... wind turbines? Solar panels? Hydroelectric?

by flir 4y ago

> nuclear has a better safety record, all in Better than... wind turbines? Solar panels? Hydroelectric?

Due to installation deaths, PV has higher deaths per kWhr install: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

jefftk 4y ago
Note that your source is specifically "rooftop solar", not solar overall.

jefftk 4y ago

The safety profile of hydro and nukes are dominated by large rare events, which makes prediction tricky. Hydro is much less safe historically because of a single event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Wind and solar don't have catastrophic failures, but people installing and repairing them do sometimes fall. Residential rooftop solar is especially bad here, since the deaths are divided over a relatively small amount of generation capacity. Still, overall wind and solar are safer than nukes, and data sources saying otherwise generally are using pre-Fukushima stats. More: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#what-are-the-safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#what-are-the-safes...

prottog 4y ago
> data sources saying otherwise generally are using pre-Fukushima stats. I thought only one person died as a direct result of the Fukushima meltdown? And the other deaths attributed to it were due to poor handling of the people who evacuated; basically frail people dying in temporary shelters, unrelated to the nuclear aspect.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  It has always been easy to lie with statistics. The "one" figure is such a lie, easy to parrot.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    This is a serious accusation. Show the truth.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      The "one" figure ignores deaths caused by evacuation SNAFUs. But if some event causes an evacuation and the evacuation has a normal number of mishaps, then that event causes those mishaps. Evacuations are rare and happen under unusual circumstances, they will suffer from SNAFUs. You can't cause an evacuation, expect that it'll go perfectly and deny any responsibility when it doesn't.
- jefftk 4y ago
  That's right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... I had thought that counting evacuation deaths was correct, since I'd thought the evacuation was to reduce the risk if far more radiation was released. But reading up on it now, it seems like the evacuation was after the risk of that was over, and was in response to the current levels of radiation? In which case it looks like a large overreaction.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Old stats is the answer, but not because of Nuclear. The wind and solar industries are ramping exponentially, and the death rates are usually done per TWh generated. The solar deaths are heavily weighted towards the start (mining, installation) while the energy produced lags and accumulates over decades. The stats used to show that rooftop solar was slightly more dangerous that nuclear per TWh, but the number is dropping faster for solar so it's not been true for years. The slighlty more important point is how far ahead nuclear solar and wind are, compared with fossil fuels. It's a stark difference.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Construction deaths are added to wind and solar, but people don't add mining and construction deaths to nuclear (that said, they don't add it for hydro either).

mrob 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

krzyk 4y ago

Wind turbines are a bit loud, and there is a reason why they can't be placed near places where people leave. Hydroelectric - if it is a damn, then again, there is a possibility of the damn breaking and flooding. Solar is the real alternative, but not effective enough, yet.

lostlogin 4y ago
I think it’s ‘dam’ in this, as opposed to ‘damn’ where something is condemned.