4 ms·

>Despite how bad we are at dealing with it, more people die from solar (or pretty much any other alternative form of power generation) per unit of energy genera

by lcswi 11y ago

>Despite how bad we are at dealing with it, more people die from solar (or pretty much any other alternative form of power generation) per unit of energy generated through e.g. installation and maintenance accidents. Citation please. Also I'd like to know if the numbers are in any way significant compared to overall construction work accidents.

jhartmann 11y ago
Here is a good summary of the stats from various sources. Death rate per terawatt/hr is 0.04 for Nuclear and 0.44 for Rooftop Solar. Basically Rooftop solar is a full order of magnitude more dangerous. Coal is WAY more nasty at a world average of around 100 deaths per terawatt/hr if you consider heating/cooking/electricity or 60 for just electricity. Those numbers for China are 170 & 90 respectively. If you include the worst hydro accident, Hydro is 1.4 deaths per terawatt/hr, or 0.10 if that is excluded. Nuclear is the best game in town, even though the accidents are well publicized and the marketing for alternatives have done a really good job of making us scared of the nasty radioactivity, nuclear has the best safety culture and safety record. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
- pgeorgi 11y ago
  Rooftop solar. Not sure that the problem is the photovoltaics and not the rooftops. Even crowded Germany manages to set up fields full of solar panels, so I guess the US can do just as well. Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Here [1] is Osha's page on solar safety issues. Here [2] (pdf) is a manual going over solar installation safety issues. You'll note they go well beyond falls, though you have a point that the page in question mentions roof installations. But also keep in mind that solar also causes mining deaths (sand quarries are not without accidents just because they're not deep mines; but of course nuclear has related mining accidents too) as well as work with hazardous chemicals during production of the cells. There are also related fire risks. Not huge, but they are there, and given sufficiently deployed capacity it adds up. Also keep in mind that solar is not nearly all photovoltaics. Here's an article about a lethal accident at a concentrating solar power plant in South Africa [3], though generally we will likely see fewer deaths per kwh for large plants. But even fields full of solar panels involves plenty of construction work and electrical work that can kill. Basically, anything labour intensive, no matter what, will have a death toll. Even hiring a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing all day will have a death toll from accidents one way or another. As such, all else being equal (and of course they never are), the least labour intensive alternative will win out. Similarly, all else beiny equal, the larger / more electrical installations you add the more fires etc. you will have. Since all things are not equal, it gets complicated, but it doesn't help to pretend that these alternatives does not have risks. > Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places. They're not immune to death just because they have experience, and there will always be additional risk because it means more time is spent climbing around in high places. There's been plenty of professional installers and construction workers falling to their deaths too. The pages I referenced are targeted at professionals, for a reason. [1] https://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/solar.html https://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/solar.html [2] http://www.coshnetwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEIA_Solar_Safety_12-06.pdf http://www.coshnetwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEIA_Solar_S... [3] http://www.csp-world.com/news/20141104/001395/two-killed-and-7-injured-accident-abengoas-csp-plant-under-construction-south http://www.csp-world.com/news/20141104/001395/two-killed-and...
emiliobumachar 11y ago
If one technology causes less deaths than another, why is it relevant how either compares with any third number? Put another way, let's assume the energy death numbers are not at all "significant compared to overall construction work accidents". Is one death by rooftop installation accident less tragic than one death by radiation poisoning? Just because you can lump the first into the big pool of construction work deaths, while the radiation death sticks out by itself?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Death rates do not scale nor change over time equally. You have to account for possible worst case scenarios and their likelihood to happen.
  - emiliobumachar 11y ago
    True, but not a counter-argument for what I've said.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It isn't a counter but a correction, in that current deaths alone isn't a good number. It is all about future deaths, which current deaths only have some predicting power of.

by lcswi 11y ago

jhartmann 11y ago

Here is a good summary of the stats from various sources. Death rate per terawatt/hr is 0.04 for Nuclear and 0.44 for Rooftop Solar. Basically Rooftop solar is a full order of magnitude more dangerous. Coal is WAY more nasty at a world average of around 100 deaths per terawatt/hr if you consider heating/cooking/electricity or 60 for just electricity. Those numbers for China are 170 & 90 respectively. If you include the worst hydro accident, Hydro is 1.4 deaths per terawatt/hr, or 0.10 if that is excluded. Nuclear is the best game in town, even though the accidents are well publicized and the marketing for alternatives have done a really good job of making us scared of the nasty radioactivity, nuclear has the best safety culture and safety record. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...

pgeorgi 11y ago
Rooftop solar. Not sure that the problem is the photovoltaics and not the rooftops. Even crowded Germany manages to set up fields full of solar panels, so I guess the US can do just as well. Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places.
- vidarh 11y ago
  Here [1] is Osha's page on solar safety issues. Here [2] (pdf) is a manual going over solar installation safety issues. You'll note they go well beyond falls, though you have a point that the page in question mentions roof installations. But also keep in mind that solar also causes mining deaths (sand quarries are not without accidents just because they're not deep mines; but of course nuclear has related mining accidents too) as well as work with hazardous chemicals during production of the cells. There are also related fire risks. Not huge, but they are there, and given sufficiently deployed capacity it adds up. Also keep in mind that solar is not nearly all photovoltaics. Here's an article about a lethal accident at a concentrating solar power plant in South Africa [3], though generally we will likely see fewer deaths per kwh for large plants. But even fields full of solar panels involves plenty of construction work and electrical work that can kill. Basically, anything labour intensive, no matter what, will have a death toll. Even hiring a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing all day will have a death toll from accidents one way or another. As such, all else being equal (and of course they never are), the least labour intensive alternative will win out. Similarly, all else beiny equal, the larger / more electrical installations you add the more fires etc. you will have. Since all things are not equal, it gets complicated, but it doesn't help to pretend that these alternatives does not have risks. > Leave rooftop solar installation to those who build new homes or repair the roof, so there's no additional risk from climbing around in high places. They're not immune to death just because they have experience, and there will always be additional risk because it means more time is spent climbing around in high places. There's been plenty of professional installers and construction workers falling to their deaths too. The pages I referenced are targeted at professionals, for a reason. [1] https://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/solar.html https://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/solar.html [2] http://www.coshnetwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEIA_Solar_Safety_12-06.pdf http://www.coshnetwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEIA_Solar_S... [3] http://www.csp-world.com/news/20141104/001395/two-killed-and-7-injured-accident-abengoas-csp-plant-under-construction-south http://www.csp-world.com/news/20141104/001395/two-killed-and...

emiliobumachar 11y ago

If one technology causes less deaths than another, why is it relevant how either compares with any third number? Put another way, let's assume the energy death numbers are not at all "significant compared to overall construction work accidents". Is one death by rooftop installation accident less tragic than one death by radiation poisoning? Just because you can lump the first into the big pool of construction work deaths, while the radiation death sticks out by itself?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Death rates do not scale nor change over time equally. You have to account for possible worst case scenarios and their likelihood to happen.
- emiliobumachar 11y ago
  True, but not a counter-argument for what I've said.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It isn't a counter but a correction, in that current deaths alone isn't a good number. It is all about future deaths, which current deaths only have some predicting power of.