6 ms·

Solar and nuclear are comparable: 0.02 vs 0.03 deaths/TWh (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.

Solar and nuclear are comparable: 0.02 vs 0.03 deaths/TWh (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...) Depending on what kind of solar, it can have quite a high death/TWh ratio because people fall off roofs while installing them. As a ratio is far better now that so much new solar is ground level solar farms and not installed by amateurs or professionals who have a van, a ladder and watched a YouTube video that one time. Some older estimates based, I think, on generic roofing accident rates, were up to 0.44 deaths/TWh. Wind is more dangerous than nuclear (0.04), I guess also from falls and accidents during construction and maintenance. Edit: All are incredibly safe compared to the next worst, hydro (1.3, or 30 times worse than wind).

pfdietz 20d ago
The differences in deaths from (non-accident) nuclear and wind/solar are very small compared to the amount of energy produced. The effect of the statistical value of lives lost is tiny compared to direct differences in energy cost, and so shouldn't have any effect on which is chosen. This is not the case for coal, where the cost of lives can be substantial.
- georgefrowny 20d ago
  Yes, indeed all are far below the next one (hydro, 1.3, dam failures, I imagine). And brown coal is sitting pretty at 36+, i.e. ONE THOUSAND times worse than nuclear.
  - pfdietz 20d ago
    The cost for coal depends a lot on how the emissions are treated, and how deaths from CO2 are calculated. A general problem with the latter is these are global deaths, and foreign lives are valued far below domestic lives. Kind of horrible, but choices on spending illustrate this.
tcfhgj 20d ago
what about other risks such as the risk of large scale contamination of habitable areas?
- ted_dunning 20d ago
  Coal is particularly bad about large scale contamination. Nuclear has historically involved substantial contamination in processing plants (Hanford, Paducah, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats and so on). Solar, wind, and battery do not have comparable large scale contamination risks.
marshray 20d ago
The scam here is presenting average occupational accident rates as a measure of "safety" when the obvious risk of nuclear power is the rare large-scale events which render large areas of land uninhabitable for generations while producing few directly-attributable deaths.
- Mawr 20d ago
  Are those large-scale events in the room with us? Or are you saying over the last, however many decades of all sorts of countries running nuclear plants, we've just been oh so lucky to have a negligible number of serious accidents? Luck is an interesting argument. Also, you may want to fact-check your "large areas of land" because you're just making that up, if talking about accidents that have already happened, or going of by feels I guess if talking about hypothetical accidents that have by luck not happened all this time? The real scam is bikeshedding about the safety of nuclear vs solar while happily burning coal. Take a deep breath, let your lungs taste the byproducts of burning coal. And now, I dare you, say something about the nuclear waste "problem". barf

pfdietz 20d ago

The differences in deaths from (non-accident) nuclear and wind/solar are very small compared to the amount of energy produced. The effect of the statistical value of lives lost is tiny compared to direct differences in energy cost, and so shouldn't have any effect on which is chosen. This is not the case for coal, where the cost of lives can be substantial.

georgefrowny 20d ago
Yes, indeed all are far below the next one (hydro, 1.3, dam failures, I imagine). And brown coal is sitting pretty at 36+, i.e. ONE THOUSAND times worse than nuclear.
- pfdietz 20d ago
  The cost for coal depends a lot on how the emissions are treated, and how deaths from CO2 are calculated. A general problem with the latter is these are global deaths, and foreign lives are valued far below domestic lives. Kind of horrible, but choices on spending illustrate this.

tcfhgj 20d ago

what about other risks such as the risk of large scale contamination of habitable areas?

ted_dunning 20d ago
Coal is particularly bad about large scale contamination. Nuclear has historically involved substantial contamination in processing plants (Hanford, Paducah, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats and so on). Solar, wind, and battery do not have comparable large scale contamination risks.

marshray 20d ago

The scam here is presenting average occupational accident rates as a measure of "safety" when the obvious risk of nuclear power is the rare large-scale events which render large areas of land uninhabitable for generations while producing few directly-attributable deaths.

Mawr 20d ago
Are those large-scale events in the room with us? Or are you saying over the last, however many decades of all sorts of countries running nuclear plants, we've just been oh so lucky to have a negligible number of serious accidents? Luck is an interesting argument. Also, you may want to fact-check your "large areas of land" because you're just making that up, if talking about accidents that have already happened, or going of by feels I guess if talking about hypothetical accidents that have by luck not happened all this time? The real scam is bikeshedding about the safety of nuclear vs solar while happily burning coal. Take a deep breath, let your lungs taste the byproducts of burning coal. And now, I dare you, say something about the nuclear waste "problem". barf