solar energy kills about 110x more people than nuclear?

i am following a debate on another forum, a guy states the next:

link to thread: http://planet.betterplace.com/forum/topics/nuclear-power?id=2500550:Topic:35294&page=1#comments

Question: are these figures logic?

Question 2: should i listen to this guy?

Question 3: Reactors used to produce electricity do not produce any waste? (page 3 of said thread)

 

I think the problem with his logic is sample group, for example run the same analysis in the 80's in the Ukraine you'll get a wildly different conclusion

 

The figures have no meaning without seeing the scientific study (if there is one) that produced them.

Nuclear power doesn't require large numbers of personnel to run, and it is run with a massive safety concern (obviously), so that would account for the low numbers.

For the rest of the figures, I can't dispute or confirm any of them.

As I said above, there's no way to judge if the facts are anything like correct unless we see the studies which produced them.

"Relative human fatalities" is such a massively broad phrase I wouldn't be surprised if it was bollocks.

One thing though, reactors produce waste, fact. In a perfect nuclear reactor we'd just end up with a solid iron/copper fuel rod. But it's not a perfect process. With such a massive number of neutrons wandering hither and thither you always end up with radioactive biproducts that we have to do something with.

 

Exactly, "relative fatality" you're either dead or not right? not to mention this was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (Except Data for Wind and Solar Energy) :s the data is bound to be biased.

 

its power versus fatalities(for this many Gigawatts you get this many fatalities). and it says relative as for every 1 person killed by nuclear power 3,200 people are killed by coal.

nuclear power is so low because of the huge amounts of power created in comparison with the others, coal and propane probably includes extraction and people killed by pollution. And the fact that nuclear power is so closely monitored, the main problem is disposal of waste and the fact that if it does happen it takes out a whole area

the statement that your windmill kills approx 100 more people than nuclear isnt true as the windmill produces such a minimal amount of energy compared to a nuclear power station. you need far more wind farms to produce the same power as a nuclear station. nuclear power may be safer than wind power but that doesnt mean a single nuclear power station is safer than a windmill

the high fatality rate in the construction sector could be a cause of the high rate in the wind power section, only one nuclear power station is built over such a long time but in the last 10 years how many windmills are built

 

I'm sure the people who lived near Chernobyl would agree...

 

Relative or not, those figures being true or just manipulation of data....either way, nuclear is the future at the minute.

 

There's your answer.

 

If you've ever tried to find out how many people Chernobyl killed you'll realise things are not so easy; there are still people living that will die prematurely due to the radiation they received.

*** packet figure? 20,000

 

I can completely believe those figures. As shigllgetcha says, they're 'relative' because they're most likely normalised to 'deaths per GW year' or similar. The number for coal is huge because of mining accidents, and you probably need several thousand tonnes of coal to produce as much energy as one tonne of uranium. Similarly the figure for PV cells is high because of the huge number of them you need. The world PV capacity is only ~5GW, which is about the same as three nuclear power stations. Therefore there would have been many more building accidents in producing the PV cells. PV cells also require funky chemicals, so there are probably mining accidents included in that 110x figure too.

 

Chernobyl killed 4000 people according to wiki and was a complete failure on the part of the engineers working at the plant which would be extremely unlikey to happen in places such as the UK and the US. Also the figure for deaths related to HEP is in it's millions I believe and a single major dam burst would be much more likely and almost as catastrophic as a Nuclear meltdown.

Nuclear power does produce waste but about 90% of that can be recycled into new rods. Unfortunately you are left with highly dangerous nuclear waste at the end which is a much bigger argument than the threat of meltdown.

Contrary to this I don't like nuclear power myself but it's pretty much the only viable alternative to fossil fuels at the moment.

These still count and this just shows how bad solar power technology is at the moment.

 

Is all I can say...



I mean, it doesn't even specify what it's showing - are these fatalities caused by electrocutions, or by solar panels falling on people or by the sun causing cancer?

In the context of the argument (that nuclear power stations cause less death than solar power stations) we must assume the the fatalities listed are one's caused by solar panels falling on people, as that is the only option that would even vaguely compare (in terms of how the danger is caused) to the dangers of nuclear power...


In regards to question 2: He's wrong with all his reasoning, but unfortunately nuclear power is the only option we've got for the future... I still wouldn't listen to him

 

It was also caused by the reactor being extremely badly designed.

The same design is still being used all over former soviet states if I remember correctly...

 

lets replace limited fossil fuels with a limited supply of nuclear fuel, great idea.

 

I wasn't badmouthing nuclear power, just the statistics. I'm adamant that it'll never happen again in any civilised country.

Now fusion, there's something I could get interested in

 

Actually that's nuclear power.

Actually as a bridging point to completely renewable sources it works quite well. Also Nuclear is actually classed as a "renewable" energy anyway.

I'll agree with you that those statistics are some very flimsy reasoning.

 

Just because the data is published by the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn't mean it's biased - it's an organisation headed by reputable scientists, and 99% of the time they manage to retain their objectivity.

There is the possibility of course that the data was cobbled together by a moron-filled PR department.

Don't just assume it's biased though.

 

Approximate relative human impact of most energy producing options as derived from world data over several decades ( for the same energy output).

Energy Source .............. Relative Human Fatalities*
Nuclear Power ............. 1
Natural Gas ................. 9
Hydro power ................ 80
Wind ............................... 100
Solar-Photovoltaic ........ 110
Oil .................................... 360
Liquefied Propane ........ 3,100
Coal ................................. 3,200
*For the same energy generation
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (Except Data for Wind and Solar Energy).

The source for the wind and solar is not cited, so in my view is pretty useless. If there is no source then its worth nada for me.

But to be fair, it could be about right. It does state "over several decades" so perhaps this could be considered "since the dawn of time", they may be including windmills in wind energy, and people dying of heatstroke for solar , unlikely but possible.

I think the thing you have to think about for the arguement is not the direct loss of life compared to energy production, but the potential loss of life and the impact on the environment. A wind turbine falling could take out a street and kill about 50 people, a wind farm (10 or so turbines) might kill 500 people. But a nuclear plant *cough* Chernobyl *cough* going loco would result in several 1000's of deaths.

Edit: Obviously wind turbines are not cited too close to housing, although this makes an interesting read.

 

the (Except Data for Wind and Solar Energy) says it all i think...

 

How do you define 'limited supply'? Photovoltaic cells require semiconductors, which are just as hard to mine/extract/refine as uranium. Wind farms require a much greater area of land than a nuclear power station.. surely that limits the supply too? Nuclear is arguably just as 'renewable' as other fossil fuel alternatives for the same price.