solar energy kills about 110x more people than nuclear?

some more information:

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

 

Hydrogen would be horridly inefficient as it costs far too much to create enough energy.

And The chances of a meltdown today are slim, sure we'll run out of Uranmium eventually, but it's a good floodgate so we can devise a more effective floodgate.

 

I completely agree with you and In fact I think a big part of combatting energy demands is going to be in more efficient usage as well for example passive heating.

 

I do believe nuclear power to be the future. Right now we are relying on uranium for nuclear fission, but with research done, soon(in a matter of decades I mean) we'll migrate to nuclear fusion. Then we'll realize how stupid we were to have relied heavily on oil and letting those petrodictators have their way.

As for hydrogen, the idea of bio reactors sound promising. Surely now it's not cheap, but who knows.

 

I'm not sure nuclear power is the future, but I'm pretty sure it should be the present.

 

the guy is trying to sell me these:

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

 

Isn't that like, too good to be true?

 

Not really. Back in the cold war, they built nuclear power plants small enough to stick in a strategic bomber (the B-36). Small nuclear is quite possible, and apparently these guys think it's feasible.

Of course, their website doesn't mention the blast-rated reinforced concrete bunker to put the thing in, or the 24/7 onsite staff, but whatever. Technicalities.

(edit)

As for the original article, meh. Statistics shmatistics. I could say that 1000x the number of people who die in Hondas die in Fords (out of Ford-on-Ford accidents), and while that would be true, it's utterly useless. So is comparing nuclear power (very large-scale, high-output, professionals-only stuff) with solar (which is DIY, relatively unregulated, and much lower power output)

 

or those nuclear weapon briefcases...

What the guy at the other forums says is that this thing only heats water, can not go haywire, can not explode, does not need maintenance, works for decades and when spent can be recycled and used again, even +90% of the residue can be used as fuel.


edit: the guy is a fruit cake!!!!!

 

Your argument is false.

Saying that you should discount one death-rate because it's professional, when the other is not, would be like saying that people who roll their own tobacco shouldn't be counted in death-toll rates for smoking, because their cigarette wasn't professionally wrapped.

There are many, many different ways to derive power from the four elemental sources for it. This article is comparing current industry standard methods and practices for each, and their accompanying death-rates as such.

Maybe you shouldn't be arguing that nuclear power isn't comparable with solar due to installation practices, but should instead be arguing for safer install methods for solar, as it isn't quite as professional or refined (or indeed, as efficient) as nuclear.


And that home-installed nuclear kit is awesome, I would definitely go for that, and see if there was any way to generate electricity from it (depending upon how hot it got the water, obviously, as nuclear plants operate on the basic principle of super-heated liquid passing through turbines, so why wouldn't it be feasible in this particular application?)

 

I'm saying it's apples-and-oranges. Even disregarding the comparison statistic (deaths per KWh), the two are so drastically different in size and application that trying to compare the two is like comparing deaths due to falling down stairs and deaths due to airplane accidents. Interestingly enough, the stairs kill quite a few more people - in 2001, the deaths from accidental falls in the UK alone were well over 5,000, compared to the 1,700ish who died worldwide in airplane crashes. (Including 9/11.)

The statistic they're comparing is also incredibly misleading. Deaths per KWh is going to be massively biased against the smaller source, especially when the scale is as different as solar and nuclear. As of 2005, nuclear power generated 6% of the world's energy, while solar generates only .04%. If you do the math, you'll notice that nuclear power kills half again as many people as solar in total. As presented, it's nothing more than a shock value number - bicycling is massively more dangerous than driving per mile too, walking down stairs is quite a bit more dangerous than flying, and so on.

Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the statistics, though - the death rate for solar (and nuclear) could be a lot better. However, saying

is bad math and bad statistics.

 

Nobody is saying that a wind farm kills one hundred times as many people as a nuclear plant. We've all acknowledged that it's per GW-year. That's why it says 'relative' in the stats table title. I think the point of it is to just point out that 'nuclear isn't safe' is a poor argument.

I don't think "Deaths per KWh is going to be massively biased against the smaller source" is a fair statement at all, especially as coal (the world's main electrical power source) is the biggest killer on there. Using deaths/kWh normalises the data. That's the whole point.

People in england were needlessly terrified of travelling by train after the Potters Bar rail crash, when going by train is statistically one of the safest modes of transport. Yes, 7 people died and dozens were horrifically injured, but compared to the tens of thousands of people who travel by train every day, that's nothing.