
The World’s Safest Source of Energy - StreamBright
http://metals.visualcapitalist.com/safest-source-energy/
======
davedx
Since this is Hacker News, I knew it would be nuclear before opening the
article.

And for an article making use of the word 'source' multiple times, it sure
doesn't provide any, does it? What a surprise.

Where do the 150 deaths per 1000 TWh from wind energy come from? Skeptical
minds would like to know.

~~~
simonh
EDITED - Found it. Complete report on wind farm related accidents and deaths
world wide. It's pretty extensive, so I've not had a chance to check it in any
way. It seems to go up to 2018. It seems to include things like studies on
increased suicides from the noise. It's a PDF so not very easy to analyse the
figures.

[http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf](http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf)

~~~
jusssi
This list seems to include some incidents that are only tangentially related
to wind power:

"Second of three public fatalities at the same location put down to driver
distraction. Accident spot is where turbines become visible to drivers"

"34 year old was killed when his car collided with a truck carrying large wind
turbine components"

"47-yr old man killed when the snowmobile he was driving stuck a fence around
a wind farm construction site"

------
lucidguppy
Its interesting how people have weird biases.

Nuclear accidents do happen - and when they do - they poison the area pretty
much forever.

If you had the choice of building a power plant - or building a solar / wind
factory - it's a no brainer. You're building a power plant factory rather than
one single power plant.

Everyone but he US sees the potential.

~~~
fabatka
In the case of Chernobyl, I would argue that the area is not poisoned "pretty
much forever". The effects of radiation on local wildlife is up for debate[0],
but note the fact that mammal population is increasing(cited in [0]). From
this I would think that the local wildlife is not worse off than it would be
if humans continued living in that area.

[0]:
[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-
wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/)

EDIT: forgot reference

~~~
olavk
Of course wildlife is not worse off - anywhere humans leave an inhabited area
(ghost towns) you will see it gradually reclaimed by nature. If you want to
argue that radiation is healthy for mammals, you would have to compare with a
similar unpolluted wildlife area, not with how wildlife fared when the area
was a populous industrial city!

------
spodek
If a penny saved is a penny earned, then conservation is the safest of all.

I'm not saying we don't need sources, but most Americans could reduce their
energy use by probably 50% - 90%, probably _improving_ their standards of
living if they did it thoughtfully.

In terms of deaths caused, conservation is probably be negative, by saving
lives from power industries, which tend to be dangerous.

To talk about energy and safety without talking about conservation seems
irresponsible.

------
nl
Yeah, it's funny how these type of articles never report that this isn't an
accepted view at all.

 _We summarize the results of a recent statistical analysis of 216 nuclear
energy accidents and incidents (events). The dataset is twice as large as the
previous best available. We employ cost in US dollars as a severity measure to
facilitate the comparison of different types and sizes of events, a method
more complete and consistent that the industry-standard approach. Despite
significant reforms following past disasters, we estimate that, with 388
reactors in operation, there is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or more
costly) occurs every 60–150 years. We also find that the average cost of
events per year is around the cost of the construction of a new plant. This
dire outlook necessitates post-Fukushima reforms that will truly minimize
extreme nuclear power risks. Nuclear power accidents are decreasing in
frequency, but increasing in severity._

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615301067?via%3Dihub)

------
ebbv
This is THE statistic that nuclear proponents love to cite. There have been
articles blasting about nuclear’s low fatality number as long as I’ve been on
HN. And just as long I’ve been pointing out it’s a bogus, stupid metric.

Solar gets a higher fatality rating because of folks falling off their own
roofs. It’s a tragedy sure but does that mean solar is dangerous? Of course
not. Climbing up on the roof of your house is dangerous and everybody knows
that.

It’s also a number that tries to gloss over the worst parts of nuclear; the
extremely long lived impact of nuclear accidents. The areas around Chernobyl
and Fukushima are destroyed for generations to come. Finding responsible, safe
ways to store spent nuclear fuel continues to be an issue.

Renewables are cheaper and cheaper all the time. More countries are finding
they can power a larger portion of their needs with renewables every year.
Frankly we just don’t need nuclear and it’s serious risks and downsides.

~~~
mdekkers
_Frankly we just don’t need nuclear_

You lambast the actual statistics cited, but fail to provide anything
yourself. How much TW is currently produced globally by Nuclear, and how much
Solar or other renewables? What is the timeframe until there is parity?

~~~
nl
Eyeballing [1] (from 2016) it looks like renewable will surpass nuclear
sometime this year. [2] shows that "other" sources already has, but I think
that includes hydro-electricity.

[1] [https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-
electricit...](https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricity-
production-by-source-1974-2016.html)

[2]
[https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO201...](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO2017&region=0-0&cases=Reference&start=2010&end=2050&f=A&linechart=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reference-d082317.76-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.77-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.78-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.79-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.80-2-IEO2017~Reference-d082317.81-2-IEO2017&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0)

~~~
korantu
True, but great majority of the renewables cited into the report is hydro,
which is not very portable and cannot be considered as way forward.. not even
mentioning all the flooding it causes

~~~
nl
Read the first link again. That splits out hydro and shows other renewables
are (as I said) about to surpass nuclear.

~~~
StreamBright
If we keep turning off nuclear power plants just like Germany.

~~~
nl
By my eyeballed guess, it doesn't need any reduction in nuclear power for the
renewable sources to surpass it. The nuclear line looks more or less
horizontal to me.

------
sureaboutthis
I've been curious enough to wonder why very small plants could not be created
to serve much smaller areas. I don't know what I'm talking about but would it
be possible to make a small nuclear box, say the size of a refrigerator, that
could serve a small city alone? A large city would have several of these
sprinkled around. In case of a meltdown, or other accident, there would be
minimal damage? I don't know what I'm talking about.

~~~
korantu
Registered to post this -
[http://www.nuscalepower.com/](http://www.nuscalepower.com/) This is exactly
the idea of smaller, factory-produced walkaway-safe nuclear reactors.

It is weird how people compare safety of 50 year old technology (nuclear
incidents) and cutting edge solar/wind

------
tolpp
And, there is an asterisk.

* Rooftop solar only

Why?

~~~
mdekkers
_Why?_

Gravity

