Or yours are. My source was a Forbes article about several studies including one by the WHO. Yours is on a site promoting solar power. Just saying, you know?
Or my source is by someone intimately involved in the industry and that would have a better idea of the issues than a bunch of businessmen editors?
The
FACT that the numbers are off by an order of magnitude should give you pause ... if you are really interested.
... The author of the Forbes article has ties to the nuclear industry though so I'll give you that.
Thanks, another reason to question the article (Tobacco "scientists" syndrome?)
These deaths are also all solely in production and do not accumulate through the life of the panels
Right, but they also cover all solar power generated over time, so this is a moot point. ...
Your list does not say that, so you were giving false impressions. What are the lifetime numbers used in your article?
Right, but they also cover all solar power generated over time, so this is a moot point. ...
This phrase doesn't really make complete sense to me. Do you mean continuing production of panels? Or is the death-toll averaged out over the lifetime of the panels?
... The deaths occur, then the power is generated as opposed to the power is generated then the deaths occur. The deaths still occur. Those people are not less dead because they died in hydroflouric acid factory accident or cadmium poisoning.
Correct, solar deaths only occur during manufacturing (and are likely largely preventable with proper safety protocols), thereafter they are as safe as any rooftop installation. This poses no ongoing safety risk for the neighborhood around the solar installation.
While nuclear deaths occur during construction and the continual mining and processing of fuel and then long after the plant is shut down in maintaining the long term hazardous waste in a safe environment, and they pose a risk to their surrounding neighborhoods, and so have to be built in isolation zones.
But it is the ongoing risk to neighborhoods that is of most concern to people. (NIMBY, not fear).
... Those people are not less dead because they died in hydroflouric acid factory accident or cadmium poisoning.
The process of
mining uranium and thorium is not free of toxic gases, heavy metals and other toxic waste, and such mining needs to be continual during the lifetime of the reactors.
And you are still comparing apples and oranges.
That's the most troubled of the Type III generators. ...
And I still prefer the latest generation CANDU generators that can use the Thorium 232 decay cycle because the waste is intrinsically safer than the uranium plants, plus it can't be used to make weaponized nuclear materials -- a real and valid concern regarding nuclear generation.
If we consider xongsmith's comment regarding terrorist bombing, then the fallout from a Thorium reactor should be less hazardous than that of a uranium reactor.
Yes. But I'm not claiming the degree of confidence that you are. I'm putting forward an alternative so as to dampen your confidence to bring you closer to an accurate assessment of your competence (this thread did start in the Dunning-Kruger thread after all).
Really? you sound awfully confident that you have a better handle than me ... curiously I still think wind and solar are better directions to go than nuclear generation plants, and my reasons are quite simple:
- comparable cost, and costs dropping
- available to the consumer to install and maintain
- low to zero maintenance
- reduces need for large transformer stations and high power distribution lines
- disperses generation in a web instead of a grid, with power able to flow either direction in lines, making the system more robust and better able to withstand blackouts and damage by storms, improving distribution to consumers
- can be used in areas not well served by the grid distribution system
- negligible ongoing health and safety risk to surrounding neighborhoods
So when I look at the overall risk/benefit of these systems I see solar and wind being a better choice.
Look into hemp, which is what I mentioned.
Which is nice and all, and I'm not going to say otherwise - but it's easier when you have a big spacy land like the US. Here in the UK, less trivial. The UK uses about 5 million tonnes of biofuel.
Getting permission to extend an airport that is already 1,400 acres is a bureaucratic nightmare here. To get this amount of biofuels at 10T per acre is going to take up an area of 800 Square miles. That's an area equivalent to about 4 Manchesters - we have difficulty finding space to build houses as it is. We'd have to destroy lots of green space with heavy agriculture to do this.
I'd like to see hemp energy production, but I don't see it being a primary method unless we import it...so this will rely on other nations deciding to dedicate huge swathes of land to the project.
For use instead of oil\gasoline. Any plant that is producing gasoline can produce the hemp biofuel, and transportation of hemp seed should be considerably safer than the transporting of oil (exxon valdez, bp gulf, leaking pipelines, exploding train oil cars, etc)
Enjoy
™ Version 4.2
