| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Death Rate Per Watts Produced |
| 2011-03-24 |
| Hat tips Instapundit, Seth's Blog Using deaths per watt as a measure, nuclear electric generation is 900 is as safe as oil, and 4000 is as safe as coal. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #5 IIRC, thanks to the rabid criticisms of the VIETNAM ERA = late 1960's-early 1970's Counterculture Movement in support of pro-Environ, anti-Pollution initiatives, + Post-Yom Kippur War ENERGY CRISIS, MANY WORLD GOVTS. CHOSE TO SWITCH TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM NATURAL COAL OR OTHER. Including JAPAN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-03-24 23:07 |
| #4 Hey, the article breaks the analysis paralysis surrounding the pro/cons of common energy sources into a simple visual. And it also has a meaningful measurements which make a persuasive argument for increasing the use of nuclear power. (Please, just not on or near a fault line) FWIW, this article is a helpful lense to view energy policy through. |
| Posted by: Fi 2011-03-24 22:18 |
| #3 Solar panels need to be cleaned and kept free of debris on a regular basis. Falling off roofs and ladders is a common cause of accidental death. AP is right, you need to measure all risks. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2011-03-24 21:38 |
| #2 Deaths should be measured as a resultant of health risks (radiation, pollution). If you want to see deaths for construction and maintenance, then break that out into a separate category. This is oversimplification of the issue as it is presented. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2011-03-24 20:47 |
| #1 Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much, much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths. Oh really. Choosing to ignore the tens of thousands who die annually from solar radiation induced skin cancers? There's a difference between 'safe' and 'nothing you can do about it'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-03-24 19:46 |