• Dr_pepper_spray@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    But this is my argument against those who complain about Solar and Wind – those won’t kill you or destroy a location for hundreds of years if they break down and once they’re installed they don’t have to be fed by more mining, or anything else. Just wind and sun.

    • lad@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      And maintenance, it apparently takes quite some effort to keep those running

    • jasondj
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Funny you say that. Solar and wind each have more human deaths per kWh than nuclear.

      Worth mentioning that fossil fuels blow those numbers completely out of the water, though.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            The death rate for nuclear was mostly from Fukushima, where about 2,300 elderly people died from the stress of moving from their homes. But their houses were also wiped out from a 35 ft tsunami so…

            Chernobyl and Fukushima didn’t directly kill very many people. Only 1 person died from radiation at Fukushima.

            From the author:

            "People often focus on the marginal differences at the bottom of the chart – between nuclear, solar, and wind. This comparison is misguided: the uncertainties around these values mean they are likely to overlap.

            The key insight is that they are all much, much safer than fossil fuels.

            Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas. Wind and solar are just as safe."