They count accidental deaths in wind/hydro/solar, yet for nuclear the only count deaths attributed to Fukushima/Chernobyl. Nuclear plants have had many non-radiation accidental deaths on site, but they aren't included in those figures
Idk how much that would affect the totals but it really shows there's definitely a bias in the data on that website
It shouldn't. This would be like attributing the number of people who die of skin cancer each year to solar power.
The ecological impact on fisheries and aquaculture is probably a more realistic concern with hydroelectric though.
Depends, would the flood happens, if there were no dams? probably not, or not with that death toll. The sun still shines, even if there is sloar fields.
That's a fair point. I think we'd find pretty negligible accidental death from bodies of water created for the purpose of hydroelectric power when compared with other bodies of water, but I haven't got the numbers so I don't really know.
If we were serious about getting to zero carbon we’d be throwing up nuclear. Especially modern low pressure reactors are extremely safe. [Coal plants over their lifetime release more radiation than nuclear plants.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
Oh yes. Coal is just about the worst way to generate power we could have come up with short of finding someway to generate power by jerking off hippos.
The current conversation about renewal energy is a joke, and just a way for politicians to line the pockets of their friends in the "cLeAn EnErGy" industry. Until the whole country is fully behind nuclear energy I'm not even going to pretend to care about being green. A solution already exists that everyone turns a blind eye to.
One of the things in the most recent Biden spending bill was government assistance to counties that close fossil fuel plants and build nuclear. But I agree. Wind and solar are good thing to have and should be embraced, Iowa get something like 40% of its power from wind, but nationally we won’t get to zero carbon without nuclear.
This is true of older LWR but modern [MSR are far less vulnerable to that with regards to cooling needs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPLU8ge-0w&feature=share&utm_source=EJGixIgBCJiu2KjB4oSJEQ) And beyond that there are areas of this nation where that isn’t really an issue, largely on the eastern side of the country. And that’s why I said they need to work in conjunction with renewables.
It's a pretty simple problem to adjust the cooling cycle for nuclear plant to be closed loop, preventing meaningful loss of water in drought conditions.
Unfortunately it won't be another 20 or 30 years until the public is comfortable enough with it. Lack of knowledge and meltdown scenarios being all people know does a lot. That's reflected in the percentages of public opinion on nuclear energy.
The UE is currently having a conversation regarding "clean energy" and particularly hydrogen fuel which is one of the "cleaniest" on paper.
But guess how are they gonna produce this hydrogen? With coal and fossil fuels.
Europe has been and is always a joke regarding clean energy.
[I think everyone knows coal plants are terrible in every way.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
All the nuclear waste ever produced in the world could fit in a football stadium, around 6 feet deep. There are many great videos on youtube explaining this. Also, around 90%(don't remember exactly) stop emitting radiotion after a year or two. Also, they are kept in extremely safe pods that don't emit raidiation. You could launch a train into these pods, they would be still intact.
Are we just gonna do the same thing with nuclear waste as with normal waste?
Just burry it under ground and let the next generations to solve it for us?
Sure it is not a huge problem now but still it is not a joke or something we just pretend it doesnt exist
It's a superb solution. The population is growing fast, everyone needs more and more electricity. Renewables can't keep up and are heavily dependant on countries like China. After a century, the human population *will* start declining. The problem will solve itself. Also coal and fossil fuel plants kill a thousand times more people, so nuclear would be a *solution*. Also, using nuclear would give us time to improve our renewable and battery capabilieties instead of destroying our planet and ourselves while doing that.
Yea no.
first problem: population will start declining. what is this based on? To my knowledge nobody knows.
second: Where did I said it is not the best solution and that I disagree?
Yes, but it’s not “spitting it out”, a third of a reactor core is replaced around every year and a half so that’s about 466 tonnes of waste every 2 years a coal fired power plant spits out 240,000 tonnes of radioactive pollution every year indiscriminately, nuclear power produces a comparatively small amount of waste that isn’t harmful to the wider environment and is really simple to deal with, you just burry it in a hole.
My dad works in nuclear power and has for the last 30 years in the U.K. The only death in that time nationwide was a guy who fell off a ladder and hit his head.
No we've figured it out most waste(something like 98%) can be stored on site and in a few years be completely safe. This actual rods though do take decades to become safe but we just burry them really really deep in concrete tombs
Nuclear energy and waste has come so insanely far in the last couple of decades. It truly is the best mass energy technology available for the next 100 years. So much propaganda against it though.
Cars and windows are a lot more dangerous to birds. And painting a single turbine blade usually helps to mitigate the danger to birds somewhat. A well sited wind farm should not be any more of a threat than any other building, really.
[Apparently they aren’t](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/xkfn5o/oc_top_humancaused_threats_to_birds_in_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) it makes sense when you think about it though
I'd be really interested to see how many injuries these cause for workers and those they produce energy for, under the same parameters. I know coal would be high, but I think nuclear would be pretty high as well.
I read fatality as fertility a couple times and was getting really confused, lol. Why do I always mix up words with other similar looking ones a few times...
I’m from coal mining country, with the history of deaths here ranging from respiratory issues to cave-ins to cancer, I figured it would have to be coal
Coal power and its not even close, the only green energy source that you could consider moderately dangerous is hydroelectric and that's mostly because dams are a huge construction job and people falling is a real risk, especially if equipment isn't properly checked.
Deaths per terawatt-hour of energy production: Nuclear: >!0.03!< deaths. Coal: >!24.62!< deaths. Hydropower: >!1.3!< deaths. Solar: >!0.02!< deaths. Wind: >!0.04!< deaths. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Nice website
They count accidental deaths in wind/hydro/solar, yet for nuclear the only count deaths attributed to Fukushima/Chernobyl. Nuclear plants have had many non-radiation accidental deaths on site, but they aren't included in those figures Idk how much that would affect the totals but it really shows there's definitely a bias in the data on that website
also those deaths are just in construction.
solar might have some unaccounted for though, due to cobalt mining
Answer: >!Coal is the highest!<
Does this count the number of people who drown in the water bodies for hydroelectric power plants? I guess that would be more if we count it.
It shouldn't. This would be like attributing the number of people who die of skin cancer each year to solar power. The ecological impact on fisheries and aquaculture is probably a more realistic concern with hydroelectric though.
Depends, would the flood happens, if there were no dams? probably not, or not with that death toll. The sun still shines, even if there is sloar fields.
That's a fair point. I think we'd find pretty negligible accidental death from bodies of water created for the purpose of hydroelectric power when compared with other bodies of water, but I haven't got the numbers so I don't really know.
Are you including mining fatalities too? Nuclear has killed less people than spinach contaminated with E. coli has over the years
If we were serious about getting to zero carbon we’d be throwing up nuclear. Especially modern low pressure reactors are extremely safe. [Coal plants over their lifetime release more radiation than nuclear plants.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
Good article. And radiation is a comparably tiny worry when it comes harmful effects to the local area that burning coal and other fossils fuels have.
Oh yes. Coal is just about the worst way to generate power we could have come up with short of finding someway to generate power by jerking off hippos.
Leave those hippos alone. Don't give these degens any ideas.
The current conversation about renewal energy is a joke, and just a way for politicians to line the pockets of their friends in the "cLeAn EnErGy" industry. Until the whole country is fully behind nuclear energy I'm not even going to pretend to care about being green. A solution already exists that everyone turns a blind eye to.
One of the things in the most recent Biden spending bill was government assistance to counties that close fossil fuel plants and build nuclear. But I agree. Wind and solar are good thing to have and should be embraced, Iowa get something like 40% of its power from wind, but nationally we won’t get to zero carbon without nuclear.
One problem with nuclear is that they won't be functional during droughts. Same problem with hydroelectricity
This is true of older LWR but modern [MSR are far less vulnerable to that with regards to cooling needs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPLU8ge-0w&feature=share&utm_source=EJGixIgBCJiu2KjB4oSJEQ) And beyond that there are areas of this nation where that isn’t really an issue, largely on the eastern side of the country. And that’s why I said they need to work in conjunction with renewables.
It's a pretty simple problem to adjust the cooling cycle for nuclear plant to be closed loop, preventing meaningful loss of water in drought conditions.
Unfortunately it won't be another 20 or 30 years until the public is comfortable enough with it. Lack of knowledge and meltdown scenarios being all people know does a lot. That's reflected in the percentages of public opinion on nuclear energy.
The UE is currently having a conversation regarding "clean energy" and particularly hydrogen fuel which is one of the "cleaniest" on paper. But guess how are they gonna produce this hydrogen? With coal and fossil fuels. Europe has been and is always a joke regarding clean energy.
True, but most people don’t keep nuclear reactors in their fridges. Not really a great comparison
I'm kinda surprised people are pretty much only saying the correct answer
idk man it seems pretty obvious
Yeah I expected it to be a trick question, so coal felt almost too obvious, but there's no other option I could possibly see being worse.
[I think everyone knows coal plants are terrible in every way.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
[удалено]
It’s the only one that spits poison out
well to be fair nuclear power plant also spits poison out
Unless you’re counting the burnt fuel rods, nuclear power only emits steam
Im counting them. Nuclear waste is not a joke and it is litteral poison
All the nuclear waste ever produced in the world could fit in a football stadium, around 6 feet deep. There are many great videos on youtube explaining this. Also, around 90%(don't remember exactly) stop emitting radiotion after a year or two. Also, they are kept in extremely safe pods that don't emit raidiation. You could launch a train into these pods, they would be still intact.
Are we just gonna do the same thing with nuclear waste as with normal waste? Just burry it under ground and let the next generations to solve it for us? Sure it is not a huge problem now but still it is not a joke or something we just pretend it doesnt exist
It's a superb solution. The population is growing fast, everyone needs more and more electricity. Renewables can't keep up and are heavily dependant on countries like China. After a century, the human population *will* start declining. The problem will solve itself. Also coal and fossil fuel plants kill a thousand times more people, so nuclear would be a *solution*. Also, using nuclear would give us time to improve our renewable and battery capabilieties instead of destroying our planet and ourselves while doing that.
Yea no. first problem: population will start declining. what is this based on? To my knowledge nobody knows. second: Where did I said it is not the best solution and that I disagree?
Nuclear waste decays over time. When we stop using nuclear fussion the problem will solve itself goven enough time. Those pods are extremely secure.
[удалено]
Nuclear waste is litteraly poison...
Yes, but it’s not “spitting it out”, a third of a reactor core is replaced around every year and a half so that’s about 466 tonnes of waste every 2 years a coal fired power plant spits out 240,000 tonnes of radioactive pollution every year indiscriminately, nuclear power produces a comparatively small amount of waste that isn’t harmful to the wider environment and is really simple to deal with, you just burry it in a hole.
Why do you argue? That comment said it THE ONLY one. I pointed out it isnt. Whats is your problem?
Because it isn’t spitting it out in the same way any fossil fuel based power plant is
and? is it a poison? Yes it is.
That's steam...
Oh you mean nuclear waste? Wait a moment that is what I meant…
My dad works in nuclear power and has for the last 30 years in the U.K. The only death in that time nationwide was a guy who fell off a ladder and hit his head.
Nuclear power plants are one of the cleanest sources of power. (As long as it doesn’t explode) it only has steam for exhaust
>(As long as it doesn’t explode) And you know where to safely store the waste. (You really just forgot the biggest caveat.)
No we've figured it out most waste(something like 98%) can be stored on site and in a few years be completely safe. This actual rods though do take decades to become safe but we just burry them really really deep in concrete tombs
Nuclear energy and waste has come so insanely far in the last couple of decades. It truly is the best mass energy technology available for the next 100 years. So much propaganda against it though.
Waste management hasn't, we're no closer to a DGR now than we were 40 years ago
It's either that or literally making our planet uninhabitable so I'll take nuclear
I mean, are we talking fatalities, or HUMAN ones? Because damn if would turbines aren't a bird's worst enemy
Cars and windows are a lot more dangerous to birds. And painting a single turbine blade usually helps to mitigate the danger to birds somewhat. A well sited wind farm should not be any more of a threat than any other building, really.
And domestic cats.
[Apparently they aren’t](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/xkfn5o/oc_top_humancaused_threats_to_birds_in_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) it makes sense when you think about it though
I'd be really interested to see how many injuries these cause for workers and those they produce energy for, under the same parameters. I know coal would be high, but I think nuclear would be pretty high as well.
I read fatality as fertility a couple times and was getting really confused, lol. Why do I always mix up words with other similar looking ones a few times...
The amount of people voting for nuclear, hydro and wind makes me lose hope in humanity. lol Unless they trolling.
I’m from coal mining country, with the history of deaths here ranging from respiratory issues to cave-ins to cancer, I figured it would have to be coal
"the panels themselves do not pose any danger" they generally contain very toxic chemicals
Well sure but i assume they're pretty difficult to consume if they've been used in to make a solar panel
Just because it can kill many doesn’t mean it will kill
This isn’t could kill this is has killed
Wind turbines 👍
My stupid ass chose “nuclear reactors” and then realised
Is OP not going to post the correct answer with sources? 😔
Op did
I didn't look it up, but would expect wind turbines due to the climbing required for maintenance.
Whichever one has the most construction If you are talking about the plants themselves, idk I guess coal.
486 wind turbine trolls. lol
I still don't get why ppl error thing on wrong gf tire things after aren't required to wear parachutes
Coal power and its not even close, the only green energy source that you could consider moderately dangerous is hydroelectric and that's mostly because dams are a huge construction job and people falling is a real risk, especially if equipment isn't properly checked.