>A terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity from nuclear energy is associated with 0.03 deaths (including indirect deaths from disasters and workplace accidents at the plants). That makes it even safer than wind energy, which is associated with 0.04 deaths per TWh, mostly from accidents during the installation process, drownings on offshore sites and helicopter collisions with turbines.

Hugely different impact scale when something goes terribly wrong though.

If nuclear is the answer there's something wrong with the question, or we're reading nuclear lobby nudge material. The article is behind a paywall; is there anything in it regarding attribution?

@changeable that's the point, this includes all deaths - direct and indirect.

Strongly disagree that nuclear isn't a viable answer to the question of how do we migrate away from fossil fuels using zero emission energy.

Yes, but the potential impact from a nuclear power station accident is rather different from the same in terms of a renewable source.

Accidents at, say, wind farms don't spew clouds of carcinogenic fallout across vast areas, and renewables aren't part of the production chain of world-killing weapons.

I wonder too why this comparison is even being made - it sounds to me like nuclear industry propaganda.

@changeable including all the potential impact of a nuclear accident -- all of it -- direct and indirect (fallout clouds, immediate deaths, etc), nuclear is still less deadly than wind.

That's the point.

@changeable a couple of charts from the article. The source is Our World in Data, run by Oxford University's Martin School.


I take it back re propaganda, nothing in the author's professional history suggests involvement in nuclear industry, although her figure for deaths attributable to Chernobyl seems unrealistically low.

We're not going to agree on nuclear so let's leave it there.

@changeable I admit nuclear has an image problem, but as far as I can tell it's completely unsupported by actual data.

@changeable @argentum I personally don't like discussions and conversations which end this way: "let's just agree to disagree". What rational, open-minded people aware of their own biases do instead is ask for more detail. Let's look at more facts, Let's do more digging and conduct more experiments. Let's try to figure out why we're biased against something but unable to clearly articulate why. I, for one, think these numbers are a reasonable way to make risk comparisons. I would also like to see statistics and measurements of relative risk on a country-by-country basis. For example, I'd like to see how the French nuclear power industry compares to the US industry and then understand the details of how each country designs, implements, and regulates their respective industry.

@billmania @argentum

Hi. That's a way of looking at it, yes.

On this occasion I saw little point in carrying on the conversation.

I don't see anything so terribly closed-minded in that, nor do I believe it's somehow evidence I'm irrational or inarticulate.

I get that you're coming from a citizen-scientist angle (or bias?) but I'm not that.

Nor am I some kind of evangelist out to convince everyone my opinion is the correct one.

BTW re your question on May 13, no I haven't.

Sign in to participate in the conversation is my little corner of the fediverse