I would also normalize against their frequency. Because if a tech is not used that often for being considered dangerous then of course it can show a low absolute number of deaths.
But then again is a no brainer to tell that this kind of comparison is ill intended from the get go.
The trope defending nuclear energy has always been “too loud” for my “taste”. It’s like mainstream politics, missing the point of why something is actually good and then spouting cherry-picking “facts” but indeed doing propaganda nonetheless.
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
valgarf@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
On the site there is also a direct comparison: ourworldindata.org/…/death-rates-from-energy-prod…
Grouping Hydro with other renewables is not very nice for wind and solar, which are pretty safe - with the added benefit of being cheaper than nuclear power.
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
And Nuclear is on par with the safety of solar and wind but you seem prompt to forget that. Your also not counting the cost incurred by renewables being non continuous sources of power. So yes it is cheaper to run a wind or solar farm untill you have to kick on the peaker plant cause the wind died and teh sun went down unless your in one of the super rare places that has pumped storage.
valgarf@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
That is outdated information, renewables + battery storage have become cheaper than nuclear power.
ise.fraunhofer.de/…/2024_ISE_e_PR_Photovoltaic Pl…
carboncredits.com/renewables-plus-storage-surge-a…
Side note, not relevant to discussion:
This feels rude. Your post already mentions safety of nuclear power as does the link I posted. Just from the fact that I did not reiterate that information you insinuate an opinion on my side that I did neither write nor imply.