And for an article making use of the word 'source' multiple times, it sure doesn't provide any, does it? What a surprise.
Where do the 150 deaths per 1000 TWh from wind energy come from? Skeptical minds would like to know.
Every time someone goes up on a roof to instal a panel there is a non zero chance that they will fall off and die. The kind of people installing domestic solar don't tend to perform the same level of health and safety analysis as those installing nuclear reactors!
In France the number of cancers increased a lot for the generation living on the east border during Tchernobyl. One of my friends had to have his thyroid removed.
Fukushima is still leaking radiation in the ocean (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nucl...) and we can't (don't ?) measure the consequences.
Then of course you have the burring sites. And the fact it's used to create bombs and we need only to fail one time to prevent a terrorist to getting one, but they can try again and again.
So yes, nuclear energy is an interesting source of technology, but it's not the perfect source HN readers love to depict.
It's also very expensive, and the calculations for the cost of nuclear energy usually completely ignore the cost of destroying the plant on retirement.
I'm glad we have it, it has many benefits, but let's keep trying to find something better. Wind, solar, fusion...
"Second of three public fatalities at the same location put down to driver distraction. Accident spot is where turbines become visible to drivers"
"34 year old was killed when his car collided with a truck carrying large wind turbine components"
"47-yr old man killed when the snowmobile he was driving stuck a fence around a wind farm construction site"
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
For wind turbines I can kind of imagine a few disaster scenarios (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-16115139/storm-caused-wind-t...) with all the large, heavy, moving parts swinging around at height. But solar? The same solar panels that sit there stationary like widow glass or floor tiles with zero moving parts?
I guess there are deaths from the manufacturing and raw resource extraction? Otherwise I can only assume they include people falling off of the roof installing them?
(Couldn't read the article, because the read more button needs JavaScript.)
adjective: said
1. used in legal language or humorously to refer to someone or something already mentioned or named.
Clearly this is the wrong place for this discussion. Is there a right place to discuss it, from a linguistic/sociological/stylistic point of view? Not that I really should... I'm just trying to avoid an unpleasant task that I really ought to be doing.
The first place that springs to mind is https://english.stackexchange.com/
I've seen other forums with good quality contributions on topics like this, I think one of them was for people speaking English as a second language looking for advice from native speakers. The name eludes me at the moment but if I come across it again I'll respond here with it.
These are the linked articles that contain the references for this data (haven't checked it out so I am assuming on a cursory glance)
https://forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-death... and https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy