Hacker News Reader

That's a good point. I hadn't realized the nuclear numbers included the supply chain; I thought it was just operational fatalities.

It would be interesting to see whether the number of deaths in wind and solar manufacturing are higher or lower than similar heavy industries and operations (e.g. linemanning, heavy fabrication). In any case, it all pales compared to the death and diminished quality of life that we just accept with coal and oil burning.

View on HN

Yeah, they always include the full supply chain for nuclear to make it appear believable but they don't do the same thing for anything else. Heck, some people include the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the numbers too just to make the comparison more "fair" to every other power source in the world. By the way, that barely moves the numbers for nuclear. We don't do that for any other power source. The closest we get is installation deaths for solar and wind. But we still ignore all of the supply chain deaths for both.

All that said, literally anything is better and safer than burning dinosaurs or biomatter. And the future really does need to be a mix of nuclear and geothermal (where available) for baseload demand with wind and solar combined with non-battery storage for peak demand smoothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com