Not Newsworthy, But . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:19 am

TJrandom wrote:Lance`s argument is great for whether or not we should have nuclear power generation, but not so great for whether it should be made safer.

I disagree. "Should" is a values question. A foreign concept to Lance.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:51 am

To TJ

I agree with you that construction kills. However, that applies to any and everything being built. I was arguing against people who have this fantasy that nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms of generating power, and who ignore good data. If you add in construction deaths, you must add them into the death toll for hydroelectricity, coal burning plants etcetera. To make a reasonable comparison , you look at the way the specific nature of the generating system causes fatalities, not something that is common to every damn thing.

Where construction fatalities have to be added in, is where the nature of the thing being built leads to a lot more fatalities. For example, building wind towers, where the nature of the wind towers leads to a lot of extra deaths from falling during construction and maintenance.

Here in NZ, we have a major hydroelectric power plant, which has a long tunnel carrying water down a major drop, through turbines, and out to the sea. During construction, 11 people died building that tunnel. But those deaths are never counted in assessing how dangerous hydroelectricity is. Nor do we normally count construction deaths in assessing the specific danger of nuclear power.

The other thing normally not counted is mining deaths. Solar panels require six different metals in their construction. For the millions upon millions of solar panels being built, that means a lot of mining. Mining is a dangerous occupation, and people die. But those deaths are never counted against solar power.

ElectricMonk · Post by **ElectricMonk** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:34 am

Dam≠ Power

until Lance is willing to accept that, there is no point in listening to his dam-hate speeches.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:14 am

No dam hate speech.
Hydroelectricity is just another form of power generation. I neither love or hate it. It has advantages and disadvantages, just like any other method. My point has always been that nuclear is the second safest method, despite the bull dust that so many ignorant people spout.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:....nuclear is the second safest method,...

How did I miss this change? I thought it was THE Safest. You've actually convinced me based on your definition of "safe" that Nuke is number one. What have I missed?

Dams have always been built for crop irrigation, then flood control, then power generation....first for developing head for water mills, then for hydro-electric. They are still built today for either benefit with a two-fer always preferred with the add on of recreation.

Some guy on C-Span was just talking about (some USA Nuke Plant) that it required 5 Billion gallons of water per day to keep it cool and that any cooling failure would create huge devastation that would last for 250K years. I think he's got some numbers wrong or not clearly presented?

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:07 am

Bobbo

Nothing new.
I told you from the word go that geothermal had the best safety record. Nuclear second.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:02 am

Sorry Lance, I do not buy it that wind power construction is inherently more dangerous than is nuclear power station construction. One dies if a fall is over 3 meters in many situations. I would agree with wind power deaths thru slicing and dicing if that were to occur.

ElectricMonk · Post by **ElectricMonk** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:15 am

Lance, all the risks of flood prevention using dammed lakes are inherent in the dam itself, regardless of whether it is later used for power generation or not.
Therefore it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to compare them to other forms of power generation.

Not that I haven't pointed that out a million times already, but it needs reiterating whenever you use this strawman.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:09 am

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 93d79f709b

To all the blithering morons who ignore good data.

I have been through this before, but idiots pay no need.
From the Forbes article referenced above.

The death toll from various forms of generation, measured as deaths per trillion kilowatt hours, for the whole world.

Coal 100,000
Oil 36,000
Biomass 24,000
Gas 4,000
Hydroelectric 1,400
Solar 440
Wind 150
Nuclear 90

Geothermal was not listed on this reference, but is probably safer than nuclear.

Now, there are assorted morons who ignore good data and go by their prejudices. But what I am presenting is not some semi religious inspiration, but real numbers.

Nuclear energy is the safest way to generate electricity, with the possible exception of geothermal.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:47 am

Lance if you read as far as the second tranche of comments, it becomes clear that construction deaths were left out of nuclear, but left in wind. Maybe it was just the availability of data... Of course, not that it would make a big difference.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:37 am

Construction deaths are left in wind because there are so many, and all those deaths result from the nature of wind energy. If a construction or maintenance worker is working on a nuclear power plant, it is no different to working, for example, on a block of residential flats, in terms of risk. But if working on a wind tower, the risk goes through the roof due to the nature of that wind tower. The risk is high. The death rate is high. To ignore that would be to ignore a vital factor in the statistics.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Construction deaths are left in wind because there are so many, and all those deaths result from the nature of wind energy. If a construction or maintenance worker is working on a nuclear power plant, it is no different to working, for example, on a block of residential flats, in terms of risk. But if working on a wind tower, the risk goes through the roof due to the nature of that wind tower. The risk is high. The death rate is high. To ignore that would be to ignore a vital factor in the statistics.

Well, I disagree. And that from a guy who has welded the corners of a high-rise building, up to the 33rd floor, suspended in a bucket on a 9mm steel cable. Just as safe there as on a house roof just 4 meters in the air, or on a ladder of same height trimming my ornamental pines. It isn`t the height that kills, but that sudden stop from 3 meters or more.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:50 am

Statistically, the number of deaths in workers on wind towers is higher. That is a simple fact, not my logic.

ElectricMonk · Post by **ElectricMonk** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Statistically, the number of deaths in workers on wind towers is higher. That is a simple fact, not my logic.

... for which you have no comparative data. Do we really always have to take your word for it?

Why don't you just say that you don't have the data?
Why do you feel the need to make up explanations?

note: the tallest cooling towers are significantly higher than the tallest wind turbines....

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:56 am

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 89f0975467

Another Forbes reference. Read it.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Statistically, the number of deaths in workers on wind towers is higher. That is a simple fact, not my logic.

It may be presented as a fact, but not one I am inclined to believe. And that too is a fact.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:23 pm

TJ

I called Electric Monk an idiot, which he resented, unsurprisingly. The reason I called him an idiot is because he denied data. Please do not fall into that trap yourself. If you have an opinion, you are obliged to demonstrate its truth with data, or to demonstrate to yourself that you opinion is wrong, by getting the data. Denying data is the sign of an idiot.

Many years ago I held the same opinion as the more ignorant people in this forum on nuclear power. That came from the proselytizing of idiot organisations like Greenpeace, who opposed nuclear power. The reason I changed my view is that I came across a publication by the British Royal Society, who I respect. Their publication was a detailed an analysis of nuclear power and showed that it was in fact, safer than almost any other way of generating electricity. I am proud of the fact that I change my views when the data shows me wrong. That is a quality I expect in any skeptic.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:52 pm

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Acc ... istics.htm

To TJ

The reference above shows how many wind farm accidents there are, just in the UK, and just in one year. These are not fatalities, though there are plenty of those also. Wind power is not particularly safe.

Now, I am sure that electric monk will accuse me of having some sort of emotional thing against wind power. Not so. Wind power has its place.

What I DO have an emotional response to is bullsh*t. The vendetta against nuclear power is bullsh*t, because it is based on fallacies and falsehoods. Nuclear is safer than wind, when you work it out as fatalities per unit electricity generated.

The reference lists 24 fatal accidents in 17 years, in the UK alone. Over the same period, in the UK, there was not one single fatality from nuclear power, in spite of the fact that a great deal more electricity was generated using nuclear..

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:23 pm

Lance - easy to call BS, and I do it too - for including construction death numbers for wind, but excluding them for nuclear. I do get it that correcting this glaring mistake will not change the perKwh ranking.

That 33 story building was a large hotel, and construction workers all walk off of the jobsite the moment a fellow worker dies on the job, and take up a collection as they depart the site. In the six months I worked there, we walked off three times if my recollection is correct. Were those deaths due to construction, or to hotel services? The same for a coal powered power plant I worked on for 4 months, setting turbines and installing conveyor belts - two walk-offs. Due to construction or electricity generation from coal?

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:12 pm

Sure, TJ, and I do understand your point.
It is just that the specific nature of wind turbines means a disproportionate number of accidents, compared for example, to the construction of a nuclear power plant. It is not just that you are building a humongous number of dangerous towers. It is also the danger of those rotating arms. I had not realised till recently, but apparently a lot of people are injured or killed by stuff thrown off those arms (like ice) and hitting the bystander.

When you total up fatalities for any system of generating power, you should ignore stuff that happens everywhere, and total just what is related to that form of power generation. If a person who has a home covered with solar panels has a heart attack and dies, you do not ascribe that death to solar power. But if a person has to climb that roof to fix or replace a solar panel, slips and falls, his death is related.

If you want to generate 10 gigawatts of power, one nuclear plant will do it. But to do it with wind turbines, you will need 10,000 or more. Guess which causes the most deaths from falling. All those deaths are related to the nature of wind power.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:31 pm

I saw it reported 5 years ago the new wind power designs had airfoils twisted about the vertical axis so that there were no huge long blades rotating in the wind. No bird deaths, no noise, .......I assume no ice thrown off in chunks.

People still falling off the thing.

I've been enthralled by dirigibles my whole life. Really love the balloon mounted wind turbines 3000 feet up in the air. Constant power generation, no noise, safe for birds. Nobody falling off them. ............I assume ice might be an issue from time to time........airplanes........now drones. Hey.....they could also replace cell towers and what not.

We need a National Dirigible Program .....asap. Now....it it could only turn co2 into water?

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:35 pm

Blades do not rotate or throw off ice during construction. There may, or may not, be a disproportionate number of construction deaths for wind vs nuclear construction.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:37 pm

Logically.......common sense........ wouldn't there have to be?

Lance provides a link to a source saying there is?

I think there is a logical fallacy lurking in the bushes here..... or maybe falling from the sky.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:42 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Logically.......common sense........ wouldn't there have to be?

Lance provides a link to a source saying there is?

I think there is a logical fallacy lurking in the bushes here..... or maybe falling from the sky.

No, and No. The links so far just drop them from nuclear construction, but keep them in for wind. The logical fallacy is in selective data use. A better measure than per kwhrs, would be per construction workdays.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:45 pm

TJ

You are now, officially a data denying idiot.
I have supplied enough references to show the data. You are into denial. It is always sad to see someone I thought was smart descend into idiocy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:50 pm

TJrandom wrote: A better measure than per kwhrs, would be per construction workdays.

It all depends on what is being considered? "Harm caused by different power sources"==>how is that better related to construction work days rather than the amount of power generated?

Your suggestion might be better for "Harm caused by different construction schedules?"

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

You are now, officially a data denying idiot.
I have supplied enough references to show the data. You are into denial. It is always sad to see someone I thought was smart descend into idiocy.

Lance, as I said - hogwash. You have not supplied data that shows wind power construction to be more risky than nuclear power plant construction - you have only asserted that it somehow `must be`. I have said - I don`t know, since we have no data. Odd, no?

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote: A better measure than per kwhrs, would be per construction workdays.
It all depends on what is being considered? "Harm caused by different power sources"==>how is that better related to construction work days rather than the amount of power generated?

Your suggestion might be better for "Harm caused by different construction schedules?"

Lances data mixes wind construction deaths with wind maintenance and external deaths (ice falls, etc.) But it excludes construction deaths for nuclear power constuction. You need data to prove there is a different ratio, and I suggest that a proper measurement for the construction portion of those deaths to be worker-days spent in construction.

I should also add, that this rather `forced` comparison, causes me to wonder what else might be hidden, or if there is an ulterior motive.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist · Post by **bobbo_the_Pragmatist** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:10 am

TJ--fair enough. If data sets don't "match".... they really can't be used for comparisons on point.

I didn't care enough to check whether or not Lance's links did or did not include Nuke Plant construction deaths. I can accept the conclusion as common sense................and mostly irrelevant.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:14 am

I have not claimed that wind tower construction is more hazardous. What I said was that, to generate the same power requires 10,000 times as many constructions (wind towers). That creates the extra opportunities for construction and maintenance fatalities. I also pointed out with the Forbes reference that wind power produces a lot more fatalities than nuclear power, per unit electricity. I am sure that, if you built 10,000 nuclear power plants, there will be as many, or more fatalities than building 10,000 wind towers. But building 10,000 wind towers produces a lot more fatalities than building one nuclear power plant. Why are you into denial, TJ ?

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: But building 10,000 wind towers produces a lot more construction fatalities than construction of building one nuclear power plant. Why are you into denial, TJ ?

Is this what you meant to say? If not, then you shouldn`t rely upon an article that merges construction fatalities with operations fatalites of wind, but not for nuclear.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:45 am

TJ

The whole point of my argument to to destroy the fallacious idea than nuclear power is somehow more dangerous than the rest. The truth is that it is safer than all but geothermal. The Forbes reference I posted showed than nuclear is MUCH safer than wind. You are arguing the mechanism for why wind is more dangerous. That is actually something of a red herring. The key point is that it is more dangerous and kills more people per unit electricity than nuclear does.

http://www.nuclearconnect.org/know-nucl ... ear-energy

The reference above includes the statement for Americans that there has never been a person injured or killed by nuclear power in the USA. I doubt that any other form of power generation would say the same.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

The whole point of my argument to to destroy the fallacious idea than nuclear power is somehow more dangerous than the rest. The truth is that it is safer than all but geothermal. The Forbes reference I posted showed than nuclear is MUCH safer than wind. You are arguing the mechanism for why wind is more dangerous. That is actually something of a red herring. The key point is that it is more dangerous and kills more people per unit electricity than nuclear does.

http://www.nuclearconnect.org/know-nucl ... ear-energy

The reference above includes the statement for Americans that there has never been a person injured or killed by nuclear power in the USA. I doubt that any other form of power generation would say the same.

Just a nit, since you are so easily pricked - but if you read the comments to the initial Forbes article you linked, one of them mentions one death (Yes, in the US, I believe), and the author replies, yes... so just 0.01, or something to that effect.

In my comments on wind, I was not intentionally pricking you - but rather pointing to an obvious error in their data/analysis - something a skeptic should appreciate.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:00 am

Except it was not an error. The high rate of accidents and death related to wind power. Solar power is worse, because it produces much less power and kills a lot of people in ladder accidents. Wind power kills lots of people as my reference earlier from the wind farm shows. 24 fatal accidents in 17 years, while nuclear power killed no one in that time in the UK. No error. 24 people dead.

It is the nature of wind power that it depends on numerous wind towers. Each wind tower carries a potential for accidents and death. Because there are so many, that means a lot of accidents and a lot of death. I showed you the numbers for 17 years in the UK. No error. All those people who were killed are dead. That is not an error.

I know that you will try to tell me that nuclear construction carries the same risk, but it does not. One nuclear power plant being constructed does not cause the accidents and deaths of 10,000 wind towers. This is not an error. It is a genuine difference between the modes of generating power which makes wind power much less safe.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Except it was not an error. The high rate of accidents and death related to wind power. Solar power is worse, because it produces much less power and kills a lot of people in ladder accidents. Wind power kills lots of people as my reference earlier from the wind farm shows. 24 fatal accidents in 17 years, while nuclear power killed no one in that time in the UK. No error. 24 people dead.

It is the nature of wind power that it depends on numerous wind towers. Each wind tower carries a potential for accidents and death. Because there are so many, that means a lot of accidents and a lot of death. I showed you the numbers for 17 years in the UK. No error. All those people who were killed are dead. That is not an error.

I know that you will try to tell me that nuclear construction carries the same risk, but it does not. One nuclear power plant being constructed does not cause the accidents and deaths of 10,000 wind towers. This is not an error. It is a genuine difference between the modes of generating power which makes wind power much less safe.

Me fears that you intentionally misrepresent, or ignore, the point I have made. That without data, you cannot assume that constructing as many wind towers as it takes to build an equivalent kWh capacity to match a nuclear plant, kills either more, or fewer during construction.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:17 am

The references I have posted show many more people killed due to wind power. Logically, it is because there are so many more wind structures. Actually, I do not care about the mechanism. The simple fact is that wind power is much more dangerous than nuclear.

ElectricMonk · Post by **ElectricMonk** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:38 am

Lance, you mix data and interpretation - not allowed if you want to appear impartial.

Lance Kennedy · Post by **Lance Kennedy** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:06 am

http://www.theenergycollective.com/will ... her-causes

Just to get one thing straight.
I am not indicting wind power especially. In fact, it is safer than most. It is just 3 times as dangerous as nuclear.
The reference above includes the data I am writing below, showing deaths per megawatt hour of electricity generated, on the global scale, for the main power generation methods.

Coal 161
Oil 36
Biofuel 12
Gas 4
Hydroelectric 1.4
Solar 0.44 to 0.83
Wind 0.14
Nuclear 0.04

ElectricMonk · Post by **ElectricMonk** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:25 am

It's heartless, I know, but how much do deaths/MW matter?

If one type of energy is much cheaper than another, but causes marginally more deaths, then using the more dangerous form of energy is still better because the savings can be used to save lives in other ways.

a single number doesn't catch the complexity of the issue.

TJrandom · Post by **TJrandom** » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:37 am

Plus... safety under each still needs to be improved - even for that which is shown/deemed to be the safest.