Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Short of an equipment malfunction,I can't imagine why anyone actually concerned about their own health and safety would be at risk.
|
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Let’s put a human face to these statistics. John Donnelly was killed in Oregon when a lanyard became entangled, dragging him into the spinning machinery. According to Paul Gipe, an advocate of wind power who authored an article on fatalities, the medical examiner described Donnelly’s demise as death by “multiple amputations”, witnessed by a horrified coworker. Another Oregon worker, Chadd Mitchell, young father of two, was killed when a wind turbine tower he was in collapsed to the ground in Sherman County after the turbine’s rotor went into “overspeed”..."
I'm not saying that wind or solar is unacceptably risky, but there will be deaths, and those deaths will be much more common than those caused by nuclear.
Not only that, but as Xist quoted, nuclear is the only mass power generating system where the pollutants are easily containable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Look at Iowa - they are now getting over 31% of their electricity from wind. They are building more and more turbines all the time.
|
Yeah, and they are getting 45% of their energy by coal, and rank #5 in highest energy user per capita.
In one August they generated 500 GWh of wind energy, and that same year produced 2,000 GWh in November. Producing 4x more energy in one month than another is a serious problem. Having unpredictable energy supply means you must have backup generating sources on standby, ready to go at a moments notice. I'd say they are nearing the upper limit of being able to manage wind energy while maintaining a stable grid.