Risk assessment of energy sources - Deaths per TWh

[GliderGuider]

I found this very interesting article that looks at the annual deaths per TWh from different energy technologies:

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao     1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

These estimates include related mining deaths as well as deaths from air pollution due to coal, but doesn't (as far as I can tell) factor in climate change.

One interesting point he makes http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/summarizing-deaths-per-twh.html">in an earlier post is that nuclear power has permitted us to avoid about 3 million deaths from 1951 to 2010 due to the 20% displacement of coal by lower-risk nuclear power.

This is yet another illustration of why I am completely in favour of the expansion of nuclear power. It's a safe, proven, high-capacity technology that has the potential to prevent huge numbers of deaths that will otherwise occur if we succumb to irrational fears and ideology.

[JDPriestly]

1. Wasn't there a problem with a nuclear reactor in Vermont just recently?

Nuclear energy and nuclear waste are a huge problem. I do not trust your numbers. They are based mostly on wishful thinking.

[Nihil]

51. Yeah, thousands of people died didn't they?

Oh, my bad, no-one was hurt as it was a fire in a transformer that
caused a fail-safe shutdown.
:P

> Nuclear energy and nuclear waste are a huge problem. I do not trust your numbers.
> They are based mostly on wishful thinking.

Nuclear energy companies and nuclear waste are a huge problem. Fossil fuel pollution
is a much bigger one. It would appear that you don't have a clue about the numbers.
Your distrust is based mostly on wishful thinking.

[bananas]

2. Junk science and screwball statistics

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

15. In an area that's so controversial, what we choose to believe has little to do with facts.

An article from January of this year on this topic outlines the controversy:

Chernobyl nuclear accident: figures for deaths and cancers still in dispute

The UN's World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

They also say that only a few children have died of cancers since the accident and, that most of the illnesses usually linked to Chernobyl are due to psychological distress, radiophobia or poverty and unhealthy living.

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of the accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell.

Due to difficulties with the records, and given the agendas on both sides of the issue, it's very hard to say what a realistic figure might be. It's unlikely to be on either the low or high end of such a wide spread. Fear and ideology are in the driver's seat on this issue.

ETA: It just occurred to me how ironic it is that you have slagged me off in the past for being a doomer and uncritically accepting a variety of worst-case scenarios. And here you are, uncritically accepting a worst-case scenario when it suits your purpose. Not surprising, but amusing nonetheless.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

18. When legitimate dispute exists, pointing it out isn't disinformation.

As the Guardian article pointed out, there is a wide range in the estimates. And they are, after all, estimates by all concerned. We each have to decide WHO ;-) we're going to believe.

Oh, and I don't do "should" any more, and I gave up shame for Lent last year.

[kristopher]

28. Funny, that is EXACTLY what climate deniers say when they lie through their teeth.

[kristopher]

41. Support for nuclear power is a solid plank in the Republican platform.

The traditional Republican party platform is to call for more drilling and to encourage the expansion of nuclear power (see McCain's platform) because their primary concern is energy security, not climate change.

No one here denies the need to move away from carbon and the discussion on this forum focuses on what do we move to. When the OP is read in that context it becomes clear that the stats are designed to portray nuclear power as comparable to renewable energy as a "clean and safe" resource. That portrayal is false and is made using false statistics.

The following was posted the last time this tripe was trotted out by a so called nuclear environmentalist. As can be seen the nuclear number is a gross falsehood that cherry-picks and uses a subset of the actual rate while the wind number is a gross exaggeration.

1) The number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain (excludes major accidents) is 0.69/TWh

"The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options"
http://www.informaworld.com/index/02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf

The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in OCCUPATIONAL fatalities AND 0.65/TWh in PUBLIC fatalities.


2)Gipe, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering ALL KNOWN FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND
(including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology) as of 2009 is 0.07/TWh.

Also, if you look at Gipe's timeline for wind, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html


In contrast to that, one of the most significant issues, is the typical glossing over of what deaths are attributable to nuclear. This is typical of the way that omission is dealt with by nuclear proponents (it is an actual quote from a blog posted on DU in support of nuclear energy).
"The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous."

Compare to this 2009 peer reviewed study:

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

ETA, this informs interpretation of the OP:

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc.

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

[joshcryer]

48. Do you have an alternate text which compiles comparable statistics?

I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Tikki]

3. Let's talk about the waste and by-products long term health issues..

Nuclear...damage to health from long and short term exposures.
Real and documented..



Tikki

[ishaneferguson]

5. Let's not ignore

4000 American deaths to "protect" the Basra oil fields.

Plus - I lived in the community with the highest Chronic Obstruct Pulmonary Disease rate (pre nuke) in the US, and now has the cleanest air. Coal has a price.

[Nederland]

7. Yes, let's talk about that

I'd love to see the documented evidence so we can compare sources.

[Tikki]

11. I am aware of cruel affects of oil, coal and biofuels on health and environment..I will discuss...

what I know best...

There are many, many more articles..from government tracts to action pacs to families in great sorrow:

http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/05/1428721/radioactive-rabbit-trapped-at.html
Here is just the latest I found...I especially noted the part about the 'hot spots' that remain four decades later..

Tikki

[Nederland]

14. A radioactive Rabbit?

Seriously? The OP links to an article that cites a World Health Organization estimate showing that 30,000 people die every year from coal pollution in the US (half a million in China), and the best you can come up with to show the dangers of nuclear power is an article about a radioactive rabbit? Is that supposed to be a joke? Something along the lines of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

I'm in favor of nuclear power and even I can come up with something better than that...

[Tikki]

22. I posted the latest....what part about 'hot spots'..

still there 4 decades later did you not understand. You ever been to that rat hole ...Hanford!!
Animals have free range in a big wide open desert. Do you think they really can contain contaminated animals
from the populations around the camp?
How sweet and naive of you..


Tikki

[Nederland]

23. Hanford is a rat hole

I admit that. I completely admit that nuclear power is dangerous and needs to have government oversight to ensure that the public remains safe. The question that the OP is addressing however, is how dangerous are all the sources of power relative to how much power they produce. It is a comparison of multiple things. It is also an extremely relevant and perfectly valid comparison to pursue given the questions at hand, but anti-nukes never want to engage in comparisons. All they ever want to do is push out statistics about nuclear power in complete isolation, as if the only relevant question is whether or not nuclear power is perfect.

Let me make it easy for you. Nuclear power is not perfect. Nuclear power is dangerous. There have been nuclear accidents in the past, there will be nuclear power accidents in the future. That being said, the really relevant question is this: how bad is it compared to other sources of power? If you'd like to engage in THAT discussion I'm ready and willing.

[GliderGuider]

9. And while we're at it

We can discuss the million people who die every year from coal air pollution. According the the World Health Organization.

Chernobyl pales into insignificance next to this slaughter.

[kristopher]

10. With nuclear the solution is as bad as the problem

[GliderGuider]

12. That's an ideological position.

The rational position says that nuclear power is about 4,000 times safer than coal (161 deaths per TWh for coal vs. 0.04 for nuclear power).

[kristopher]

13. Your statistics are false - and you know it.

See post 8

[Nederland]

19. What are your yearly numbers for coal?

I understand you dispute the WHO report on Chernobyl, but what about their stats for coal? Do you dispute those?

[kristopher]

26. What we know is the external costs for coal and nuclear are both extremely high

No one but self identified climate deniers and the more sneaky deniers identifying themselves as "skeptics" dispute the fact we need to leave fossil fuels behind. The purpose of the OP is to trim data in an attempt to FALSELY maximize the perceived safety of nuclear in relation to renewables.

It is exactly in line with the messaging strategy promoted by the nuclear industry:

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc.

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

[Nederland]

29. Ok, so they are both high

I got that. What I am trying to understand is which is higher? I've seen your numbers for nuclear, now I'm asking for your numbers for coal, so we can determine which one is higher. If you don't like the WHO numbers, can you provide an alternative source?

[TheWraith]

25. "Your numbers are false because I say so!"

Thanks for the enlightened argument.

[kristopher]

30. No the numbers are false because all valid analysis says they are.

Nuclear isn't .04/Twh. In the study from which that number is derived the .04 is clearly identified as ONLY deaths from the nuclear fuel chain. The same study clearly states that the overall rate of fatalities for nuclear is 0.69/TWh
The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options
http://www.informaworld.com/index /02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf

The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in OCCUPATIONAL fatalities AND 0.65/TWh in PUBLIC fatalities.

And wind? Gipe, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering ALL KNOWN FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND
(including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology) as of 2009 is 0.07/TWh. . Also, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

The OP is trash designed to misinform in order to promote nuclear power at the expense of renewable energy.

[GliderGuider]

33. OK, so let's take the valid number for nuclear as 0.69

After all, I didn't do the calculations, so I'm not attached to them by any means.

According to an http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf"> analysis of the ExternE study (PDF) goal in the EU causes about 25 deaths per TWh. Given that the EU and the USA are all comparable industrial regions, these numbers seem like a fair place to start.

As we see in the following graph from the report, the normal operations of nuclear power, hydro and wind all have death rates down in the noise:



The whole reason for following up on this is to point out that we need to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, and the risks of nuclear power are hysterically overblown. Even in the EU case with low(ish) death rates from coal, and using your preferred number for nuclear power, nuclear is still 36 times safer than very safely operated coal, and over 50 times safer than oil.

[kristopher]

36. Except the ExternE numbers are also fudged as shown by the NYAS Chernobyl study

The omission of which is bad enough, but your USE of the numbers is egregious in that your approach (deliberately & totally) ignores the cumulative future risks of having no solution for nuclear wastes and no way to avoid nuclear weapons proliferation related to widespread use of nuclear power.

Your "analysis" are garbage precisely because they are exercises in conclusions in search of a rationale; in other words - nuclear industry propaganda.

[NickB79]

40. Then what is a reputable source of deaths per TWh of coal, wind, hydro and nuclear?

If you don't like the comparison GliderGuider made with those numbers, provide a source with other numbers so we can compare those instead.

[Nederland]

53. He will never give you those numbers

He can't stand the thought of doing so because he can't stand the idea of any comparison that doesn't put nuclear in the: "WORST. POWER. SOURCE. EVER." category. It's not enough to say that nuclear is worse than renewables. It has to be worse than everything. Any less wouldn't justify is irrational opposition to it.

[joshcryer]

54. He doesn't have them and pretends they don't exist.

He has regularly avoided the fact that fossil fuels kill millions of people, and has downplayed the measured effects of CO2.

[Confusious]

27. Your statistics are false because you're a doodoo head! nt

[joshcryer]

50. An abolsute genocide, and people on this forum have no problem with it.

Pollution is our greatest enemy.

[ishaneferguson]

4. An added advantage of nuke

We don't have to "project (military) power" to protect Black Sea or Caspian Sea, or ME, Central Asian sources of oil, or guard sea lanes to protect super tankers.

[bananas]

6. We'll have to project military power to protect uranium supplies instead

[Nederland]

16. You are correct

After all, Canada (28% of world uranium production) and Australia (23%) are unstable totalitarian regimes in need of US military protection.

:eyes:

[ishaneferguson]

21. You never know about Rene Levesque and Parti Quebecois

(I think Levesque died a long time ago).

But, the uranium is in Saskatchewan. I worked there, and Saskatchewan is politically to the right of San Francisco (I still keep my Saskatchewan Chartered Professional Engineer license alive ;-) ) My hang out in Regina was Golf's Steak House -- elegant and the food (Steaks and fish) is fantastic.

[ishaneferguson]

20. Not the geology or (re) processing

I learned in college.

[Kennah]

24. I tend to support nuclear after reading "Revenge of Gaia", but ...

... I also tend to agree with Dr. James Lovelock about the dire state in which our planet finds itself.

Nuclear isn't a panacea, it might be the only thing which saves us, even if it kills a buncha people, which I think it will. However, I think without nuclear, a whole buncha more people are going to die.

This might be proof there is no gravity.

[caraher]

31. What's interesting to me is where nuclear ends up with kristopher's numbers

The OP calculated nuclear based on 4,000 deaths at Chernobyl and basically nothing else. If we up that to 240,000 that gives about 60 * 0.04 = 2.4. Add in his post #8 figure of 0.7 deaths/TWh from the fuel chain that puts us at 3.1 deaths/TWh. That's still below the figure for every form of baseload power other than hydro.

I think the article in the OP lowballed the deaths from nuclear, but even accepting far higher estimates nuclear still compares quite favorably to fossil fuels.

[GliderGuider]

35. Even when you take Chinese coal mining out of the equation it still looks fine.

I don't actually think it's reasonable to factor in either Banqaio or Chernobyl. But no matter how you slice it or dice it, nuclear is safer than coal by a very wide margin.

[kristopher]

38. Any way you slice it nuclear is far, far LESS SAFE than renewables.

[Nederland]

44. Unless you slice it using numbers from the OP

You reject the OP numbers because you think they fail to accurately assess the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. You do this because when having to choose between numbers produced by an international organization that has absolutely no stake in the nuclear power debate (the World Health Organization) and numbers produced by an advocacy group that explicitly opposes nuclear power, you believe the latter is more accurate. Is that a fair summary?

[Dead_Parrot]

32. You're going to hell for this, you know...

;)

[GliderGuider]

34. I know, but what a trip!

:party:

[eppur_se_muova]

37. Hell has all the cool musicians, but ...

someday Cheney will move in, and try to take over.

[Kennah]

45. Second Circle has the easy girls ...

... while the un-masturbation crowd will end up in the Eighth (Fraud) or Ninth Circle (Treachery). However, Satan might have already opened up a Tenth Circle for all the Dicks: Dick Nixon, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, George Dubya Bush (since he has a Dick brain), and Karl Rove (the Dick in Bush's brain).

[NNadir]

55. So Jerry Garcia dies, and shows up in the afterlife. First person he meets is Jimi Hendrix.

Next he runs into John Lennon. He looks over and there's Duane Allman tuning his guitar, sitting next to Stevie Ray Vaughn.

He turns to the guy next to him, Frank Zappa and says, "This is it! I've gone to Rock and Roll Heaven."

Zappa looks at him and says, "Who said anything about heaven?"

Just then Karen Carpenter comes out and yells, "All right guys, breaks over! Take seventeen thousand, seven hundred and twelve!!!! 'Close to you!'"

Well, um, I guess you had to be there.

[eppur_se_muova]

39. Except for natural gas being lower than biomass, this is about what I expected.

I kind of wonder whether every death due to home gas explosions was factored in. They likely wouldn't be counted as "industrial" accidents, and so could fall through the sieve.

[flamin lib]

42. Hey, Glider, keep on keepin' on. Facts are stuborn things and

will eventuality win out.

Ignore the unrecs and the naysayers. Like the climate change deniers, flat Earthers and creationists they will someday see the error of their ways or slip into obscurity.

Me, I likes me some dispassionate information.

[GliderGuider]

43. Thanks!

My motto is "Non Illegitimati Carborundum" :thumbsup:

[guardian]

46. But don't we WANT a lot of people to die?

I keep seeing people in this forum constantly saying how we need to decrease the number of filthy human on the planet in order to save the planet. I imagine the carbon footprint of dead people is less than that of the living.

MALTHUS LIVES!!

no pressure

[GliderGuider]

52. Everybody's going to die eventually no matter what we do.

It would be nice if they weren't all immediately replaced, but that has nothing to do with the relative safety of energy sources.

[NNadir]

47. All well and good, but the gold standard for these things is...

...found in Mark V. Jacobson's paper.

The writer of the paper you've cited is obviously a cryptofascist and sooner or later, Mark V. Jacobson will be cited to tell you why.

[joshcryer]

49. Wow, epic troll win for you GG.

Good job.