Reply #15: No solar, but as a starting point here is some analysis on wind coal and nuclear

[kristopher]

The meaning of results: Comparative risk assessments of energy options
Wilson, R; Holland, M; Rabl, A; Dreicer, M
IAEA Bulletin , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 14-18, 1999
Significant progress has been made in both the development of the techniques of comparative risk assessment, and in the
use and interpretation of their results. This is particularly so for the assessment of options for electricity generation and
transport. The results have become a useful aid to decision-making, though they often need to be integrated with other
social, political, and economic issues before any decision may be made. The main controversies for comparative risk
assessment concern global warming for fossil fuels; catastrophic accidents, particularly for nuclear and large hydropower
plants; and high-level radioactive waste disposal. These issues involve technical and complex social and political questions.
However, comparative risk assessment should provide information in a transparent manner so the limitations and strengths of
results are correctly understood.

http://www.informaworld.com/index /02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf


The number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain varies widely according to the study, but ExterneE is widely reconginzed and it arrives at 2.6 deaths/TWh excluding major accidents (see remark below on accidents).



For wind we have a good accounting by Paul Gipe, (2006, 2009) who 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


One of the most significant issues, however, 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."

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261466