🚀 go-pugleaf

It's more dangerous to install a concrete cooling tower than install a pv
panel. I have installed pv panels (most are not done on roofs, but on yard
mounted trackers) and even wind machines (much more dangerous).  Some people
will die, just getting into their truck to get to the job site. Shit
happens.

--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--

"Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
news:MfG%4.10179$F9.322783@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@webconx.com> wrote in message
> news:yIB%4.115736$R4.705059@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > how many people die shingling roofs? maybe we should stop shingling?
>
> Steve, did you actually read my post below, or are you trolling?  May I
> excerpt?
>
> "Labour statistics and common sense tell us that some occupations are
> riskier than others, and I have NO objection to the existence of these
jobs,
> assuming all applicable standards are met."
>
> "But if you start installing PV panels en masse across the country, some
> people will die as a result.  That's a fact.  It's quite possible that
more
> deaths will result than those due to other energy technologies, such as
gas
> or nuclear.  We may, as a democracy, judge that the benefits are worth it.
> That's OK, too."
>
> Now, the question I asked was this:  When evaluating competing energy
> technologies, why not apply the same assessment criteria to all?  Why
> concentrate on the risks of one, while ignoring the risks of another?
>
> Do you have something to add?
>
>
> > >
> > > Very droll, but I'm still in the dark about why you use different
> criteria
> > > to assess the merits of different energy systems.  Maybe it's just my
> > > reductionist engineering outlook, but I have this feeling that to do
so
> is
> > > not intellectually honest.  I mean, I understand the visceral
attraction
> > of
> > > solar and wind power:  more "natural" and local, and so on, but it's
not
> a
> > > great base for public policy.
> > >
> > > I'll repeat:  Labour statistics and common sense tell us that some
> > > occupations are riskier than others, and I have NO objection to the
> > > existence of these jobs, assuming all applicable standards are met.
> I've
> > > worked in a few myself, machine shops, large factories, restaurants
and
> so
> > > on.
> > >
> > > But if you start installing PV panels en masse across the country,
some
> > > people will die as a result.  That's a fact.  It's quite possible that
> > more
> > > deaths will result than those due to other energy technologies, such
as
> > gas
> > > or nuclear.  We may, as a democracy, judge that the benefits are worth
> it.
> > > That's OK, too.  But can you answer this:  Why are those hypothetical
> > deaths
> > > less important than the hypothetical deaths due to nuclear or gas
> energy?
> > > If you think these deaths are less important, would you like to
explain
> > your
> > > reasoning to the surviving family members?
> > >
> > > If you get a chance, read "Energy Risk Assessment" by Herbert Inhaber.
> > > Published in the early 80's, it's still informative today.  Inhaber
> takes
> > a
> > > rather comprehensive approach to evaluating the risks due to different
> > > energy systems, looking at resource extraction, manufacture and
> > > construction, maintenance, and employment risks.  I can't remember if
he
> > > looks at deaths to pollution.  He also has a section in the back in
> which
> > he
> > > reprints criticisms of his work and either rebuts them or modifies his
> > > methodology.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>