🚀 go-pugleaf

"wmbjk" <wmbjk@ctaz.com> wrote in message
news:0q8%4.329$N25.66881@news-west.eli.net...
>
> "Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
> news:g6__4.7693$F9.265459@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> >
> > - pretty much everything carries some risk, and I'm not
> > suggesting that you NOT put panels on the roof--simply that you consider
> > that we might well end up with a technology that results in greater
injury
> > and death than many of the alternatives.
> >
>
> Not trying to make (too much) fun of your argument there Murray, but
> consider this.
>
> If they ramp up production of "neighborhood nuke plants", how many people
> will sustain injury or death lugging heavy bundles of paper work to
lawyers'
> offices?
>
> As for all those plummeting PV installers, we're trying to keep that a
> secret. Now that sales are increasing, it's getting harder and harder to
get
> all of our club members to keep their mouths shut. My best advice is to
> listen closely when walking by any tall building owned by an energy
> conscious person. If you hear a sound like "Aaaaaahhhh!", DUCK and COVER!
> :-)
>

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.