Hacker News Reader

The differences in deaths from (non-accident) nuclear and wind/solar are very small compared to the amount of energy produced. The effect of the statistical value of lives lost is tiny compared to direct differences in energy cost, and so shouldn't have any effect on which is chosen.

This is not the case for coal, where the cost of lives can be substantial.

View on HN

Yes, indeed all are far below the next one (hydro, 1.3, dam failures, I imagine).

And brown coal is sitting pretty at 36+, i.e. ONE THOUSAND times worse than nuclear.

The cost for coal depends a lot on how the emissions are treated, and how deaths from CO2 are calculated. A general problem with the latter is these are global deaths, and foreign lives are valued far below domestic lives. Kind of horrible, but choices on spending illustrate this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com