(→About the big differences: new section) |
m (→Disagreement) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Re ''E.g. that a risk of solar power is "Electricians working on Solar installations also can face additional risks because functioning solar panels are producing live current as long as they are in sunlight." It would be silly to say that one of the risks of a natural gas fired power plant is people working on power lines could be electrocuted from it.'' The two are not equivalent. Power lines from a natural gas plant do not carry power unless (A) the lines are connected and (B) the plant is operating. It would be appropriate to find more detail about the risks - how serious it is and how to avoid it. | Re ''E.g. that a risk of solar power is "Electricians working on Solar installations also can face additional risks because functioning solar panels are producing live current as long as they are in sunlight." It would be silly to say that one of the risks of a natural gas fired power plant is people working on power lines could be electrocuted from it.'' The two are not equivalent. Power lines from a natural gas plant do not carry power unless (A) the lines are connected and (B) the plant is operating. It would be appropriate to find more detail about the risks - how serious it is and how to avoid it. | ||
:All modern inverters (for PV) have auto safety features so if there is no power on the line - no power from the PV feeds back into the grid - so it is exactly the same as a natural gas plant or any other kind of power plant. --[[User:Fixer|Fixer]] 04:24, 8 June 2012 (PDT) | |||
Re "reads like semiliterate anti-renewable propaganda" - note that coal power ranges from 34 to 365 more deadly than rooftop solar according to these estimates, and that additional risks of nuclear are listed. | Re "reads like semiliterate anti-renewable propaganda" - note that coal power ranges from 34 to 365 more deadly than rooftop solar according to these estimates, and that additional risks of nuclear are listed. | ||
Revision as of 11:24, 8 June 2012
Disagreement
A {{delete}} tag was placed on the page with this comment by an anon user:
This is largely unverified pseudo science-it reads like semiliterate anti-renewable propaganda not really appropriate for appropedia. E.g. that a risk of solar power is "Electricians working on Solar installations also can face additional risks because functioning solar panels are producing live current as long as they are in sunlight." It would be silly to say that one of the risks of a natural gas fired power plant is people working on power lines could be electrocuted from it. Electricians working on anything that produces electrical power need to be careful.
I've moved it here and left a {{disagreement}} tag instead. If the page is inadequate or wrong, it should be improved. It's an important topic and needs to be covered. Also note that there's already a prominent warning that the calculations are unverified.
Re E.g. that a risk of solar power is "Electricians working on Solar installations also can face additional risks because functioning solar panels are producing live current as long as they are in sunlight." It would be silly to say that one of the risks of a natural gas fired power plant is people working on power lines could be electrocuted from it. The two are not equivalent. Power lines from a natural gas plant do not carry power unless (A) the lines are connected and (B) the plant is operating. It would be appropriate to find more detail about the risks - how serious it is and how to avoid it.
- All modern inverters (for PV) have auto safety features so if there is no power on the line - no power from the PV feeds back into the grid - so it is exactly the same as a natural gas plant or any other kind of power plant. --Fixer 04:24, 8 June 2012 (PDT)
Re "reads like semiliterate anti-renewable propaganda" - note that coal power ranges from 34 to 365 more deadly than rooftop solar according to these estimates, and that additional risks of nuclear are listed.
Please feel free to improve the article, and/or mark specific claims with the {{fact}} tag, and/or make a more specific and detailed critique here. --Chriswaterguy 15:07, 6 June 2012 (PDT)
About the big differences
Just looking at the difference between nuclear and coal, two points to note:
- I don't know how accurate the figures are, though - they might be relying on low-end estimates for highly fuzzy figures around the impact of Chernobyl.
- It does seem plausible that conventional coal power is vastly more deadly than other forms of energy. When operating normally, coal supposedly released more radioactive material into the atmosphere per unit energy than nuclear power does - which makes complete sense because a properly operating fossil-fuel operated power plant emits the waste products of the fuel into the atmosphere, whereas nuclear power doesn't. This is likely to change with (controversially named) clean coal technology. Even when the emphasis is on carbon capture and storage, other pollutants generally need to be removed before the carbon dioxide can be removed, especially the corrosive acid gases, NOx and SO2. --Chriswaterguy 23:26, 7 June 2012 (PDT)