Re: Re: Summary A

[Kevin C Houston <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>]

Kelly:
> > >Normal stuff, falls, smashing glass, electrical shorts, etc...  Solar
> > >requires a lot of hands on work out of doors.  It has one of the highest
> > >labor overhead rates of major power systems.  So a lot of folks get hurt.
>  I
> > >think about 10-20 times as much as coal or nukes.  Also solar has thermal

This is not fair comparison at all! >:-(  
Kelly, you are comparing apples and oranges.  Plus I think you have 
mis-stated the accident rate by a factor of at least 10.

you can't compare solar collectors (PV) with a coal or nuclear power 
plant, unless you also consider the accident rate from transmission 
lines, substations, PCBs (in the transformers) etc.  Most power lines are 
above the height of most roofs, and when a solar collector gets knocked 
down in a storm, you don't have to worry about getting electrocuted.  I 
know three different houses in the south-western Wisconsin area that are 
using PV (photovoltaic) systems because they are too remote from a power 
line.  I even helped with the installation on one house.  according to 
your 10-20 times higher accident rate, I should have fallen off that roof 
at least once.  out of five people (yes, it is a labor intensive tech) 
not one accident occured (discounting one guy who hit his thumb with a 
hammer -- not hard)  I can beleive that solar has an accident rate 1-2 
times higher than coal or nuke, but the types of accident are far far 
smaller.  Falling off a roof is nothing compared to being killed in a 
mine collapse, or getting cancer because the power company decides that 
paying the health and court costs of the two guys who get cancer is far 
cheaper than paying for adequate safety equipment (and besides, you might 
be able to show that the cancer came because they were smokers, and then 
you don't have to pay anything except lawyer fees -- FEH!)  BTW, I'm 
talking about the fuel processing workers, not the actual powerplant 
workers.  While it is true that making the solar cells can be hazardous 
(all the more so because people just don't respect hydroflouric acid 
like they respect/fear uranium) the accidents are not in the same league.

> > Hmmm, no luck then unless solar panels are build in at the same time the
> > house is constructed. (I assume that if everyone had it's own generator, a
> > similar rate of accidents would be the case)
> 
> No actually.  Since solar collector requirer you to do more repairs on the
> roof, you have more serious falls (and leaky roofs).  Gas generators would

Only one of the 3 houses I have seen had Solar collectors on the roof.  
The other two had a large piece of plywood stuck on a pole out in the 
middle of the back-yard.  that pole was about head-high, and about four 
by eight feet (1.3 by 2.6 meters)  Granted that was in the country, where 
land is easily available, I'm sure that in a city, you would want to be 
on the roof.

> > >to get past political problems.  In my old neighbor hood in Wisconson the
> > >folks chased out a Nuke in favor of a coal plant and thought themselves

Where in Wisconsin are you from?

Kevin

P.S. Sorry for the confrontational tone, but I see you repeating the 
standard power company line, and i know that it is false.  Solar may not 
be the safest, the cheapest, or the cleanest,  but the reasons for this 
have nothing to do with the technology, only with the politics and 
regulations.  It not the safest, because the people installing the 
systems are usually inexperienced (solvable problem) it is not the 
cheapest because the true costs of coal and oil are not being accounted 
for (resource depletion and pollution) it is not the cleanest, because 
making the solar cells themselves require many dangerous chemicals, but 
once the cells are made, they are clean.  so all the pollution can be 
confined to the factory that made the cells, where it can be treated and 
disposed of by professionals, not just blown into the air for the next 
country/state to deal with.