[makeitdouble]

> Its a full footprint measurement.

Nope, I was interested and looked at a few publications compiling it, and as its name says it only takes directly attributed deaths into account. Albeit it will count air pollution and particles from coal operation as leading to deaths. An example of that: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

Of course that number also relies on governments providing the stats, and no gov wants to give accurate numbers on what’s happening with nuclear waste for instance, or water pollution. Even now the JP gov. is in half denial as it would be a further economical catastrophe to fully own it.

A way better number would be the maintenance, healthcare and environmental cost per energy produced, which would put nuclear way behind anything but fossil energy.

[chelical]

Wind and solar numbers should also include amortization for deaths during power outages and deaths caused by peaker plants.

[makeitdouble]

To me that whole notion of “# of deaths by xxxx” is starting to look so absurd. Would we compare fry pans by looking at the number of death per meals cooked ? Even going for a pure lead sprinkled with Teflon flakes pan wouldn’t give us any interesting number by that metrics, and I feel energy production is basically the same.

There needs to be more granularity than “death”, and the numbers need to come from somewhere else than the government also involved in running the plants.