Tell a lie, a little lie…actually tell a great big whopper

The left wing like to tell lies. Big lies.

Danyl McLauchlin is no different. With his post about energy deaths he tells a lie, but buries the lie inside a bit of truth. He posts the following image:

The infographic is true, it comes from here. But then Danyl tells the lie, and it is quite a whopper. I’d point it out in his comments but he deletes every comment I make there. Another nice left wing trick, suppression of information they don’t like. Still, Danyl tells the lie:

The fatality rate of renewable sources like wind and hydro aren’t included, but they’re smaller than nuclear by a significant margin.

Sure they aren’t included in the infographic but the stats are included at the link and as you can see Danyl has lied big time. Renewables are included, even hydro and wind (bold) and they are in fact larger than nuclear by a significant margin.

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

So despite Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear energy remains the safest and ironically the greenest source of energy known to man. But Danyl didn’t want you to know that, he preferred to tell a lie.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • grizz

    I am intrigued to know how wind power killed people. However, naturally occuring wind has killed many over the years. I want to know what is considered a death. The stories of deaths during construction of Hydro dams, such as the Hoover dam, Manapouri tailrace tunnel and the 3 Gorges Dam have been championed. Are other things considered such as dam failures and burstings. What about mismanagement of the dam near Brisbane which arguably contributed to the recent floods and deaths in the Brisbane area.

  • mediatart

    Grizz, the Brisbane dam isnt used for energy production, it was flood protection and water supply.
    I would think building wind turbines, many at remote spots would lead to a few deaths.
    A better measure is not to include deaths ‘during construction’, which is what Dimwitt probably means.
    After all many people are killed building bridges, houses, laying drains.
    The best comparison is deaths during operation or production of fuel supply.

    Then there is the saving of lives, electricity saves lives when used for domestic purposes as opposed to say kerosene based cooking or wood fires for heating.
    ( BTW the earthquake has fixed Christchurches smog problem, as the majority of remaining old chimneys were removed in 25seconds!)

    • “I would think build­ing wind tur­bines, many at remote spots would lead to a few deaths.”

      Sure, unless you count the deaths from poisoning of those poor Chinese who are unlucky enough to live near the massive tailings lakes from the Rare Earth processing plants.

      “The best com­par­i­son is deaths dur­ing oper­a­tion or pro­duc­tion of fuel supply.”

      Completely agree. This is the measure which comes closest to being relevant in this irrelevant debate.

  • lordmontrose

    It’s not right to include deaths from hydro dam and nuclear failures in countries such as Russia and China. If you are a Westerner considering sources of power, you would use engineers in your own country who are somewhat more competent. Granted, the Yanks and Brits have had the odd failures, but not as big.

    If you had faith in Russian and Chinese engineers you’d be driving a Russian or Chinese car, wouldn’t you? I include Japan as competent as Westerners, but note that their reactors that have just fallen to bits were made about the time the Datsun Bluebird was released to the world. I’m not driving one of those either!

    • mediatart

      lordM, the japanese reactor was a GE design !
      Thats a bit hard on GE as they werent the ones that put the backup power supply behind the tsunami sea wall, which wasnt high enough and also kept the spent fuel rods on site .
      Plus it was Japanese stupidity which lead to the ‘escalation’ of mistakes, they cant even seem to read radiation meters properly, continually be out by a factor of 1000

  • chiefsfan73

    Its exactly this sort of misinformation which is killing the nuclear debate here in Australia. With a huge supply of raw materials and acres of space to dispose of waste, nuclear is the clearly smart way for Australia to meet its growing energy needs, but the flat earthers want us so desperately back in the dark ages, Fukashima was all their xmas come at once.

    Little is said by the leftist propaganda machine of the cost per kWh comparison between wind, solar and nuclear, let alone the human cost. How quickly they jump to the scare mongering around nuclear, praying on the ignorance of the general public. I for one wonder how many thousands of years it will take for the Fukashima plant to kill as many people as the Tsunami wiped out.

    When faced with a choice between cheap energy, common sense falls pray to propaganda. Coal power will heat the earth to an apocalyptic furnace, and nuclear will have us all eating blinky the three eyed fish, while scratching th itchy nipple protruding from our left kneecap.

    Screw the Pinko greens and their lunatic labour mates.

  • pidge

    I had an utterly depressing conversation with my father-in-law last night. Basically it boiled down to – “Yes, Nuclear is great, but there are too many f*ck-ups running the the plants to trust the long-term reliablity of the plant and its design, and storage of the waste”. If it was competent, un-corruptable people, who were uncompromising on safety running it, he’d be happy. Alas, they’re not (see the critical mass accident at the re-processing facility in Japan – which was a case of not following the instructions to only put so much material in a container, and only allow the containers to be so close together – or they go boom)

  • davidw

    Tart, manipulating the accident rate during construction purely to bias the outcome to suit your argument is ludicrous. It would be like discounting the accidents occurring during digging a mine and only count those which occur during the extraction of coal. Or probably more perinent we should be adding back the accident and debilitation rate that is occuring during the mining and processing of rare earths which are used to make the supermagnets and special batteries so loved by Prius drivers.

  • redbaiter
59%