If one tries to quantify the value of those deaths, using the "statistical value of a human life" (somewhere around $12M/death), one finds in the case of both wind/solar and nuclear, using those numbers, the value of those lives contributes negligibly to the cost of energy. This is unlike with coal.

This means that in choosing between solar/wind and nuclear, one cannot use the deaths/TWh to choose between them unless they are almost dead even in other costs (and they are not).

▲

amarant 2 days ago | parent [-]

Aye, but with the amount of coal plants still running, I think the choice is between solar+nuclear or solar+coal

I don't think anyone is arguing nuclear instead of solar. It's both. We need both.

	▲	pfdietz 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, I don't think we need both. In particular, building new nuclear plants would be worse than just putting all that money into renewables + storage. The latter displaces fossil fuels more quickly and more cheaply.