BUT should you account for them, nuclear is still the safest, as according to this list†, solar, wind and hydro still carry higher deaths per quantity of energy produced.
SOURCE DEATHS PER PWh
——————————————————— ——————————————
Hydro (global) 1,400
Wind (UK) <1,000
Solar – rooftop 440
Wind 150
Nuclear (global) 90
Hydro (US) 5
Nuclear (US) 0.01
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushim...
You can't have a informed conclusion without reading the entire article. That said, it clearly states in the 2nd paragraph that the assessment is for energy types with the lowest negative health impact, with comparison limited to currently dominant sources including nuclear and not renewable types like wind or solar.
It clearly states the parameters of discussion and titled the report according to the conclusion. They found that nuclear is safest major energy source They never blankly stated that "Nuclear is safest compared to everything else" and to claim that, especially without even reading the entire thing is ludicrous.
1: https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/bioenergy/
2. Hydro power generation is only second to coal in the number of people it killed. [1]
3. Hydro power generation is complete hell on the environment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...
Pumped storage is in the grand scheme of things horrendously inefficient in essentially any metric one cares about (energy efficiency, capacity per size, capacity for cost...).
Wind is hanging rapidly rotating turbines on thin shafts 100-200 meter off the ground. Are you seriously going to claim installing and maintaining those things is a safe occupation ? They are referred to as grinders, which relates to what happens to a technician who trips while inside the machine room (which is tiny and suspended 100m off of the ground, the gears are exposed, so you can imagine exactly what happened to get the name grinders).
Likewise, most solar is rooftop solar. Rooftop solar ? That is essentially placing large and heavy glass slabs high up in the air on sloping surfaces. Likewise, if I had that job, I might neglect to mention it to my life insurance, as this is not a particularly safe occupation either.
> "While the negative health impacts of modern renewable energy technologies are so far thought to be small, they have been less fully explored."
Installations for both power sources are demanding a steady stream of human life, as is extracting the materials needed for construction of either wind or solar power. Construction of them is powered by coal (in the case of wind turbines by necessity, as coking is still how we produce steel). Also: China's mines are deathtraps, this is a LOT of human lives.
> Maybe in the short term nuclear does kill fewer people, in the short term compared to recent history. If nuclear plants are maintained safely - thats a pretty big if - and no other disasters befall a plant, maybe there current status is true.
As can be seen, even if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear is still safer than most other forms of power. But that's a bit like chalking kills by a soldier that takes a nightlight powered by solar battery up to solar power.
For obvious reasons, any power source can easily be turned into a weapon.
Another thing to think about is that with solar roofs becoming a thing (there are more companies in this market than just Tesla), the additional risk associated with rooftop solar could be seen as "zero", since houses need to install a roof anyway.
But yes, your larger point that renewables aren't risk free is valid and correct.
For example, the pebble bed reactor system eliminates the risk of a meltdown by no longer storing spent fuel in rods; it also makes the process for extracting fuel significantly more efficient. Presently we can only extract about 4% of energy contained in nuclear materials, with a PBR system the "pebbles" stay in circulation for longer, meaning we can extract more energy and pursue new designs that could ingratiate these systems into our cities without the catastrophic risks we face today.
The more people focus on this technology, the better it will get. But we can't improve if we don't try.
Nuclear accident badness is massively overplayed by the media.
Chernobyl was a huge fucking disaster that killed people and had a huge negative impact on many people's lives. You don't get to minimize that just because a nearby reactor kept running.
There are some places where nuclear makes more sense -- on a spacecraft, for instance -- but in most worldly cases it is no longer a competitive option.