Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Of course in dollars.
Who knows what happened to human life after tens of years?

If one is poisoned by coal products for one or two years and moved away from the area afterwards. He died 20 years later due to some kind of disease. Is he killed by the coal pollution? Of course eclipsenow would love to count him in.

And how do we know that we can count that out? Therein lies the rub IMO when trying to talk about the "costs" of various energy sources. The cost in terms of human life and disease is demonstrably higher with respect to coal, and other fossil fuel power sources than nuclear energy, or renewable forms of energy. IMO that issue alone warrants a change over to "less hostile" (to human life) forms of energy. Add in the fact that fossil fuels will eventually run out, and we're going to need new energy sources sooner or later, it only makes sense IMO to redouble our efforts to making nuclear energy safer, and investing in renewable energy technologies rather than continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.

Ultimately some people survived the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki too, and lived to be quite old too. That doesn't demonstrate that nuclear radiation is "safe", does it?

Likewise if we apply the same standard to the topic of other toxins that individuals are exposed to in their lives, we should be able to agree that just because some people are less effected than others, that we can ignore the heath problems it creates for others.

Over the long haul it simply makes more sense to retrofit our existing nuclear infrastructure with "safer" designs that don't 'blow up' simply because the power goes off. That's not acceptable anymore, not in this day and age. Once we get a good design up and running, it makes sense to begin to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, and move toward safer (to humans) forms of energy.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And how do we know that we can count that out? Therein lies the rub IMO when trying to talk about the "costs" of various energy sources. The cost in terms of human life and disease is demonstrably higher with respect to coal, and other fossil fuel power sources than nuclear energy, or renewable forms of energy. IMO that issue alone warrants a change over to "less hostile" (to human life) forms of energy. Add in the fact that fossil fuels will eventually run out, and we're going to need new energy sources sooner or later, it only makes sense IMO to redouble our efforts to making nuclear energy safer, and investing in renewable energy technologies rather than continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.

Theoretically, I may agree with you on that.

But, as I emphasized several times in this thread, practically, it is not going to happen until the price of fossil fuel become alarmingly high. That is how human is. I am sorry about that.

If an atheist didn't see God, he won't believe in God. If people do not see coal killed people like a bomb did, they are not going to believe coal can really kill when they need the money. I am slightly better. I believe coal may kill some. But I don't think coal along can do the killing as it is shown in the statistics.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Theoretically, I may agree with you on that.

But, as I emphasized several times in this thread, practically, it is not going to happen until the price of fossil fuel become alarmingly high. That is how human is. I am sorry about that.

That's a little callous towards human life and human health from my perspective, as well as a tad naive. As the world grows, the pollution will become much worse if we simply replicate the existing systems. If however we begin to build safe nuclear technology that actually *discourages* the building of weapons grade uranium, is much safer, and non polluting to the atmosphere, it solves a myriad of problems. The world is free to grow and use energy without polluting ourselves off the planet, and the rest of the world is free to catch up to our level of energy consumption at no risk to the planet, or ourselves.

Fossil fuels are not a good long term energy strategy in a growing population scenario. We must begin to listen to the wisdom of Buckminster Fuller when he talked about spaceship Earth. We do in fact live within a relatively sealed environment and we must all breath the same air. I want my grandchildren to breathe fresh air and live long lives. Don't you?

If an atheist didn't see God, he won't believe in God. If people do not see coal killed people like a bomb did, they are not going to believe coal can really kill when they need the money. I am slightly better. I believe coal may kill some. But I don't think coal along can do the killing as it is shown in the statistics.

I'd say that basic problem at the moment is that people still have an irrational fear of nuclear energy, and aren't aware of the benefits of Thorium molten salt reactors as it relates to nuclear safety issues. If they were better educated on nuclear radiation, they'd already understand that people living in Denver receive more radiation than someone still living in Fukushima today. We get dosed really good when we get on airplanes too. Radiation isn't any worse or any better than any other toxin as far any anyone knows, and actually radiation is 'natural' and we get some amount of it every single day of our lives. I think the real problem is that most people do not really appreciate that fact, instead they seem to think that even the smallest increase in radiation instantly causes cancer in every individual. It's really an irrational fear without any scientific merit.

The whole argument comes down to one simply fact from my perspective. The clock is already ticking in terms of fossil fuels. They will eventually run out. It's really a matter of planning for that eventuality, and taking steps now to protect ourselves from returning to the stone age when the fossil fuel finally runs out.

The bonus is we get fresher, cleaner air to breath, and safer nuclear energy systems to boot. It's a bonus all the way around.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That's a little callous towards human life and human health from my perspective, as well as a tad naive. As the world grows, the pollution will become much worse if we simply replicate the existing systems. If however we begin to build safe nuclear technology that actually *discourages* the building of weapons grade uranium, is much safer, and non polluting to the atmosphere, it solves a myriad of problems. The world is free to grow and use energy without polluting ourselves off the planet, and the rest of the world is free to catch up to our level of energy consumption at no risk to the planet, or ourselves.

Would the exhausted nuclear fuel rods be a problem? If we can send them into the space, then I would feel much better on the nuclear energy.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Would the exhausted nuclear fuel rods be a problem? If we can send them into the space, then I would feel much better on the nuclear energy.

Actually thorium reactors can use the waste products of our current system, and use a far greater percentage of the existing materials as the catalyst for the nuclear reactor. It actually burns through our current waste products and uses them more efficiently.

The only reason that we use the reactors that we use today is because we were intent on building nuclear weapons by the thousands, and our current systems are designed around that concept.

Even the Thorium reactor design was a military project that was intent on stuffing a nuclear reactor into an airplane. :)

They realized that wasn't an ideal concept (fortunately), but they did come up with a much safer way to create a nuclear generator. The whole concept was tested and it functioned as expected. It's *far* safer than the systems we currently use, and we should use those type of reactors and phase out the "made for war" variety.

In short, it's time to beat our swords into plowshares. :)
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
They realized that wasn't an ideal concept (fortunately), but they did come up with a much safer way to create a nuclear generator. The whole concept was tested and it functioned as expected. It's *far* safer than the systems we currently use, and we should use those type of reactors and phase out the "made for war" variety.

In short, it's time to beat our swords into plowshares. :)

How many new nuclear power plant constructed today is the molten salt type in contrast to other less safe types?
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Wow. Coal costs America a lot.
A lot!

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal (US) Paul R. Epstein, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009 The external costs of coal are calculated to add 18 cents per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity in the USA. This means the true cost may be as high as 27 cents per kilowatt hour. ”We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, [3] and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive.” onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2010.05890.x/full​
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
How many new nuclear power plant constructed today is the molten salt type in contrast to other less safe types?

All of the nuclear power plants that are in service today are built around the "less safe" design. The government only invested in one MSR type thorium reactor, and when they pulled the plug on the reactor, that was it. Currently our entire nuclear infrastructure is built around the idea of creating bombs, not the concept of providing the 'safest" possible form of nuclear energy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
All of the nuclear power plants that are in service today are built around the "less safe" design. The government only invested in one MSR type thorium reactor, and when they pulled the plug on the reactor, that was it. Currently our entire nuclear infrastructure is built around the idea of creating bombs, not the concept of providing the 'safest" possible form of nuclear energy.

Why did they stop? We have enough bombs, haven't we? Why not even build one of it?
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Why did they stop? We have enough bombs, haven't we? Why not even build one of it?
Short answer: the military already knew uranium and how to work with it, and thorium was pretty much unknown.
Long answer: Even though Weinberg invented the Light Water Reactor (one of the most common reactors today), he was eventually removed from the nuclear industry by a cranky senator that got sick of Weinberg's insistence that there was a far safer way to go. Also, Nixon chipped in and wanted jobs moved to California, and so selected a Fast Breeder program for political gain. He admits publicly in the next video that he didn't do that well in science, and did not really understand what a breeder reactor was, let alone the differences in them!

This Google Tech talk features nuclear engineer Kirk Sorenson explaining what happened to Molten Salt Thorium Reactor funding, and includes video of Nixon deciding to fund the IFR over the MSR.

MORE HISTORY:-
Nixon instead funded the Integral Fast Breeder reactor, which resulted in a very good reactor, the EBR2. It eats nuclear waste and survived a number of tests similar in condition to Fukushima's total power failure!
The EBR2 total power failure tests: from "Pandora's Promise".

The EBR2 burned nuclear waste and worked well for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

INTEGRAL FAST REACTORS (IFR)
The EBR2 was the world's first IFR, and it ran at normal atmospheric pressures. Chernobyl and Fukushima were as bad as they were because of high pressure water. Water reactors run at 150 to 246 atmospheres!
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
High pressure water in a nuclear reactor is not as safe as it could be, and caused Chernobyl and Fukushima. (But even these older technologies have served us far better than coal, saving many millions of lives over the decades!)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...o-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

High pressure water = bad. Nixon funded the fast reactor program that used room pressure coolants, making reactors much safer. As the EBR2 video above shows, they have designed passive safety features that allow the reactor to cool itself. Older reactors like Chernobyl or Fukushima REQUIRE power to cool, newer reactors don't. In fact, they require power to WORK, and will automatically shut themselves down in a power failure, without Homer Simpson having to push a button or anything!

IFR's also have their own tragic story of underfunding. IFR's would have turned America's nuclear waste into about 1,500 years of fuel a and the UK's waste into 500 years of clean energy, but Clinton shut it down in 1994.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
Nevertheless, GE have based their PRISM reactor on the EBR2, and they are ready to build a commercial prototype in the first nation that lets them!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR (MSR)
The IFR's normal room pressure safety advantage comes with one (slight) disadvantage: it uses liquid sodium as a coolant. It's not under pressure, but it's also not chemically stable. It explodes if it hits water. So while the IFR is vastly better than a Light Water Reactor, and a Light Water reactor is thousands of times safer than coal, the IFR is still not the best we can do. The Molten Salt Reactor is, which uses hot liquid salt and is a liquid fuelled reactor that *cannot* melt down, it is already a liquid, and in any power failure the liquid fuel just drains away to a safe drain tank where it automatically cools. In any power failure, gravity takes over. When was the last time gravity failed? ;-)

We could have gone straight to the MSR and avoided Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Decades ago, JFK toured the MSR (there's Weinberg on his right.) But sadly, fate had other ideas, and we end up in a world dominated by climate change and coal's mercury poisoning and coal's radioactive fly ash waste in our lungs! Kirk Sorenson unpacks the full story of why Weinberg was side-lined in the very first video above.
jfk-and-the-msr.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Short answer: the military already knew uranium and how to work with it, and thorium was pretty much unknown.
Long answer: Even though Weinberg invented the Light Water Reactor (one of the most common reactors today), he was eventually removed from the nuclear industry by a cranky senator that got sick of Weinberg's insistence that there was a far safer way to go. Also, Nixon chipped in and wanted jobs moved to California, and so selected a Fast Breeder program for political gain. He admits publicly in the next video that he didn't do that well in science, and did not really understand what a breeder reactor was, let alone the differences in them!

This Google Tech talk features nuclear engineer Kirk Sorenson explaining what happened to Molten Salt Thorium Reactor funding, and includes video of Nixon deciding to fund the IFR over the MSR.

MORE HISTORY:-
Nixon instead funded the Integral Fast Breeder reactor, which resulted in a very good reactor, the EBR2. It eats nuclear waste and survived a number of tests similar in condition to Fukushima's total power failure!
The EBR2 total power failure tests: from "Pandora's Promise".

The EBR2 burned nuclear waste and worked well for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

INTEGRAL FAST REACTORS (IFR)
The EBR2 was the world's first IFR, and it ran at normal atmospheric pressures. Chernobyl and Fukushima were as bad as they were because of high pressure water. Water reactors run at 150 to 246 atmospheres!
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
High pressure water in a nuclear reactor is not as safe as it could be, and caused Chernobyl and Fukushima. (But even these older technologies have served us far better than coal, saving many millions of lives over the decades!)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...o-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

High pressure water = bad. Nixon funded the fast reactor program that used room pressure coolants, making reactors much safer. As the EBR2 video above shows, they have designed passive safety features that allow the reactor to cool itself. Older reactors like Chernobyl or Fukushima REQUIRE power to cool, newer reactors don't. In fact, they require power to WORK, and will automatically shut themselves down in a power failure, without Homer Simpson having to push a button or anything!

IFR's also have their own tragic story of underfunding. IFR's would have turned America's nuclear waste into about 1,500 years of fuel a and the UK's waste into 500 years of clean energy, but Clinton shut it down in 1994.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
Nevertheless, GE have based their PRISM reactor on the EBR2, and they are ready to build a commercial prototype in the first nation that lets them!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

THE MOLTEN SALT REACTOR (MSR)
The IFR's normal room pressure safety advantage comes with one (slight) disadvantage: it uses liquid sodium as a coolant. It's not under pressure, but it's also not chemically stable. It explodes if it hits water. So while the IFR is vastly better than a Light Water Reactor, and a Light Water reactor is thousands of times safer than coal, the IFR is still not the best we can do. The Molten Salt Reactor is, which uses hot liquid salt and is a liquid fuelled reactor that *cannot* melt down, it is already a liquid, and in any power failure the liquid fuel just drains away to a safe drain tank where it automatically cools. In any power failure, gravity takes over. When was the last time gravity failed? ;-)

We could have gone straight to the MSR and avoided Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Decades ago, JFK toured the MSR (there's Weinberg on his right.) But sadly, fate had other ideas, and we end up in a world dominated by climate change and coal's mercury poisoning and coal's radioactive fly ash waste in our lungs! Kirk Sorenson unpacks the full story of why Weinberg was side-lined in the very first video above.
jfk-and-the-msr.png

You know a lot of nuclear power plant. Thanks.

Back to the OP. Now we know that good thing did not happen but bad thing happened does not only depend on the nature of good or bad of the thing. There are tons of other factors in playing. So, until EVERY conditions turned against the burning of coal, the coal will continuously be burned. Only look at the fatality possibly caused by burning coal is way way not enough to stop it.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You know a lot of nuclear power plant. Thanks.

Back to the OP. Now we know that good thing did not happen but bad thing happened does not only depend on the nature of good or bad of the thing. There are tons of other factors in playing. So, until EVERY conditions turned against the burning of coal, the coal will continuously be burned. Only look at the fatality possibly caused by burning coal is way way not enough to stop it.
Sorry, but 2.6 million people a year is not 'possibly' but INEVITABLY KILLED BY COAL.
Climate change is inevitable due to coal.
Increased public health costs equal to the cost of the coal electricity itself is inevitable with coal.
Lying coal-barons that fund anti-climate science memes going through elderly groups, political groups, and even church groups is inevitable with coal.

If you agree that coal killing 2.6 million people worldwide is BAD, that climate change is BAD, that coal barons 'externalising' the public health costs is BAD, then what are you going to do about it? Are you going to write to your Senator or local rep? Are you going to read up about it all and decide for yourself the best way forward, and then agitate for that? We live in a relatively over-entertained society. Blogging and chatting about these serious matters is the exception, not the rule. So it's up to you. What are you doing about it? I'm doing all I can, but because we live in democracies I need your help. Every little bit counts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but 2.6 million people a year is not 'possibly' but INEVITABLY KILLED BY COAL.
Climate change is inevitable due to coal.
Increased public health costs equal to the cost of the coal electricity itself is inevitable with coal.
Lying coal-barons that fund anti-climate science memes going through elderly groups, political groups, and even church groups is inevitable with coal.

If you agree that coal killing 2.6 million people worldwide is BAD, that climate change is BAD, that coal barons 'externalising' the public health costs is BAD, then what are you going to do about it? Are you going to write to your Senator or local rep? Are you going to read up about it all and decide for yourself the best way forward, and then agitate for that? We live in a relatively over-entertained society. Blogging and chatting about these serious matters is the exception, not the rule. So it's up to you. What are you doing about it? I'm doing all I can, but because we live in democracies I need your help. Every little bit counts.

you are (may be) a scientist. But you ask these questions as a politician.

I can also do that: If you think using pesticide in agriculture and killed 100 (or 10 million) people IS BAD, than do something about it.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
you are (may be) a scientist. But you ask these questions as a politician.

I can also do that: If you think using pesticide in agriculture and killed 100 (or 10 million) people IS BAD, than do something about it.
  1. I'm not a scientist at all, I just read a lot.
  2. I'm doing what any concerned citizen can: I'm spreading awareness.
  3. If you don't believe the statistics I've quoted, then tell me what is behind that?
  4. I've done what I can. Years ago when I had my 'environmental awakening' my boy had cancer, but that didn't stop me forming a group, getting them together and organised, and presenting some material to local NSW politicians. While my kid had cancer.
  5. If you DO accept the statistics, what are you doing about it? Coal barons are making money off the back of the sick and poor, and cooking the planet we rely on. This is all now pretty self evident and not controversial. How does it make you feel? What are you doing about it?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
  1. If you DO accept the statistics, what are you doing about it? Coal barons are making money off the back of the sick and poor, and cooking the planet we rely on. This is all now pretty self evident and not controversial. How does it make you feel? What are you doing about it?

I do not. But I will answer that.

IF I accept the statistics, then what I would do depends on what I want to do. I want to do science instead of politician. So, I would try to eliminate some of the negative effects of burning coal. That is what I will do. In fact, I would do that regardless the statistics, if that is what I like to do.

What I will NOT do is to promote the ban of using coal. I think it is a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I do not. But I will answer that.

IF I accept the statistics, then what I would do depends on what I want to do. I want to do science instead of politician. So, I would try to eliminate some of the negative effects of burning coal. That is what I will do. In fact, I would do that regardless the statistics, if that is what I like to do.

What I will NOT do is to promote the ban of using coal. I think it is a waste of time.
I'm promoting a ban on coal because it causes climate change, costs society double to triple the actual retail price of the electricity, and kills 2.6 million people. These are established facts, and what the world needs is abundant cheap clean electricity, not stinky, costly, deadly coal. But you go ahead and pretend you're a scientist cleaning up coal, that's a nice little daydream. Meanwhile, in the real world, I think I'm done wasting my breath on your little objections because some political ideology of yours is blinding you to the real world, and you haven't said anything substantial in a long time. Goodbye.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"The health burden of coal in Australia due to air pollution was estimated by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering to be $2.6 billion per annum (or $13 per megawatt hour)".....
....6. Air Pollution Economics; Health
Costs of Air Pollution in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region

The NSW Department of Environment and Conservation The total health costs of annual emissions of common ambient air pollutants from all sources in the GMR from 2000 to 2002 were conservatively estimated to be between $1 billion and $8.4 billion per annum. This is equivalent to between 0.4 per cent and 3.4 per cent of gross state product. environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/airpollution05623.pdf [4] This cost cannot be apportioned between electricity generation & other industrial pollution and vehicular pollution but an assumption of half and half distribution would be reasonable.
http://dea.org.au/images/general/How_coal_burns_Aust._-_True_cost_of_burning_coal_04-13.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0