Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

[eclipsenow]

It depends. $$$ is a big issue. Coal may kill a starved person in 25 years. But he and his family will die in a few weeks without $$$ from the coal industry.

They'll also die even faster if they are drinking dirty water, and even faster if there is cholera in the water, and even faster if they're bleeding out because of a civil war!

When you want to get back to discussing the actual technologies and economics of nuclear power versus coal in those countries that *can* build any energy systems, I'm all ears.

Coal kills 650 times the Chernobyl disaster every year.
Coal is 4 TIMES THE COST of Thorcon!
(Thorcon is HALF the retail cost of coal, and the retail cost of coal is only HALF the actual cost of coal if we include the health impacts.)
So what is a developing nation that is not starving or bleeding out from civil war going to build?
Thorcon, or coal so that they can pay 4 times and watch a continent like Africa kill about a million people a year? India loses 1.5 million people a year to throat and lung cancer from fossil fuel pollution.
It's a simple question: Thorcon, or coal?

 

[juvenissun]

They'll also die even faster if they are drinking dirty water, and even faster if there is cholera in the water, and even faster if they're bleeding out because of a civil war!

When you want to get back to discussing the actual technologies and economics of nuclear power versus coal in those countries that *can* build any energy systems, I'm all ears.

Coal kills 650 times the Chernobyl disaster every year.
Coal is 4 TIMES THE COST of Thorcon!
(Thorcon is HALF the retail cost of coal, and the retail cost of coal is only HALF the actual cost of coal if we include the health impacts.)
So what is a developing nation that is not starving or bleeding out from civil war going to build?
Thorcon, or coal so that they can pay 4 times and watch a continent like Africa kill about a million people a year? India loses 1.5 million people a year to throat and lung cancer from fossil fuel pollution.
It's a simple question: Thorcon, or coal?

Mining coal, burn coal, AND manage the clean up are much simpler works than that to run a nuclear plant.
I would still prefer to burn coal. With 1/10 or even 1/100 of the technology and cost needed for nuclear energy, coal can be used in a very clean way. And it is certainly much much safer than a nuclear plant.

 

[Michael]

Mining coal, burn coal, AND manage the clean up are much simpler works than that to run a nuclear plant.

So for expediency sake we throw away human lives?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/china-air-pollution-harm-study/401315/

I would still prefer to burn coal.

Would you feel that way if you lived in China today and were watching 4000 people a day die from the complications of air pollution as a result of the burning of fossil fuels?

With 1/10 or even 1/100 of the technology and cost needed for nuclear energy, coal can be used in a very clean way. And it is certainly much much safer than a nuclear plant.

You're simply misinformed. Coal isn't "safe" by any stretch of the imagination. It causes all sorts of health problems, including cancers. Nuclear energy isn't killed 4000 people in it's entire history, and yet air pollution kills thousands of people a day.

 

[juvenissun]

So for expediency sake we throw away human lives?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/china-air-pollution-harm-study/401315/

Would you feel that way if you lived in China today and were watching 4000 people a day die from the complications of air pollution as a result of the burning of fossil fuels?

You're simply misinformed. Coal isn't "safe" by any stretch of the imagination. It causes all sorts of health problems, including cancers. Nuclear energy isn't killed 4000 people in it's entire history, and yet air pollution kills thousands of people a day.

YOU are misinformed. Coal can easily be used in a very clean way. The technology is readily available and the cost is much smaller than using any other form of energy.

China? Do you like to see many nuclear plants installed all over the world? Your vision is too narrow and too simple. Electric car is readily available today in US. Why petroleum car is still dominant? The answer to this question is exactly the same to your coal question. No matter how many people would hold your view, coal WILL remain to be a major fuel in the next 200 years.

 

[Michael]

YOU are misinformed. Coal can easily be used in a very clean way. The technology is readily available and the cost is much smaller than using any other form of energy.

Not statistically I'm not misinformed. Fossil fuel use kills *thousands* of people every single day. Nuclear energy doesn't.

China?

It's just an example. Its estimated that fossil fuel pollution kills 4 thousand Chinese per day, every day. That's just *one* country. Extrapolate that number worldwide and it's well over 10 thousand. Admittedly China's air is worse than in the West, but even still, 4 thousand is a lot of people, and that happens *every single day of the year*.

Do you like to see many nuclear plants installed all over the world?

Absolutely! As long as they are molten salt reactors of modern design, I'd be *thrilled*.

Your vision is too narrow and too simple. Electric car is readily available today in US. Why petroleum car is still dominant?

Probably because most folks don't even think about or consider the cost in terms of human lives, and they therefore erroneously believe that fossil fuels are 'cheap'. They aren't cheap when you factor in the loss of human lives, in fact fossil fuel is very expensive in human life. What's a human life worth? Multiply that number by 4000 and that number by 365, and then factor in that cost and tell me it's 'cheaper' than nuclear energy.

The answer to this question is exactly the same to your coal question. No matter how many people would hold your view, coal WILL remain to be a major fuel in the next 200 years.

Unlikely IMO. Coal is particularly filthy in term of pollution. Even natural gas is better. As soon as we get over the fear of nuclear energy, nuclear energy from molten salt reactors will dominate energy production, and electric cars will dominate the auto industry because it actually will be 'cheaper' over the long haul.

People, and particularly Americans are pretty much oblivious to the fact that they are bombarded by radiation on a daily basis, and by much larger amounts every time they step onto an airplane. If you live in Denver you get more radiation on a daily basis than someone that still lives in Fukushima. Denver's cancer rate is actually *lower* than many parts of the country too.

 

[eclipsenow]

I would still prefer to burn coal. With 1/10 or even 1/100 of the technology and cost needed for nuclear energy, coal can be used in a very clean way.

10% of the technology and cost?
Sorry mate, but that's just your opinion, not any actual business case. The reactors I'm presenting in the Thorcon save a significant fraction on the concrete and steel it takes to build them compared to coal. Then there's the fuel! Coal plants burn millions of tons a year! Sorry but once again, you're going to have to justify your opinions with some engineering papers from energy economists.

And it is certainly much much safer than a nuclear plant.

Hmmm, let's see, how does your opinion match reality?

Let’s not forget that coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day! (See Footnote 1)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

Classic George Monbiot quote:

“….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

Coal kills 30,000 Americans a year
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Existing nuclear power in prevents the burning of DEADLY coal, it has already saved 1.8 million lives in America.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...o-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

 

[juvenissun]

.....

10% of the technology and cost?
Sorry mate, but that's just your opinion, not any actual business case. The reactors I'm presenting in the Thorcon save a significant fraction on the concrete and steel it takes to build them compared to coal. Then there's the fuel! Coal plants burn millions of tons a year! Sorry but once again, you're going to have to justify your opinions with some engineering papers from energy economists.

Hmmm, let's see, how does your opinion match reality?

Let’s not forget that coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day! (See Footnote 1)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

Classic George Monbiot quote:

“….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

Coal kills 30,000 Americans a year
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Existing nuclear power in prevents the burning of DEADLY coal, it has already saved 1.8 million lives in America.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...o-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

Primitive and simple things will always exist. Coal is one of them. You may have all kind of reason to hate it. But, just like we always have poor people in the world population, the use of coal WILL last. Of course, unless it is banned from been used. Nevertheless, we can ban it in this country (very unlikely). But the world will never ban it. If people needs to eat food today in knowing the meal will cause him to die one year later, don't you think he will still take the food?

The only thing we can do is to make the mining and the burning of coal clean and safe. It is entirely feasible today.

Again, the statistics of killing are scientifically meaningless. It is only good for politicians.

 

[eclipsenow]

Again, the statistics of killing are scientifically meaningless. It is only good for politicians.

Good for politicians... and the public to thoroughly understand. My experience with the average Australian is that they have no idea about these public health facts. Facts so demonstrable, so measurable, so clear and apparent that they can be graphed like this:

Good for politicians? Yes, if they want to pass a ban on coal in your country! Then we'll be onto a worldwide movement to ban coal use everywhere, and provide everyone with abundant clean power. This would create a worldwide Demographic Transition that would stabilise the world population.

I'm an eco-modernist. I stand for reason, and optimism. I think we have the technology to provide everyone on earth with a convenient, modern lifestyle and conserve nature and biodiversity. The public only lacks the knowledge and education about what is technically possible. With this ignorance of the possible comes a mindset of fear and ignorance around nuclear power when coal is the real killer!

"scientifically meaningless"
Sorry, but there is quite a bit of science that goes on analysing public health data like this. Just asserting it isn't so doesn't prove it isn't so! Do you have anything other than your oft repeated opinion to offer on this subject?
Coal kills and pollutes and cooks the planet.
Nuclear is thousands of times safer, and now it could even prove cheaper.
Let's tell the public, and get them to weigh in on a real political debate next election: how we're going to safely power the future!

 

[juvenissun]

I'm an eco-modernist. I stand for reason, and optimism. I think we have the technology to provide everyone on earth with a convenient, modern lifestyle and conserve nature and biodiversity. The public only lacks the knowledge and education about what is technically possible. With this ignorance of the possible comes a mindset of fear and ignorance around nuclear power when coal is the real killer!

I guess I need to show you some details on how easy could coal be used in a clean and safe way. Interested? Or, you are determined that coal is bad regardless?

 

[eclipsenow]

I guess I need to show you some details on how easy could coal be used in a clean and safe way. Interested? Or, you are determined that coal is bad regardless?

But coal is bad regardless.
Coal has been burned in far fouler ways in western nations in the past, which had even higher health impacts. Now with some of the strictest laws in the world and the best scrubbers, it still has a health cost roughly equivalent to its electricity cost! In other words, to get the real cost of coal, double it! And this is all to say nothing about global warming.
So don't give me 'clean coal' myths: coal is dirty, dangerous, releases radioactive particles all over the place, and would cost far, far too much to sequester CO2 underground forever. Why not save those environments and mountains from being destroyed, save the public from dangerous coal dust, save the public health purse, and save the climate by introducing ThorCon which is half the price of coal in the first place?

 

[juvenissun]

In other words, to get the real cost of coal, double it!

OK, let's see how effective does coal kill.

Careless mining of coal will pollute a limited area nearby the coal mine. A careful design of coal mining will not cause ANY environmental problem except a few cases of deep coal mine accidents.

How much would this shorten your casualty list? And how much would this increase the cost of using coal?

Well, I don't think you like to, or able to get into this. Coal is blindly bad to you anyway. If that is the case, then I may not want to keep this discussion. I see some coal layers (one foot thick) cropped out along a road cut just 10 miles away. I may want to "mine" a few buckets of it for my barbecue party. And then dump the coal ash into my garden. I can only see advantages in this case. Whatever government rule can not stop me from doing that.

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm happy to consider safe use of coal if you actually propose any different manner of confining the damage. So far, you simply haven't! You do understand that the current worldwide coal disaster kills 2.6 million people a year because we dig it up and burn it, and it contains heavy metals and radioactive particles that get through our scrubbers and poisons people? That 1.5 million people die in India alone from the use of so called 'cheap coal'? So cheap it kills MILLIONS of people a year!?

I thought you were going to suggest some kind of super-scrubber that would remove the particulates: and if so, I was going to ask what peer-reviewed sources suggest this was about to hit the market. I thought you would demonstrate some economical means of carbon-sequestration, but it hasn't been proved possible anywhere in the world as it DOUBLES the already high enough price of coal. You addressed none of these concerns. Nada. Zip.

You said something about coal mining which sounds blatantly absurd when one realises the full scale of coal mining. There are no advantages to this when it is absolutely unnecessary. I wish coal had run out in the 1960's! We would have been forced to move onto clean nuclear and renewable power. You go ahead and burn a little coal for your BBQ, that's fine. But this image below is not, and especially when one realises this is worldwide, adding to climate change, and really is killing nearly 3 million people a year!

 

[Michael]

Primitive and simple things will always exist. Coal is one of them. You may have all kind of reason to hate it. But, just like we always have poor people in the world population, the use of coal WILL last. Of course, unless it is banned from been used.[

Sure it's going to be used. The question is for how long? How many more 2 Chernobyl's per day in pollution death would you like to suffer just to burn coal, when easier, cheaper and safer alternatives exist? It shouldn't be a question of "banning" it, we should simply make it financially unfeasible. It certainly cannot compete with nuclear energy in terms of the cost to human life. What's a life worth? When was that number factored into the financial equation?

 

[Michael]

I'm happy to consider safe use of coal if you actually propose any different manner of confining the damage. So far, you simply haven't! You do understand that the current worldwide coal disaster kills 2.6 million people a year because we dig it up and burn it, and it contains heavy metals and radioactive particles that get through our scrubbers and poisons people? That 1.5 million people die in India alone from the use of so called 'cheap coal'? So cheap it kills MILLIONS of people a year!?

That is the sad reality that people simply do not understand or factor into the financial equation. We're actually poisoning ourselves off the planet in pure air pollution, rather than building a new generation of safer Molten Salt Reactors. Just in terms of replacing the antiquated and unsafe reactors in use today with next generation designs that don't blow up when the power goes off would be beneficial. If Fukushima had been based on molten salt designs, or Chernobyl had been based on MSR designs, we wouldn't even have a single death as a result of nuclear energy use, and no pollution at all!

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The destructiveness of coal-mining is what prompted the coalition of Fossil Free Stanford, a student organized group, to advocate that Stanford divest from stock in it. The University made the decision to do so in May of 2014, and since then Georgetown and other colleges as well as companies and Norway have made similar actions.

Stanford University announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies, becoming the first major university to lend support to a nationwide campaign to purge endowments and pension funds of fossil fuel investments.

The university said it acted in accordance with internal guidelines that allow its trustees to consider whether “corporate policies or practices create substantial social injury” when choosing investments. Coal’s status as a major source of carbon pollution linked to climate changepersuaded the trustees to remove companies “whose principal business is coal” from their investment portfolio, the university said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/e...-18-billion-endowment-of-coal-stock.html?_r=0

 

[eclipsenow]

That is the sad reality that people simply do not understand or factor into the financial equation. We're actually poisoning ourselves off the planet in pure air pollution, rather than building a new generation of safer Molten Salt Reactors. Just in terms of replacing the antiquated and unsafe reactors in use today with next generation designs that don't blow up when the power goes off would be beneficial. If Fukushima had been based on molten salt designs, or Chernobyl had been based on MSR designs, we wouldn't even have a single death as a result of nuclear energy use, and no pollution at all!

Yes, that's about how I see it as well!

 

[eclipsenow]

The destructiveness of coal-mining is what prompted the coalition of Fossil Free Stanford, a student organized group, to advocate that Stanford divest from stock in it. The University made the decision to do so in May of 2014, and since then Georgetown and other colleges as well as companies and Norway have made similar actions.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/e...-18-billion-endowment-of-coal-stock.html?_r=0

Exactly Artemis: yet why am I having trouble getting through to someone about coal? They just can't accept new information on it and ramble something about using a teeny bit on their BBQ now and then. If ONLY this was the global use of coal: a teeny bit on the BBQ now and then! But that's changing the subject from what we use for the majority of our electrical power to what he likes to do on the weekend. Just a bit different, don't you think?

 

[juvenissun]

Michael, EclipseNow, etc.

My BBQ analogy is used to illustrate the important factors of psychology and sociology behind the use of coal. They are in different scale, but are in the same nature.

If any country in this world is going to forsake the use of coal, the US should be among the first. However, we are not doing that and we are not going to do that in the next 100 years. You people may value life and environment more than coal. But, let me ask you: why can't we do it NOW? People are not informed must not be the reason. Your fatality statistics are not new and are around for quite a while. So, you give me ONE reason that we are still using coal today. And I shall see how would you suggest a way to solve that problem.

Coal is a good thing. Just like any other good, but potentially dangerous things, we should use it wisely.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes Coal is a vicious killer. A piece of coal attacked me just the other day but luckily i had my trusty firearm with me so I was able to keep it at bay. Thank you Second Amendment.

 

[eclipsenow]

Michael, EclipseNow, etc.

My BBQ analogy is used to illustrate the important factors of psychology and sociology behind the use of coal. They are in different scale, but are in the same nature.

I still fail to see any possible relevance to using coal as our main source of electricity.

If any country in this world is going to forsake the use of coal, the US should be among the first.

Agreed!

However, we are not doing that and we are not going to do that in the next 100 years.

Disagreed! France used to burn oil for electricity. Oil! Then the 1970's oil embargo shot the price up, and France realised energy was a national security matter. They deployed 75% of their grid as nuclear in under 20 years. THREE QUARTERS! (The other quarter is hydro power).

You people may value life and environment more than coal.

So by "you people" I take it you value coal more than life and the environment? You didn't say "we".

But, let me ask you: why can't we do it NOW?

We could! The French did it and that was with older technologies. We have much better reactors with passive safety systems today. The LFTR uses gravity! It requires power to keep the fuel up in the reactor. Without power holding it up, gravity takes over and it drains away. No power = no fuel in reactor, and the fuel has drained away into a thermally leaky tank: it radiates heat out passively, preventing any runaway overheating.

People are not informed must not be the reason.

Hang on: you're the one claiming to use (a completely irrelevant) BBQ analogy to illustrate sociology (which was completely lost on me I'm afraid, still got no idea what point you were trying to make: this conversation is about where our POWER comes from!).

So let's try another home grown sociology test: one that's actually on the subject "WHERE OUR POWER COMES FROM!" Okay?

Print this list out!

At your next party, ask all your family and friends the following questions.

Record the answers.

Report the results back to us:-

1. Has any nation left fossil fuel electricity in a hurry? Who? What power source did they turn to?
2. Would you be willing to see America convert all coal electricity into nuclear electricity? If not, why not?
3. Are you afraid of nuclear power? Why?
4. Do you know about passive safety reactors? How do they prevent melt-downs?
5. Do you know about liquid reactors? How do they prevent melt downs?
6. How much radiation would kill you? Are you afraid of radiation? Are you radioactive right now? Are banana's radioactive?
7. How many people does nuclear power kill each year? How many people does coal kill each year?
8. Do we HAVE to bury radioactive waste for 250,000 years? 100,000 years? Or can we burn it again and then only bury it for 300 years?

Ask a few of these questions at parties, and you will realise the average Australian and American citizen are TOTALLY CLUELESS! Not just a little uninformed, but absolutely ignorant, misinformed, and completely without any real knowledge of the nuclear industry at all. I was 6 years ago, and I know that most of my friends are!

Your fatality statistics are not new and are around for quite a while.

Breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste are not new and have been around for quite a while, but hardly anyone knows or cares about that either.

So, you give me ONE reason that we are still using coal today. And I shall see how would you suggest a way to solve that problem.

The Koch brothers control Congress with millions of dollars a year in donations? Government should ram through a fast nuclear build out while educating the public and shutting up all those Koch brother lobbyists.

Coal is a good thing.

It was "a good thing" as it gave us the industrial revolution, then it started to get bad, worse, and finally just downright terrible. If we burned it all the planet would shoot through 6 degrees of warming where natural emissions would eclipse humanities emissions, and nature herself would be in a upwards climate spiral that would hit 12 degrees and kill most of the human race. I take it you agree that would be bad?

Just like any other good, but potentially dangerous things, we should use it wisely.

Except that there is no good way to use it now, not for powering our world, not at all! We should BAN it wisely, not USE it suicidally.