Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

[Michael]

We have an agreement.

Until alternative energy is able to catch up on price and on convenience, do not expect the use of fossil fuels will slow down. This is the situation in US. It is the same situation in China and in India.

For example, I am seriously consider to install some solar panels at home. This is so simply because the electricity cost is getting significantly high.

The only thing I would add is that *if* we built Molten Salt/Thorium reactors, even those solar panels might not be necessary or preferable. As long as the energy that we're using isn't dumping toxic chemicals into the environment, it's fine. Solar energy is great, but as you note, there's an expense/benefit cost issue to consider. I suspect that Thorium reactors would be more cost effective over the long haul, and you and I wouldn't have to personally shoulder the upfront costs, and long term costs of installing solar panels.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ya, but then you took their figures and simply tossed in your own opinions in there,

Because yours made no sense. You want to undo the industrial revolution despite the fact our life spans have doubled. It's just the same recycled enviro-nonsense that's been peddled since the late 50's.

My experience with big business and fossil fuel companies is that they tend to put profit ahead of human safety.

Name one.
Most of the mining companies I know of have a very strict safety code. You can't even go in their grounds to cut the grass without sitting through a safety video.

Your use of the term 'liars' is inappropriate IMO.

When one lies to further an agenda, they are an agenda driven liar. It's descriptive and accurate.

From my perspective it's dishonest to pretend that the pollution from coal and other fossil fuel plants has no harmful effect on humans.

Nobody said direct exposure to pollutants couldn't have harmful effects, I simply refuted the lie that coal companies are causing widespread cases of lung cancer. It's simply not true. Smoking and radon gas are the top two causes. Remove both of those and you STILL will probably only live 80 years. It's very rare when one makes 100. We have a finite existence. you can spend yours in a grass hut on a desolate island if you want, but remember, the islanders die sooner and they don't have coal plants near them.

Even when they work "as advertised" they're pumping pollution into the atmosphere. Compare and contrast that with Nuclear energy that only put pollution into the air if it *fails* to work as advertised.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of nuclear energy. I fully support any form of energy which gains us energy independence. However, coal can be a safe,readily available and efficient fuel source. We have enough to last us for 100's of years. Let's stop trying to destroy the industry and rather work toward making it even cleaner and even safer.

In that case however, you wouldn't have so many folks needing the hospital in the first place.

That's a wild, unsustainable speculation.

Not just me, the whole scientific community agrees on that point.

The whole scientific community doesn't agree on anything.
I've read junk science articles attacking everything about American industry and our energy usage for my entire life. I've seen outrageous claims come and go but they all have one object; destroy the American way of life and make us a third world country. We aren't going back to horses. We aren't giving up our Ipads and we'll stop mining coal when nobody buys it and we have a better alternative. That won't happen in either of our lifetimes. What can and has happened is that more people have lost their jobs, become alcoholics and died from health issues because madness like this cost them their jobs. Get a clue. Global warming AIN'T HAPPENING, and we aren't going to stop mining the world's greatest energy source because some people don't like it.

Here's a thought. If you don't like coal, refuse to use any electricity until your supplier converts to something you do like.

 

[eclipsenow]

Why does this situation persist?

I told you: coal lobbyists + public ignorance & fear (Fukushima).
How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?

I am not sure why or how the French government decided not to use coal. One possible reason is that there is not much coal reserve in France. Britain and Germany are not any less advanced than France. However, they DO have a lot of coal reserves. Did they abandon coal yet?

Correct! They do not have a lot of coal: so they went nuclear!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

How do you respond to the FACT that coal kills THOUSANDS of times more people than nuclear?

 

[eclipsenow]

I wish alternative were more mature and "economically established" during this current rise in use of energy by nations of the world.

As I've told you repeatedly: FRANCE!
They left hydrocarbons (for electricity) decades ago.

Another word: THORCON!
Half the retail price of coal
A quarter the real cost of coal including coal's insidious and disgustingly 'externalised' health costs!

Why would ANYONE defend this dangerous and expensive industry when we have an alternative that can give us millions of years of cheap energy AND medicines to cure cancer?
“Although it is difficult to assign a cost to these numbers, estimates have suggested a 10% increase in health care costs in countries where coal makes up a significant fraction of the energy mix, like the U.S. and Europe (NAS 2010; Cohen et al., 2005; Pope et al., 2002). These additional health costs begin to rival the total energy costs on an annual basis for the U.S. given that health care costs top $2.6 trillion, and electricity costs only exceed about $400 billion. Another way to describe this human health energy fee is that it costs about 2,000 lives per year to keep the lights on in Beijing but only about 200 lives to keep them on in New York.

Guess that’s just the cost of doing business…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Harvard University: Coal “externalities” cost America $300 to $500 billion annually! In other words, those who claim coal is cheap are ignoring costs worth another war in Iraq every 4 to 6 years!
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels-part-two

 

[Michael]

Because yours made no sense. You want to undo the industrial revolution despite the fact our life spans have doubled. It's just the same recycled enviro-nonsense that's been peddled since the late 50's.

The difference is that my opinions jive with the science, as well as the reference, whereas yours do not. I have no desire to undo the industrial revolution, I simply want to use cleaner forms of energy and *extend* those lifetimes even further. Without those environmental laws, our air would still be as polluted as it is in China as well as our water. I love how you'd roll back scientific progress for 60 years just to make a few bucks.

Name one.
Most of the mining companies I know of have a very strict safety code. You can't even go in their grounds to cut the grass without sitting through a safety video.

Every single one! They all pollute the air we breath and pass on the health care costs to someone else! Give me a break.

When one lies to further an agenda, they are an agenda driven liar. It's descriptive and accurate.

Then it applies to pretty much every fossil fuel company on the planet too, particularly when they "forget" to include the health care costs when they talk about it being "cheap". Boloney it's cheap.

Nobody said direct exposure to pollutants couldn't have harmful effects, I simply refuted the lie that coal companies are causing widespread cases of lung cancer. It's simply not true. Smoking and radon gas are the top two causes. Remove both of those and you STILL will probably only live 80 years. It's very rare when one makes 100. We have a finite existence. you can spend yours in a grass hut on a desolate island if you want, but remember, the islanders die sooner and they don't have coal plants near them.

Every scientific study says otherwise in terms of the harmful effects, and history is littered with the dead bodies of those who can refute your claim. So what if *other* things can kill you too? It doesn't justify pouring toxin into the air unnecessarily. Even on a "good day", and even when they're working as specified, coal plants pump toxins into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants only do that on a *bad* day!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of nuclear energy. I fully support any form of energy which gains us energy independence. However, coal can be a safe,readily available and efficient fuel source. We have enough to last us for 100's of years. Let's stop trying to destroy the industry and rather work toward making it even cleaner and even safer.

The way I see it, the industry is very mature already and profitable too, so if it wants to clean up it's act, let them do so. I however see no evidence that it will ever be competitive with nuclear energy in terms of "clean air", so I'd rather invest in nuclear energy rather than more coal plants. I have no desire to "destroy" anything, I just prefer nuclear energy. Period. I'm all for energy independence, and I'm not suggesting we should tear down anything at the moment.

That's a wild, unsustainable speculation.

Not at all. Lots of scientific studies confirm it.

The whole scientific community doesn't agree on anything.

Alright, but they do have a "consensus".

I've read junk science articles attacking everything about American industry and our energy usage for my entire life. I've seen outrageous claims come and go but they all have one object; destroy the American way of life and make us a third world country. We aren't going back to horses.

That is a strawman argument to start with. I'm not trying to "destroy" anything, and I'm all for producing electrical energy and electric cars, etc. That's just a ridiculous way to villianize scientific progress.

We aren't giving up our Ipads and we'll stop mining coal when nobody buys it and we have a better alternative. That won't happen in either of our lifetimes.

I'm not asking you to give up you Ipad, or your computer, or anything other than your reliance upon coal. Period. We do have better alternatives right now, we simply don't invest in them. I do think that the transition to clean nuclear energy will at least begin in my lifetime, but I doubt I'll see the end of coal being used as a power source entirely. I'm not even advocating that until we have built the necessary replacement power plants in fact.

What can and has happened is that more people have lost their jobs, become alcoholics and died from health issues because madness like this cost them their jobs. Get a clue.

Scientific progress *always* produces job displacement, as well as creating new jobs. It's fact of life. Get over it already.

Global warming AIN'T HAPPENING,

There you go again simply ignoring the scientific consensus on yet another topic. Notice a trend? You're forced to basically disagree with two different scientific communities simply due to your personal attachment to coal. Even if global warming isn't caused by humans, it's definitely happening. Global cooling happens sometimes too. That's also a documented scientific fact by the way. I'll grant you that the Earth has it's own heating and cooling cycles, and there is some debate as to the cause of this particular warming cycle, but the consensus is that humans are the primary culprit.

and we aren't going to stop mining the world's greatest energy source because some people don't like it.

I simply don't share your belief that just because we happen to use coal today that it's somehow the "greatest" energy source. Coal power plants pollute and dump toxins into the atmosphere and I wouldn't want to live down wind from one, not ever. They aren't that "great" if you live downwind.

Here's a thought. If you don't like coal, refuse to use any electricity until your supplier converts to something you do like.

As I've mentioned, I have no intent of going backwards in time, I just don't want to continue investing in old, dated, and air pollution producing industries forever and ever. Coal will eventually run out sooner or later, and then what will future generations turn to? It sure won't be coal.

 

[eclipsenow]

Because yours made no sense. You want to undo the industrial revolution despite the fact our life spans have doubled. It's just the same recycled enviro-nonsense that's been peddled since the late 50's.

Why would ANYONE defend this dangerous and expensive industry when we have an alternative that can give us millions of years of cheap energy AND medicines to cure cancer?
“Although it is difficult to assign a cost to these numbers, estimates have suggested a 10% increase in health care costs in countries where coal makes up a significant fraction of the energy mix, like the U.S. and Europe (NAS 2010; Cohen et al., 2005; Pope et al., 2002). These additional health costs begin to rival the total energy costs on an annual basis for the U.S. given that health care costs top $2.6 trillion, and electricity costs only exceed about $400 billion. Another way to describe this human health energy fee is that it costs about 2,000 lives per year to keep the lights on in Beijing but only about 200 lives to keep them on in New York.

Guess that’s just the cost of doing business…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Harvard University: Coal “externalities” cost America $300 to $500 billion annually, the same as another war in Iraq every 4 to 6 years! What kind of person claims coal is 'cheap'!?
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels-part-two

 

[juvenissun]

I told you: coal lobbyists + public ignorance & fear (Fukushima).

How do you respond to the FACT that coal kills THOUSANDS of times more people than nuclear?

So, why are we not doing more to correct that?

I don't believe the statistics are telling the truth reason.

 

[eclipsenow]

So, why are we not doing more to correct that?
I don't believe the statistics are telling the truth reason.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here? What statistics about what? Remember, coal is NOT CHEAP!

Harvard University: Coal “externalities” cost America $300 to $500 billion annually, the same as another war in Iraq every 4 to 6 years! What kind of person claims coal is 'cheap'!?
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels-part-two

 

[brinny]

Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970

Hi all,
just running some extrapolations from recent studies backwards I've realised coal really is a monster!

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/

How many lives would have been saved if we had switched from coal to nuclear power by 1970? I roughly halved the death rate till the 2000’s to account for world population growth and world coal use across the 1970 to 2000 period, and then added the ‘normal’ 2.6million deaths per year from 2000 onwards. By the end of 2015, my very rough, back-of-the-envelope guess is that we could have saved 78 million lives, or more people than were killed in World War 2!

What about aluminum particulates?

Thank you kindly.

 

[eclipsenow]

The difference is that my opinions jive with the science, as well as the reference, whereas yours do not. I have no desire to undo the industrial revolution...

Isn't it just such a cliche when climate deniers or anti-greenies get on their bandwagon and accuse us of wanting to undo the Industrial Revolution? As if they've never heard of climate change, or France running on 99% clean electricity (quarter hydro and quarters nuclear), or as if they've just never thought about the fact that coal is finite, and will run out one day. It seems to me these people must love the Mad Max movies and want to see them come true. Burn all the carbon we can, mess up the climate, poison ourselves stupid with unbelievable levels of mercury and other heavy metals in everything, and then when all the fossil fuels run out... bye bye civilisation!

They're the ones that want to undo the Industrial Revolution, and destroy civilisation itself! It's just unbelievable.

 

[eclipsenow]

Coal has killed more than WW2 since 1970
What about aluminum particulates?
Thank you kindly.

Not aware that it is a big issue: do you have a link to any decent papers on it?

 

[brinny]

Not aware that it is a big issue: do you have a link to any decent papers on it?

How good are you at google searching?

Thank you kindly.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here? What statistics about what? Remember, coal is NOT CHEAP!

Harvard University: Coal “externalities” cost America $300 to $500 billion annually, the same as another war in Iraq every 4 to 6 years! What kind of person claims coal is 'cheap'!?
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels-part-two

Is coal cheaper?

 

[eclipsenow]

How good are you at google searching?

Thank you kindly.

You're the one asserting aluminium particulates might compete with coal particulates, so you're the one with the burden of proof, thank you kindly.

 

[eclipsenow]

Is coal cheaper?

Why are you even asking this question?
Honestly?
Please re-read this thread before asking that again!

 

[juvenissun]

Why are you even asking this question?
Honestly?
Please re-read this thread before asking that again!

You said it is not cheap to use coal.
I said it is cheaper.
What is your problem?

 

[eclipsenow]

You said it is not cheap to use coal.
I said it is cheaper.
What is your problem?

You're not reading, that's the problem. Go back and read this thread again. Look for big red writing.

 

[Michael]

Is coal cheaper?

Cheaper in dollars or cheaper in human life and disease?

 

[eclipsenow]

Cheaper in dollars or cheaper in human life and disease?

If we switch to Thorcon, cheaper in both!

 

[juvenissun]

Cheaper in dollars or cheaper in human life and disease?

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. Even people travelled through the polluted area and died in car crash would be counted. Beijing has one smog day in every 3 days. Then eclipsenow would like to take people in the whole metropolitan area of Beijing to the casualty list. I would call this to be ObamaStatistics.