Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#71

Post by astrodust »

maccard wrote: post #31
MichaelApproved wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know for sure that it's a nuclear plant in the picture? I'm asking because those iconic cooling towers are also used for coal plants. > The hyperboloid cooling towers are often associated with nuclear power plants,[1] although they are also used in some coal-fired plants and to some extent in some large chemical and other industrial plants. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower Direct link to the pictu…

And just to show what a nuclear plant can look like, [0] is a few miles away from me, and looks like [1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torness_Nuclear_Power_Station [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torness_Nuclear_Power_Station#...

Some of these plants use a local source of water for cooling, not the traditional cooling towers.

If it's inland or starved for water you need cooling towers.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#72

Post by astrodust »

mmphosis wrote: post #41
dest wrote: post #15

I think it is misleading to display a picture of chimneys of nuclear power plants, when the only thing they release is clean water droplets: no SO2, NO2 or PM10. edit: Actually, not 100% sure it's a nuclear power plant. Thanks for your comments

I agree there are worse types of power plants than nuclear: no SO2, NO2 or PM10, but at the risk of the release of Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Xenon-133, strontium-90, plutonium-239. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-isotopes-from-fukushima-meltdown-detected-near-vancouver/ https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet

If you're concerned about radioactive elements, coal plants and fracking also release a lot of nuclear contamination.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#73

Post by ip26 »

tarboreus wrote: post #34
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

Not a power engineer, but I'd expect burning dinosaurs in one stationary place should allow for cleaner & more efficient combustion, with better scrubbing of noxious gasses from the exhaust. One really big, really heavy, really good catalytic converter instead of millions of small lightweight ones, clunking over bumps & quietly rusting out.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#74

Post by api »

tarboreus wrote: post #34
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

Public transportation that runs on the power grid also burns dinosaurs if it's powered by fossil fuels.

Edit: why the downmod? Energy is energy.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#75

Post by ben_w »

village-idiot wrote: post #26
swebs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? A car's ICE is much less efficient than a power plant.

Depends on the pollutants you're looking at. From a CO2/efficiency standpoint, you're correct. A modern EV powered purely by coal power plants puts out less CO2 than a gasoline car, largely because of the efficiency difference between large power plants and ICE. From a SO2/NO2 standpoint, EVs powered by coal would be far far worse, assuming gasoline. Gas/Diesel these days is ultra low sulfur, which reduces SO2 signif…

Does it produce less CO2 than a coal plant? Yes big plants are more efficient than ICEs, but petrol and diesel have a lot of energy in hydrogen bonds, whereas coal is almost pure carbon, so I’d expect the CO2 emissions for a coal plant to be worse despite the efficiency boost.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#76

Post by wonderwonder »

saiya-jin wrote: post #62
StavrosK wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the rates, I'd take a risk of Cesium than the certainty of SO2, CO2, NO2, etc.

Aren't coal plants releasing small amounts of heavy metals and radioactivity from burning coal too? I recall some discussion here couple of months ago mentioning oceans pollution (and thus mainly predatory fish) mainly comes down to all coal plants churning all this at slow but steady pace. Somebody also mentioned that old decommissioned plants have their smelter quite radioactive and need to be handled accordingly.…

Coal ash, the waste from burning coal has significant amounts of radioactive heavy metals. It is stored in 'ash ponds' which can leach into the ground water and the ash can be blown into surrounding neighborhoods as they are not capped. Analysis of EPA data found that living around a coal plant can give you up to a 1 in 50 chance of cancer.

Clearly a biased source (not necessarily bad though) but the data is likely accurate, make of it what you will.

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-data-show-highe...

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#77

Post by stellar678 »

Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

Studies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars.

The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface.

Electrification is part of the puzzle, but we also need to get people out of giant, heavy vehicles into right-sized vehicles for their trip. (And the majority of trips are less than 5 miles!)

--

Edit for the people asking for sources:

The lit review suggesting EVs have >90% as much particulate emissions as internal-combustion: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf

Another review that acknowledges these numbers vary depending on rainy vs dry climate, use of snow tires, etc...

https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/188/Researches/65862_37290.pdf

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#79

Post by wonderwonder »

Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

Transportation just passed power generation as the major polluter in 2016. Mainly because of the switch from coal to natural gas. If coal comes back on line expect the positions to switch again rapidly. I agree with your statement but getting rid of coal power plants would have the added benefit of reducing the production of coal ash, a source of particulate matter and heavy metal pollution.

Both would be major living standard improvement.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11911798/emissions-electricity...

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#80

Post by justinator »

stellar678 wrote: post #77
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

Studies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars. The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface. Electrification is pa…

Do you have a link to the studies you're referencing? I don't not believe you, but I'd love to share them. Living in CO, there is a problem with electric cars, (somewhat) as the electric is usually produced by coal, so the pollution is simply moved away from the source (although potentially lowered - but not by much if you compare it to a gas-powered econo vehicle)
Post reply on HN