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

111–120 of 188 posts

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

#111

Post by gregwtmtno »

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.

This argument is dead wrong and impeding progress. As other commenters have mentioned, stationary sources are much easier to filter. They're also more efficient than thousands of small internal combustion engines. They also produce pollution away from where people are breathing it.

Electrification of surface transportation is a huge win for people regardless of how the electricity is generated.

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

#113

Post by Brakenshire »

khuey wrote: post #36
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…

Even if it's not a nuclear power plant it's still a cooling tower releasing only water vapor.

It's a picture of a power station, the cooling towers are just the most noticeable feature.

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

#114

Post by varjag »

Symmetry wrote: post #104
swebs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In terms of energy in to energy out it is a lot more efficient. But the amount of particulate matter created by burning a kilojoule of coal is much, much higher than the amount created by burning a kilojoule of gasoline.

It is not. Gasoline ICE typical thermal efficiency is ~20%, large power generation turbine is 35-40%. Also, to refine 92 octane gasoline takes about the same amount of energy as it releases when burning.

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

#115

Post by Brakenshire »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #29
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

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…

The same picture is used to illustrate a coal power station elsewhere:

https://international.thenewslens.com/article/81575

It seems to be a coal station in China.

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

#116

Post by dcx »

I don't think this has been mentioned on this thread yet: If you live in a place where air pollution is a concern, one solution to this issue is to buy a HEPA air filter. These filters are designed to trap a significant quantity of precisely the types of particles that air quality studies examine (2.5-10µm coarse dust particles and > "To qualify as HEPA by industry standards, an air filter must remove (from the air that passes through) 99.97% of particles that have a size greater-than-or-equal-to 0.3 µm." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA

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

#117

Post by visarga »

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.

> burn dinosaurs four miles away

It's mostly plants and zooplankton

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

#118

Post by olivermarks »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #66
olivermarks wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planting a lot more trees will have a major impact on pollution reduction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18215002 Half the plastics on the planet were made in the last 13 years https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-... EV transport is currently limited and unless solar, wind or hydro is used electricity has to be generated somewhere.

How is that an argument? You can plant tree, reduce plastics production AND switch to EV. For some reason, every time the case for the electrification of transport is presented, other legitimate, complementary causes are put forward as opposable. As if reducing emissions was a zero-sum game…

Wasn't really an argument against EV's, just an observation that plastics production is a major use of oil and a pollutant (EV's are mostly plastic and alloys for example) at all levels, while the tree planting reality will have a massive positive impact on pollution and seems to be getting overlooked as it is not commercially attractive to big industrialists.

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

#119

Post by amluto »

dcx wrote: post #116

I don't think this has been mentioned on this thread yet: If you live in a place where air pollution is a concern, one solution to this issue is to buy a HEPA air filter. These filters are designed to trap a significant quantity of precisely the types of particles that air quality studies examine (2.5-10µm coarse dust particles and > "To qualify as HEPA by industry standards, an air filter must remove (from the air t…

That’s only helpful while you’re at home.

Also, the obsession with HEPA and its 99.7% reduction of the relevant particles seems silly to me. For a filter that recirculates air, the relevant figure of merit is the rate at which dirty air is replaced with clean air, which is roughly the air flow through the filter times the efficiency. So a 90% efficient filter with 50% more airflow is better. For a stand-alone unit, the “clean air delivery rate” is a more sophisticated measurement.

You can do very well by upgrading your HVAC filter to MERV 13 or better and running the fan for a few hours a day. But check with an HVAC contractor before you change filter types — it may affect the overall performance of the system.

For an outside air intake, the efficiency does matter, and HEPA is a good idea.

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

#120

Post by Reason077 »

rienbdj wrote: post #81
ben_w wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling is at least four times the space efficiency of cars, unless all the cars are Smart Fourtwo or equivalent. And that’s when parked, the multiplier goes up with speed. Additionally, low density US cities are one of the worst places I’ve seen for cycling, because not only is everything spread out, but also the multi-lane roads everywhere make it much more dangerous than equivalently populated towns and cities in…

wow, I was using London as an example of how NOT to do cycle infrastructure.

London is getting there, slowly! There are some excellent examples of well-designed, well-used cycle infrastructure such as the new(ish) Cycle Superhighway along the Thames Embankment. This will hopefully serve as a model for future infrastructure.

In general, traffic speeds are low in London and there are lots of quiet side routes that are well suited to cycling. We’re no Amsterdam, but cycling is certainly much more popular and visible than it was 5-10 years ago.

Post reply on HN