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

Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 426 posts

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#411

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

bilekas wrote: post #21

> strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood. It's incredible this is even in debate. It's one of those intuitive things well known since the reduction of coal burning and smog during the industrial revolution in London?

>It's incredible this is even in debate.

Show you how people are out of touch with reality. Even something commonsensical like what you mentioned is often countered with - "Show me the data"

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#412

Post by pasc1878 »

Blazara wrote: post #393
pasc1878 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but in London you are never far from a highway you cannot get away from them. In London now many if not most buses are electric.

Are we classing A-roads as "highways" now? If not, I have no idea what you mean when you say you're never far from a highway in London. There are no motorways through London.

Yes by the number of cars/lorries on them producing pollution.

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#413

Post by Manuel_D »

croon wrote: post #394
Manuel_D wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is simply asking if someone supports nuclear power confrontational? It really is weird how many people are enthusiastic about stemming climate change but don't support one of the few non-intermittent sources for carbon free energy.

"Do you support nuclear power? I'm asking because I believe it's a requirement for grid stability/current battery solutions can't sustain demand during solar downtime" That is a defensible question, that can be argued/countered, but it's not the question posed.

By simply asking "do you support nuclear power" is not? How is it less controversial to lead with an assertion that alternatives are not suitable?

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#414

Post by Manuel_D »

thelastgallon wrote: post #313
leonidasrup wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What source of energy will provide energy at night or bad weather? I would like to note that batteries at end of life are chemical waste and have to be disposed properly. "End of life electric vehicle batteries in China to 2060 and related resource management implications" https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-026-03555-3 "The EOL batteries contain a wide range of toxic and hazardous materials that can leach into th…

There are startups like Redwood Materials. I'm sure China will figure it out. They are willing to put in the right policies, incentives and research dollars. Redwood recycles end-of-life batteries to recover lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper — creating one of the largest domestic sources of these critical materials: https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/

The question of how to supply daily and seasonal storage requirements demanded by intermittent sources remains unanswered, even if we assume battery recycling is performed. The US alone uses 12,000 Gwh of electricity daily and about 30,000 GWh of energy daily (transportation, burning gas for smelters, heating, etc).

Even just a day's worth of energy is decades worth of global lithium ion battery output. For just one country. People rarely appreciate the scale demanded to make grid storage feasible.

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#415

Post by thelastgallon »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #396
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cherry picking a single day to try to demonstrate a widely accepted trend is lazy journalism. Cherry-picking to try to portray the opposite of the generally accepted truth is much more problematic.

I agree. Some guy picks some specific a day in the past, says "look China good". Another one picks a random day (today) and it paints a diff picture. Meanwhile generally accepted truth rooted in facts is the number of coal plants and generally policies that put manufacturing first. individuals using EVs don't make a dent

Glad to hear Delhi solved its air pollution by doing nothing. Delhi's success stody is being studied by experts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#416

Post by silexia »

thelastgallon wrote: post #212

China has 350 million electric two-wheelers, 20 million EVs. China reduced air pollution from transportation by 80% in a decade. Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate: https://theconversation.com/how-china-cleaned-up-its-air-pol...

You can't trust any numbers China reports.

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#417

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

thelastgallon wrote: post #415
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Some guy picks some specific a day in the past, says "look China good". Another one picks a random day (today) and it paints a diff picture. Meanwhile generally accepted truth rooted in facts is the number of coal plants and generally policies that put manufacturing first. individuals using EVs don't make a dent

Glad to hear Delhi solved its air pollution by doing nothing. Delhi's success stody is being studied by experts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi

I didn't say Delhi solved pollution, I said Beijing didn't

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#418

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

leonidasrup wrote: post #409
theshrike79 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare the amount of renewables China is putting up? They add coal power because it's super fast to build, but it's not a permanent solution.

Coal power is not a permanent solution, because there are only finite reserves of coal in China. At current rate of current rate of consumption (2,300 Mtoe of coal in 2025) they have still have reserves for 70 year. https://chinadata.live/data/coal-consumption-china-vs-world/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_reserves We can look at more concrete promises by leadership of China: "In a video statement to the UN in Ne…

You are very optimistic. I see 35 years at current rate of extraction and if we assume 7% growth (like in 2022-2025, nothing crazy like a war) that would be just 17 years or so. At least this is what Google search overview tells me

It's convenient to say they will reduce reliance on coal if they forecast their coal reserves might run out in meantime:) But people here are persistent at praising PRC for their green achievements

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#419

Post by smcin »

enquirewithin wrote: post #356
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ask things that you can easily look up?

Oh, sorry, I thought we were having a conversation. My mistake.

This is all very off-topic to the original discussion about reduction in air pollution.

Re: Children's stunted lungs show recovery in ultra low emission zone

#420

Post by ninalanyon »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #352
ninalanyon wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get 30k? A new Routemaster double decker weighs 12.6 tonne and carries up to 80 passengers. A typical car weighs 1.6 tonne and carries up to 4 passengers, they both have two axles. If we guess at half the rated passenger count then we have: Bus damages the road (12.6/1.6)^4 = 3845 times as much as a single car. But it carries 20 times as many people so the damage is only 192 times per person. Still a lot o…

You forgot the passengers. Gross weight of electric double decker is 19.2 tones. (19.2/1.6)^4=20,736. Which also means roads for heavy transport is 20k times more expensive!

Surely the relevant metric is danger per passenger so your 20 k needs to be divided by the number of passengers, that takes your 20k down to 20k/80 = 250.
Post reply on HN