How Coal Kills • Hacker News Board

Re: How Coal Kills

#21

Post by fleitz » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #6

jes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to have a truly level playing field, where no energy technology was awarded subsidies?

A truly level playing field would mean internalizing all externalities. If that were possible, yes, that would be ideal, but as he just noted, it's really unlikely, partly because it's enormously complex.

That's actually just your definition of a level playing field, there is no 'true' level playing field. (Well, other than literal playing fields that are level)

Re: How Coal Kills

#22

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #15

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, temper that with a view of a world where coal was scarcer, more expensive. It would not have been used for so many purposes, we'd have been more efficient in our spoiling of the planet. Being as cheap as it was, led to a car for every garage, consumerism, inefficient insulation in houses for the first century etc.

You would prefer a world where only the rich can afford electricity and warmth? Because that's the world you describe.

Oh don't be a pedant. If coal were more expensive, it would be used for important things - not pissed away. That says little about rich vs poor.

Re: How Coal Kills

#23

Post by anon1385 » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #14

_broody wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a moot point if there's another viable way to generate the same amount of power without trading lives in the process. Slave labor also improved your life quite a bit, provided you were a slave owner. Thankfully we found an alternative.

Slavery, really? That's your analogy? What's your viable way to replace coal today? Include explanations of how your replacement can be as reliable as coal, and how the developing world can afford these sources without sacrificing other government services.

Literally millions of people are being killed by coal, without any choice in the matter[1]. What analogy would you prefer to use for something as devastating as that?

Coal only seems affordable if the significant health and environmental costs are (incorrectly) assumed to be zero.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa... >Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study.

Re: How Coal Kills

#24

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

That was completely devoid of any useful numbers. Here's a nice, well researched chart that actually puts coal in a useful context compared to other ways of generating electricity.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml

The rest of that is well worth reading, too.

Re: How Coal Kills

#25

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #8

I'll flip the question: Considering that coal has provided a very significant amount of the electrical power and heat for humans over the past 100 years, how many lives has coal saved? How much has it improved the human experience? Put simply, a world without coal is a horrible world.

I have no doubt that 19th century London was better off with coal despite the horrific air pollution it caused. But the question before us is whether to continue using coal now that we are much richer and have many more options in terms of what technologies we have.

Re: How Coal Kills

#26

Post by mikeash » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #8

I'll flip the question: Considering that coal has provided a very significant amount of the electrical power and heat for humans over the past 100 years, how many lives has coal saved? How much has it improved the human experience? Put simply, a world without coal is a horrible world.

The proper solution is to capture the externalities imposed by coal and force those who burn coal to pay the entire cost of burning it, including the cost of the emitted pollution. Then the solution will work itself out. If coal is indeed the best solution even with all the damage it causes, it will still be viable when these costs are captured. If other methods are better, then they will win out.

The problem is that right now we allow people to burn coal and vent the combustion products into the atmosphere while not paying for the massive costs this imposes on the general population.

Re: How Coal Kills

#27

Post by strictnein » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #20

strictnein wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery, really? That's your analogy? What's your viable way to replace coal today? Include explanations of how your replacement can be as reliable as coal, and how the developing world can afford these sources without sacrificing other government services.

Don't know where you have been, but coal use has decreased the past few years. Natural gas and renewables have already started to replace coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States...

That's just the US, where natural gas is plentiful and very cheap.

Re: How Coal Kills

#28

Post by msisk6 » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

danielharan wrote: post #4

jes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to have a truly level playing field, where no energy technology was awarded subsidies?

Not only would that be very difficult to do, nuclear and coal have had decades of subsidies, giving them quite an unfair head-start. In any case, by 2017 solar will be at grid parity in most of the US. By 2020 this won't even be a topic.

It doesn't seem possible for solar to make that much progress in that short a time.

It takes forever to get transmission capacity approved and built to areas where solar is really cost-effective and we still don't have grid-scale energy storage.

Re: How Coal Kills

#29

Post by mikeash » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #16

[deleted]

Rather than talk about how it "seems like" a slim chance, you could actually calculate the odds and see just what the chances are.

And remember that if an event is one-in-a-million, it'll happen thousands of times in the world at large.

Re: How Coal Kills

#30

Post by ghouse » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #8

I'll flip the question: Considering that coal has provided a very significant amount of the electrical power and heat for humans over the past 100 years, how many lives has coal saved? How much has it improved the human experience? Put simply, a world without coal is a horrible world.

The same could have once been said about Whale Oil.