41–50 of 72 posts
Kurtis Baute is actively protesting against pipelines by camping betwixt two trees. In the video he shares some envelope math on how many lives we'll lose from using the fuel that the finished pipeline would transport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3hXMsJbt3c We absolutely must stop burning fossil fuels.
How many thousands get to not die because of use of fossil fuels? Just for perspective...
Fossil fuels are the single greatest cause of everything that separates how we live today from how people lived at the beginning of the 19th century up to and including the huge surge in sustained human population. Look to the Haber-Bosch process for just one example of this sustainability. There’s no free lunch. It came with side effects.
How many thousands get to not die because of use of fossil fuels? Just for perspective...
> Just for perspective... How does that give you any perspective? A huge percentage of the air pollution in NYC is from the same couple dozen buildings that were grandfathered into not needing to meet air pollution laws, as well as things like construction vehicles and cruise ships, which are completely unregulated. There is almost zero relationship between the benefits from fossil fuel use and the deaths from air po…
I think you'll find this is not true. Yes there are some low hanging fruit that could significantly reduce pollution but if you want the levels of production we enjoy today you are going to produce too much pollution. We are getting better, we are getting greener but this has been built on the back of extremely polluting industrial revolutions.
How many thousands get to not die because of use of fossil fuels? Just for perspective...
Fossil fuels are the single greatest cause of everything that separates how we live today from how people lived at the beginning of the 19th century up to and including the huge surge in sustained human population. Look to the Haber-Bosch process for just one example of this sustainability. There’s no free lunch. It came with side effects.
Yes, and it's largely positive since we have a much larger population that can actually survive thanks to the benefits across the board that fossil fuels have brought (mobility, agriculture, commerce, etc...). To reduce their negative side effects the first thing would be to get away from coal.
I think talking about deaths is too binary when we are looking at air pollution, since I would imagine most of the deaths are from peope who have other conditions that air pollution is making worse, as opposed to things like car crashes where even very healthy people are killed. Looking at how much air pollution reduces life expectancy is a better measure, and is what they talk about in the study linked to by this ar…
At the same time the opposite point can be made: fossil fuels have disproportionately increased life expectancy worldwide from pre-industrial levels, and made us able to sustain way more human beings on Earth.
Talking only about the negative aspects is only half of the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too late for nuclear. If the last 30 years had seen R&D anything like wind and solar we'd be in a much better place. And the battle for public opinion is lost. Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.
Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical. And the battle for public opinion is lost. I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trill…
Because coal costs money wind farms are cheaper to operate than a coal plant and have been for many years. So then the question becomes is it cheap enough to offset the cost of building and installing the turbines? And in many places the answer to that has been "Yes" too for some time now.
Energy producers in the sector can profitably build and run an onshore wind farm in the UK on the expectation of being paid about £50 per MWh which is a pretty typical market price. If it gets much cheaper it starts to compete with the open market price for coal ignoring the price of a power plant to burn it, and staff to run the plant.
Natural gas is more competitive, because that's more efficient (more electricity for the same price of fuel), but it also doesn't cause air pollution deaths (it just drives climate change because it's shoving CO2 into the air) unlike coal which causes huge amounts of death and disease.
Also: I've seen several reactions in this thread that express doubt that it can possibly be this bad, surely if burning coal emitted poisonous fumes that kill people we'd have noticed. But We did that's why that coal power plant has big chimneys, when people first built large coal powered machines they discovered the fumes are incredibly toxic and began choking people and so they... built taller chimneys to send the problem further away. But the problem wasn't gone, it was just dispersed. 5000 people get lung problems in the surrounding counties instead of five people choking to death in front of your eyes.
How much has life expectancy been boosted by universal access to electricity in the Western world enabled by hydrocarbons aka fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels have boosted our quality of life so much that we have no really big industrial problems left except for getting rid of fossil fuels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too late for nuclear. If the last 30 years had seen R&D anything like wind and solar we'd be in a much better place. And the battle for public opinion is lost. Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.
There's been much R&D, 4th gen coming. Third gen is ready. Public opinion is lost because of posts like yours, and it adds up in terms of costs. Millions of people dying every year from carbon burning power stations cannot wait for a 100% renewable cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too late for nuclear. If the last 30 years had seen R&D anything like wind and solar we'd be in a much better place. And the battle for public opinion is lost. Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.
Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical. And the battle for public opinion is lost. I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trill…
Ref: "New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear" https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fossil fuels are the single greatest cause of everything that separates how we live today from how people lived at the beginning of the 19th century up to and including the huge surge in sustained human population. Look to the Haber-Bosch process for just one example of this sustainability. There’s no free lunch. It came with side effects.
> There’s no free lunch. It came with side effects. Yes, and it's largely positive since we have a much larger population that can actually survive thanks to the benefits across the board that fossil fuels have brought (mobility, agriculture, commerce, etc...). To reduce their negative side effects the first thing would be to get away from coal.