Air Pollution Is the 'New Tobacco,' Warns WHO (theguardian.com) 161
The head of the World Health Organization, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said air pollution is the "new tobacco" that is killing 7 million people a year and harming billions more. "The world has turned the corner on tobacco. Now it must do the same for the 'new tobacco' -- the toxic air that billions breathe every day," said Tedros. "No one, rich or poor, can escape air pollution. It is a silent public health emergency." The Guardian reports: "Despite this epidemic of needless, preventable deaths and disability, a smog of complacency pervades the planet," Tedros said, in an article for the Guardian. "This is a defining moment and we must scale up action to urgently respond to this challenge." The WHO is hosting its first global conference on air pollution and health in Geneva next week, including a high-level action day at which nations and cities are expected to make new commitments to cut air pollution.
Tedros said: "A clean and healthy environment is the single most important precondition for ensuring good health. By cleaning up the air we breathe, we can prevent or at least reduce some of the greatest health risks." The WHO is working with health professionals not only to help their patients, but also to give them the skills and evidence to advocate for health in policy decisions such as moving away from fossil-fuel-powered energy and transport. "No person, group, city, country or region can solve the problem alone," he said. "We need strong commitments and actions from everyone."
Tedros said: "A clean and healthy environment is the single most important precondition for ensuring good health. By cleaning up the air we breathe, we can prevent or at least reduce some of the greatest health risks." The WHO is working with health professionals not only to help their patients, but also to give them the skills and evidence to advocate for health in policy decisions such as moving away from fossil-fuel-powered energy and transport. "No person, group, city, country or region can solve the problem alone," he said. "We need strong commitments and actions from everyone."
"No one, rich or poor" (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I'm pretty sure any rich person who wants to avoid polluted air can do a pretty good job of it. Also they tend not to live in areas with high population density or industrial activity.
Best possible thing that could happen (Score:1)
And they don't live among the type of people who pride themselves on driving huge diesel trucks and putting black smoke in everybody's face. I've said it many times before, but the best possible thing that could happen for BOTH the earth AND human beings is for the price of oil to skyrocket. Would it cause an economic disaster? Probably. Would it be worth it? You can bet your own health on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's actually a world I'd want to live in.....
Re:Best possible thing that could happen (Score:5, Insightful)
And they don't live among the type of people who pride themselves on driving huge diesel trucks and putting black smoke in everybody's face. I've said it many times before, but the best possible thing that could happen for BOTH the earth AND human beings is for the price of oil to skyrocket. Would it cause an economic disaster? Probably. Would it be worth it? You can bet your own health on it.
You want to see an environmental disaster? Go ahead, make oil prices "skyrocket". When winter comes people will be chopping down every tree in sight to burn for heat.
Oh, you want to subsidize heating fuel to counteract this? Go look at what happens in India. I had a friendly chat with a gentleman from India and he told me about how the auto-rickshaw drivers would run their gas engines on the kerosene intended for heating. Normally this would not work but desperate people get creative. They get the engine started on gasoline and then get it nice and hot, usually with the idle set high, then slowly switch over to kerosene. The engine will run, and leave a trail of blue soot behind. Enforcement is impossible because no one can afford to pay any fines. So many people do it that they can't lock them all up.
When people run out of wood to burn then they'll turn to burning whatever else they can find, plastics, rags, cattle dung, paper, paint, lubricating oil, whatever. They won't be burning them in a fancy stove with a catalytic converter, forced draft air, and electrostatic particle filtration. They'll be burning this junk in steel drums.
Go ahead. I dare you. Make oil prices "skyrocket" to save the environment. You'll wish you hadn't.
Re: (Score:2)
But...but....solar powered rickshaws!
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like they need Molten Salt reactors, and didn't India recently accomplish getting power to huge amounts of people? I know not everyone, but still. I think many could run heat off of electric, especially if it was cheap nuclear. Same with most of the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck youre a mong.
LNG heats millions of homes [In North America, EU, and much of Russia]. Not heating oil.
FTFY. Heating oil heats most civilized homes everywhere else, though wood/charcoal and Kerosene come in a very close 2nd and 3rd place, (or first place, depending on location/region.)
Re: (Score:3)
1) The majority of air pollution isn't coming from some jackass or two in a hopped-up diesel pickup 'rolling coal'. The majority of it comes from industrial activity (power stations are among the biggest culprits.) Then there's the natural sources - the occasional forest fire and/or active volcano, of which we have several of both types globally running. Compared to just those major sources, cars/trucks are way down on the list. I daresay that active warfare causes more air pollution than anything else, but
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm pretty sure any rich person who wants to avoid polluted air can do a pretty good job of it. Also they tend not to live in areas with high population density or industrial activity.
Sure, in general there's very little air pollution in the US, where almost everyone is stinking rich by world standards. Quality of life in a modern nation is better on almost every front than in an emerging nation. Fun fact: most of the air pollution in San Francisco comes from China.
But we're talking about China and India here. The rich live in cities, because they're overseeing the businesses they run, or they're government officials overseeing the cities. HVAC systems can only do so much (they do hel
Re: (Score:2)
True.
Eventually, China and India will get their acts together, but SE Asia, Africa, etc. will have to work through this stage...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In one prestigious gated neighborhood, the 1/4-1/2 acre lots are about $2-5 million, the new house costs are a complete add on, after demolishing the previous house. The average wage is under $10 for a 10 hr day. The unfiltered air is unhealthy.
6 miles and 1.5 hour's drive away, perhaps 500 feet higher, you can look down into the brown soup of city air, with about 1/5 the air and water pollution.
Rich don't breath the same air (Score:2)
I bet if you are super rich you can afford fancy filters in your workplace and home that makes the air cleaner than clean. And honestly, most "rich" are indoors 99% of the time.
Would Make Sense for Particulates (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
perhaps you'd care to quote the words that led you to the conclusion of a bait-and-switch re carbon, because I don't see it featuring anywhere.
Bait-n-switch (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw it too. Here:
http://www.who.int/news-room/e... [who.int]
The conference is being held in collaboration with UN Environment, World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
Affordable strategies exist to reduce key pollution emissions from the transport, energy, agriculture, waste and housing sectors. Health-conscious strategies can reduce climate change and support Sustainable Development Goals for health, energy and cities.
It's a bunch of people getting together to bash coal and oil interests again with the thin veneer of air pollution concerns on top of global warming alarmism.
The United Nations is overrun by a bunch of dictators just looking to take more money from the free nations that solved their own air pollution problems long ago. These hellhole nations can have clean air too but to get it they have to offer their subjects the freedom to trade freely with the free nations that developed this technology. The problem isn't a lack of money, or a lack of energy, it's a lack of freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, now I see what you're referring to.
The bit where you expect me to feel sorry for poor likkle Exxon... that's hilarious and stupid all at the same time. But whatevs.
yes, Bait-n-switch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, he's (probably) complaining the people get together to bash coal and oil interests through the (ab)use of air pollution/global warming alarmism.
This seems like the comment of a normal human citizen and not a person who is paid to defend Big Carbon. /s
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bunch of people getting together to bash coal and oil interests again
Good. Fuck those mass-murdering pieces of shit.
These hellhole nations can have clean air too but to get it they have to
...recover from American and British colonialism, and somehow get out from under first world economic interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the dude typing on a keyboard created with oil based plastics, attached to a computer manufactured with oil based products, connected to the internet comprised of oil based products, powered by Fossil Fuels.
Dude...Literally EVERYTHING you do is enabled by fossil fuels provided by companies like Exxon.
You'd have to go live in a cave to avoid benefiting from products made possible by petroleum and Companies like Exxon.
If you don't want to be a complete fucking hypocrite, go live in a cave and burn wood
Re: (Score:2)
The first world is keeping the poor developing nations down by economic trade
That's not even close to what I said. It's not trade, it's manipulation and abuse, and fighting proxy wars in their territory.
or the first world is xenophobic because they don't want economic trade with developing nations?
Who said they didn't want economic trade with developing nations? They just want it on abusive terms and will use the WTO to get it.
Gosh, it's just so hard to keep the propaganada points right when they change halfway through the day.
Well, keeping working on that tovarisch, I'm sure you'll get it right eventually.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a bunch of people getting together to bash coal and oil interests again with the thin veneer of air pollution concerns on top of global warming alarmism.
Please tattoo "global warming alarmism" on your chest so people can recognize where you stood in 2018. It's like complaining that a fire alarm goes off when there is smoke, and the fire department reacts to "alarmism". Alarms are supposed to be annoying so you get off your ass and do something before you get killed. Shocker, right?
The conservatives bash violent criminals all the time -- yet here we are with a system that kills millions each year. It's OK because it's the course of business? When we compare
Re: (Score:2)
Damn that was well said, I wish I had some mod points :)
Should Be Cautionary Tale for Alarmists (Score:5, Insightful)
The two come together as long as there are no expensive filtering systems after that pipe of the nastiest type of diesel burning ship engines, for example. Natural gas powered vehicles are in the minority still.
There's still a difference though, and it matters. In fact, (automotive) diesel engines are pretty much the poster child for the kind of agenda that maximizes mileage and minimizes C02 emissions, at the cost of greatly increased toxic emissions/particulates (i.e. actual "air pollution" analogous to tobacco), resulting in much worse impacts on human health.
But the alarmists just get a free pass on that, I suppose . . . anything else might interfere with their next great policy idea.
Re: (Score:2)
diesel engines are pretty much the poster child for the kind of agenda that maximizes mileage and minimizes C02 emissions
Diesel has better mileage, but the fuel has has longer carbon chains, so it produces more CO2 per liter. In the end, there's not much difference between diesel and gasoline powered cars in terms of CO2/mile.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Billions will exchange hands and pollution will remain the same. But the people bitching about it will have their cash and shut up about it.
Just
Like
Tobacco
Surgeon General's Warning: Do Not Breathe Air (Score:5, Funny)
Now we just need PSAs telling people to kick the air habit. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I only breath local organic air (Score:2)
But seriously, air pollution sucks. My city had smog days 80% of the time over the summer. That's insane. My mom died of lung cancer from smoking. It's frustrating to think I might do the same even though I don't smoke.
Turned the Corner? (Score:2)
People all around me still smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, where I live there's a shitload of smokers. Not sure if a) they are trying to kill themselves, b) they are trying to make themselves stink so that other people won't want to be near them, — mission accomplished, or c) they just somehow haven't heard of vaping yet.
Another report from the U.N. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing as deaths from air pollution have been falling for the last 30 years
https://ourworldindata.org/air... [ourworldindata.org]
And even China's falling, it seems this is another case of an activist looking for a cause.
Bringing up Tobacco seems rather odd as well especially since there now seems to be a war on vaping heating up.
Re:Another report from the U.N. (Score:4, Interesting)
Erm. The report you cite itself says: "Globally, it's estimated that outdoor air pollution resulted in 4.2 million deaths in 2016; this represents an increase from 3.4 million in 1990."
I believe you've confused falling with rising. And yourself with someone who has a clue.
The report also says: "In the period since 1990, China's increase in pollution-related deaths appears to be slowing with only a small increase since 2010. In contrast, India's mortality rate from outdoor air pollution continues to increase."
I'd like to be charitable about what went on with you here, but if we're honest with ourselves (I know, I'm asking you to break the habit of a lifetime, but you can close your eyes and mind again afterwards, don't worry), the truth is you're a stupid angry rightwing prick looking for a reason to think you're clever and left-wingers are stupid, and you fucked it up. Because you're stupid.
Re:Another report from the U.N. (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer: not against reducing pollution, just the stats as displayed seem to be leaving out a key factor
Re:Another report from the U.N. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm aware. But he made a claim about deaths, not death rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, maybe there is a reduction in pollution -- but a lot of people are dying. More than we protect with our military. We spend a lot on anti terror efforts but using coal alone kills tens of thousands in the USA each year. But somehow, we treat it as urgent if someone comes here with a bomb and kills a dozen -- how dare they! Allowing polluters that extra output of pollution so they make a buck is tantamount to a license to kill. We are OK with a bomb a day being set off with the death toll -- as long as
Re:Another report from the U.N. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm aware of the difference between rates and absolutes. But the OP made a claim about absolutes, not rates.
And it's fairly obvious that the story is: we are seeing a decline in rates, but population growth means that absolute morbidity and mortality are growing overall. That overall growth is creating additional burdens for health systems around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm. The report you cite itself says: "Globally, it's estimated that outdoor air pollution resulted in 4.2 million deaths in 2016; this represents an increase from 3.4 million in 1990."
Everybody dies, and there's a lot more people now. It's the death rate that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most would agree that we are not just numbers in your fucking game.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most would agree that we are not just numbers in your fucking game.
Yeah you're more likely a number in the anger management guy's game.
Re: (Score:2)
You get 'em!
I'm sick and tired of arguing about whether pollution is good or not. Or that we have to do something about climate change and the acidification of the ocean. Or that we need to increase minimum wage or that the wage gap is dangerously high for a continued Democracy. It's painfully obvious where the facts and the truth lies and we have nitwits who make it a challenge of faith to disingenuously argue on behalf of polluters and the rich.
Are they just here to wear us out? When Captain Planet was ba
Re: (Score:1)
Are they just here to wear us out?
They're here to let us know just how firmly they will cling to the past. It's not the message they intended to send, but it's the message we need to get.
Re: (Score:2)
I say brain damaged people who dream of surviving a zombie apocalypse :P
Re: (Score:2)
It's always curious when someone gets raging butthurt over something and turns it into repeated ad hominems.
I always wonder "WTF is wrong with that guy?"
You're "that guy".
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a smart arsed nobber commenting from the sidelines and imagining their own shit don't stink.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see smoking on that list either. That's because smoking and pollution cause the diseases that actually kill people: COPD, lung cancers, strokes, heart disease.
Not sure what point you wish to make re the map.
Re: (Score:2)
It's tenuous, and technically a subset of what they are complaining about, but I'd assume they are trying to draw an analogy between the effects of breathing in pollutants (regardless of where gaseous or particulate) on the lungs and respiratory health, mostly though passive smoking that many people are familiar with. No idea why they singled out tobacco rather than including vaping though; that
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as deaths from air pollution have been falling for the last 30 years
It is quite irrelevant if something is falling. What is relevant is if there is an ongoing impact and at what rate it is falling.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing as deaths from air pollution have been falling for the last 30 years
It is quite irrelevant if something is falling. What is relevant is if there is an ongoing impact and at what rate it is falling.
I really need that Joker, "Not sure if serious" meme for this board. What would you say if the rate was increasing ?
Please go ahead, as usual I am prepared for this to devolve into rabbit season vs duck season.
Re: (Score:1)
Strawman augment is strawman. But thanks for trusting my words and intentionally missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman augment is strawman. But thanks for trusting my words and intentionally missing the point.
Oh I got the point, shame you didn't actually look at the data before you posted. It's a very significant drop. There is no "If there is an ongoing impact".
Re: (Score:2)
The deaths have not been falling, but rising - just slightly slower on some places.
The trouble with regulation is that it works (Score:2)
Deaths are on the decline, but as someone prone to lung cancer (mom dead at 55 from it due to smoking, most men in my family dead of heart attacks in mid to late 50s, and no, I don't smoke and I'm not obese) I'm not focused on statistics, I'm focused on whether my environment is slowly killing me.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me give you an admittedly over the top set of hypothetical here
Do we need particular regulations against people dispensing sarin ?
You see where that's going in general we have laws against killing people or destroying other peoeple's property. You get ridiculous regulations when you have the government getting too involved, In this case Ethanol is a good example. Instead of just having a mandate for emissions, we require a particular fuel additive to do the job. It's arguably is nothing but a strange
Nuclear Power (Score:1)
You want cleaner air and lowered CO2? Then we need nuclear power. We can't have a first world economy without nuclear power. We'll need wind and hydro power too. Solar is shit, leave that for communication satellites and pocket calculators. Move as many vehicles as possible from diesel and gasoline to natural gas, that will cut down CO2 and pollution significantly. Electrify the rails and nuke-ify the large cargo ships.
I'm quite convinced that few nations are taking the global warming and air quality
Re: Nuclear Power (Score:1)
People's lifespan are getting longer, we don't need cleaner air, it's not a problem
Re: (Score:2)
but the U.S. issue is due to 1. substance abuse 2. suicide
not pollution but self-inflicted harm, doesn't count.
90 percent of COPD is caused by smoking, again self-inflicted
Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems you fail to understand the problem. We've come to a point where we can no longer wait for some new technology to come along to save humanity, if the global warming alarmists are to be believed. We can't wait for some compressed air storage, or PowerWall batteries, or roofing tiles with solar cells in them, or whatever else is being worked on. We need to build out new low carbon generating capacity starting now, build it quickly, and displace the coal power that dominates energy production throughout the world. That includes nuclear power.
You want to see the nuclear power plants insured in full before they are built? What kind of insurance do you have against the failure of the world to reduce their CO2 production?
There is a choice, nuclear power or global warming. There is no third option because there is no time for a third option.
Just to be clear this does not mean nuclear power to the exclusion of all other energy sources. The world simply will not be able to reduce our CO2 production quickly enough if we don't build out "all the above" energy solutions. This means nuclear power must be part of the solution along with wind, solar, hydro, or whatever else you can come up with.
Whatever problem you can point out that nuclear power might have, like that insurance cost, will have to be ignored, dealt with, worked on along the way, or pushed off into the future. There isn't time to be bitching about little matters like insurance. This is a matter of runaway global warming if we can't bring down our CO2 production. Everything else is nothing by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need nuclear? What is wrong with existing renewable and storage technology?
If you build enough renewable energy it reduces the need for storage, and storage is a proven and relatively cheap technology now. It also really helps to modernize the grid rather than trying to continue with the old centralized supply model of having huge single points of generation/failure.
Even with over-building capacity it's still much cheaper than nuclear, and one of the primary objections to doing anything about clim
Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we need nuclear? What is wrong with existing renewable and storage technology?
The problem is we can't build it fast enough. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal take too much material. We don't have enough capacity to create sufficient amounts of steel, concrete, and other materials to build enough renewable energy to displace coal.
Here's an article that gives just a taste of the problem:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
A very comprehensive analysis was done here:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
And here:
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
If you want to tell me that we can wait until we have the infrastructure to build enough cement kilns and steel mills to keep up with the closing of current coal and nuclear, as well as increased needs for these materials not just for energy generation but also other construction, then I have to wonder just how urgent this need is to hold off global warming.
Even with over-building capacity it's still much cheaper than nuclear, and one of the primary objections to doing anything about climate change is the cost.
Nuclear is as cheap as wind and solar wish they could be. Some of the math is here: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
We need to do this quick, and it has to make economic sense or it won't happen, and renewables offer massive opportunities for jobs and growth.
I agree, we must be quick. That's why we need to build wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, AND nuclear. If nuclear is not included then the world will fail to meet any CO2 reduction goals declared by the United Nations. Nuclear power makes economic sense. Any problems of costs for nuclear power are NOT in engineering, materials, or labor. The only costs associated with nuclear power that might make it uneconomical is political and regulatory. China figured out how to make nuclear power economical. One thing they do to keep costs down is shoot any protestors that hold up construction. I'm not saying we should do that in the USA but we can keep them from filing frivolous lawsuits and imprison them for their dangerous antics that interfere with solving this problem.
I saw in another thread someone claiming (jokingly I assume) that Greenpeace is causing global warming. Well, that's not far from the truth. The science shows that nuclear power would allow for a significant reduction in CO2 production, but Greenpeace opposes this. The science shows that cutting down trees for lumber, and planting new trees in their place, would create a considerable carbon sink for the CO2 we already produced, but Greenpeace opposes this.
Science tells us we need nuclear power or we will fail to reduce our CO2 in any meaningful time frame. That's why we need nuclear power. We need to include nuclear power in our solution to reduce CO2 or we will see CO2 output grow with all the global warming that comes with.
IT'S SCIENCE!! Are you a science denier?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A blog and a couple of books challenging peer reviewed papers. I'm sorry, I don't have time to go through them in detail but if we just look at the second book "Roadmap to Nowhere" we can see that in chapters 5 and 6 it talks about how much of certain materials, including steel, are required. Even if we assume that those numbers are right, their argument seems to be that "this is a lot, and we might need to increase capacity" without much discussion of why that isn't possible.
In fact it doesn't seem like a
Re: (Score:2)
Do the calculations for the amount of nuclear power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric ?
Re: (Score:2)
Do the calculations for the amount of nuclear power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric ?
Either way to reach a zero carbon economy we will not be drilling for oil for our transportation fuel. Whatever path is taken the energy for electric vehicles or synthesizing hydrocarbons will come from the chosen mix of zero carbon energy sources. This is a fixed cost regardless and so doesn't mean much if anything in where this energy comes from. What is quite clear is that a solution that does not include nuclear power will have a materials cost many times higher than a solution that does include nucl
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fixed cost regardless and so doesn't mean much if anything in where this energy comes from.
But there's a difference in efficiency between EV and ICE + synthetic hydrocarbons, which would impact the total energy requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't. The energy needed for transportation will be derived from electricity. This can be direct in the case of the EV or indirect in the case of the synthesized fuel.
You neglected the part where I mentioned differences in efficiencies.
You are arguing over the tiny portion of our energy needs that are passenger cars when so much energy is used for heating, lighting, industry, and other transportation.
I never mentioned passenger cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I answered your question, it doesn't matter.
It does matter for the question whether we should hurry up and build EVs/batteries, or that we should hurry up and build hydrocarbon synthesizers (or what to spend more research on). It also matters for the design of the grid. Hydrocarbon synthesizers need huge amounts of energy in one spot, whereas EVs need huge amounts of energy in a distributed fashion. In the first case, it would work better with a local nuclear plant, or large wind/solar farm. In the second case, it would combine better with local roof
Re: (Score:2)
Let's back this up. Your question from earlier was...
Do the calculations for the amount of nuclear power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric ?
I'll ask you a similar question, do the calculations for the amount of wind, water, and sun power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric?
The discussion on "Roadmap to Nowhere" assumes the energy calculations done by Jacobson and company is correct. They proved quite clearly that the plan to power the USA by only wind, water, and sun is not viable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China figured out how to make nuclear power economical. One thing they do to keep costs down is shoot any protestors that hold up construction.
So how do you explain the relatively small contribution of nuclear to China's energy mix in future plans ?
Re: (Score:2)
China figured out how to make nuclear power economical. One thing they do to keep costs down is shoot any protestors that hold up construction.
So how do you explain the relatively small contribution of nuclear to China's energy mix in future plans ?
They are reloading?
China has 19 nuclear reactors under construction today. They plan to have 150 GWe of nuclear power capacity by 2030 by adding about 8 GWe capacity each year. It's only "relatively small" because China is big and had very little nuclear power capacity until just a few years ago. If they are successful in their plans then China will be the largest producer of nuclear power in the world before their 2030 goal.
Cite:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a... [chinadaily.com.cn]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever problem you can point out that nuclear power might have, like that insurance cost, will have to be ignored, dealt with, worked on along the way, or pushed off into the future. There isn't time to be bitching about little matters like insurance. This is a matter of runaway global warming if we can't bring down our CO2 production. Everything else is nothing by comparison.
Yes, that's exactly right. If you believe the global warning emergency.
Since the warmistas don't embrace nuclear power, that suggests to me that they don't really believe it.
So while hating on "deniers" is fun, how can you expect them to believe it, if you don't even believe it, warm-inistas?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the warmistas don't embrace nuclear power, that suggests to me that they don't really believe it.
Nope, you are confused. The acceptance of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is independent of the acceptance of any kind of particular remedy.
Re: (Score:2)
independent of the acceptance of any kind of particular remedy
Not really. We have hydroelectric power now. The mere suggestion that we NOT decommission these dams is enough to silence the AGW fans. For a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
AGW follows from basic science of greenhouse gases. This science doesn't depend on whether or not we use hydroelectric power.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw pro-nuclear signs at climate rally. There are many of us who, while not all that fond of nuclear, consider it way better option than not getting anything done.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to say "enough done", not "anything done".
Re: (Score:2)
There is time, natural gas can carry much of the world for 40-50 years with even current technology. Figure 20-25 years for a full power replacement cycle.
False dichotomy (Score:2)
It takes time to change the grid over, especially when so many people fight tooth and nail against the taxes that pay for infrastructure spending. Moreover 80% of us live paycheck to paycheck. Climate change is 20 years from now, rent's due tomorrow. I'm fed up with environmentalists who lecture me
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you can build it if you can insure it on your own dime and pay for all follow-up costs.
OK. Your offer is accepted. Provided you STFU about the solutions we choose. Follow up costs: Primarily spent fuel disposition has been solved by waste reprocessing. Lift the ban and we're good to go. Insurance: What insurance? Continue with the status quo, without a bunch of crazy hippies inventing new types of claims and the industry should be able to calculate the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Primarily spent fuel disposition has been solved by waste reprocessing.
According to recent studies, waste reprocessing is more costly than direct geological disposal.
Insurance: What insurance?
If you have to ask what insurance, then never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
According to recent studies, waste reprocessing is more costly than direct geological disposal.
The assumptions behind those studies are that no fuel (or other useful products) are extracted from the reprocessing output. If you use the recovered fuel, the economics change significantly.
If you have to ask what insurance, then never mind.
What's are the limits on liability? Many businesses would not be viable today if there were no statutory limits on what they can be sued for.
Why don't we call them 'exhausts'? (Score:1)
Tobacco was always the scapegoat (Score:1)
People have been dying from industrial pollution for a long time. If a smoker gets lung cancer, was it the diesel exhaust he lived surrounded by, the chemicals he used on his farm, or the smokes?
Before the war against tobacco, most smokers used pipes and cigars. These are not inhaled. They are inherently less dangerous than cigarettes which clot the lungs with soot.
It was always a scapegoat. We blamed a behavior we could force to change and ignored what we could not change. How do you overnight stop industr
Re: Tobacco was always the scapegoat (Score:3)
Nonsense, people are living longer and longer and less people smoke. But smokers have 1 in 3 chance of dying by disease caused by their filthy smelly habit. Clearly air pollution less dangerous
Air pollution affects everyone (Score:2)
Air pollution affects everyone, so a much larger group is at stake, and air pollution is impossible to escape, even if you move to the rapidly diminishing wilds. Further, most smokers who die of these diseases do so at the end of life, which makes it unclear whether smoking was the sole cause.
how this will turn out (Score:2)
instead of making effort in reducing air pollution, we will develop all kind of breather devices you have to wear all the time to prevent you from inhaling poluted air.
we might need them anyway, as a sudden air-polution-stop is not going to happen any time soon.
As an ex-smoker, I can confidently say... (Score:4, Funny)
it's a horrible substitute. All of the tar and carcinogens with none of the drug which kept me addicted for so many years.
Cracked rice bowl? (Score:1)
Now that the anti-smoke activists have convinced the world that tobacco smoke is terrible and have caused it to be outlawed in many places, they are starting to realize that having smoking "turn the corner" is not necessarily a good thing for them. The whole purpose of many NGOs and health organizations has been focused only on smoking. Now that they have won this war, their purpose and livelihood is in question. To survive, they need to find a new cause so that the money keeps rolling in for them. Air
Floored (Score:2)
Tedros said: "A clean and healthy environment is the single most important precondition for ensuring good health.
False. The greatest predictor is a free and productive economy that lifts the masses from dirt-floor poverty and attendant under-nutrition. Only then can you afford the luxury of reducing pollution from the economic might that produced that massive improvement.
Why is this restricted to just 1 type of polution (Score:1)
But, I wish all types of pollution were covered.
Auto batteries. I know of places in Pennsylvania that became Superfund site because of the pollution. High counts of cancer.
Hell, electronic waste. We ship the crap to third world nations so that we don't have to deal with either the disposing or the pollution from the lax goverment controls.
Chemical spills. Large and small
Dumping
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative, is voters punish politicians who don't have a policy enforcing reduced pollution.
You mean the Democrats that oppose nuclear power and the Keystone XL pipeline? I'm sure someone is asking, "AC, how can building an oil pipeline reduce pollution in any way?" Here's how, by moving the oil by a pipeline instead of by diesel burning trucks and trains.
The lack of a pipeline to move oil doesn't mean the oil won't be produced, moved, and consumed. The lack of the pipeline just means the oil will move by means other than the environmentally friendly pipeline. We, as a nation, will be burning
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US Navy has developed a means to produce hydrocarbon based fuels using seawater (and the CO2 dissolved in it) and nuclear power. This can be used commercially for replacing oil from the ground
Can it ? I mean, can it produce enough hydrocarbons at a commercially attractive price ?
Re: (Score:2)
The lack o
Re: (Score:1)
For those of us above a certain latitude, this entire conversati