Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:51 am

Coal power kills approximately 10,000 people every year. From it's mining, to the respiratory diseases the power plants cause.
Over the decades, the Chernobyl power plant disaster will likely kill around 4000 people from increased cancer risk, total.
Likewise the Fukushima power plant disaster will likely kill around 130 from an increased cancer risk, total.

Coal. 10,000. not total. no.
10,000
EVERY
YEAR

If that were total, it'd still be unacceptable. But that happens every year.
It basically takes only 5 days for Coal power to routinely kill as many people, as will be killed by the entire Fukushima power plant disaster for the next few decades.

One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic

Now watch as zero major media outlets include this kinda-important-context while reporting the story.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:08 am

So, 10,000 people a year must die to produce the energy needed for hospitals to save hundreds of thousands of lives a year, and support an economy that allows for a world population in the billions….

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:09 am

I feel all aglow over this

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:15 am

Media is not gonna care, because its been a known factor for longer than we could split the atom.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:43 pm

The need for energy is the bottom line. Roid overlooks the fact that without the fuel for logistics to grow and transport food and other goods- the current world population could not exist.

Sure Roid...let's shut down all coal production. Let's see how many people are killed in the ensuing mass starvation and disease.

Those cookies you're munching on? Those 'mental enhancing' drugs you like to take? Gone- or so priced far out of your reach, they might as well not exist.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:50 pm

Roid,

I'm unclear on your overall point.

Are you:

Suggesting that nuclear power should replace coal power because of relative danger?
Suggesting that coal power should end because it's the higher danger without suggesting a replacement source?
Just pointing out media tendency to sensationalize X while ignoring Y?
Something else?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:31 pm

Wow. That's a high number.

There's no way that the far-reaching effects of the recent disaster at Fukushima have been fully explored--it raised radiation levels all across the U.S. I think it's both optimistic and a little early to tally it. Also you're contrasting localized disasters with the total sum of Coal-related deaths... in the world? ...And with coal being more prevalent and all...

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:01 pm

I'm suggesting Coal be replaced with Nuclear.
We live in democracies, which means for that to happen - people need to know what's up.
So i'm upping the knows.

"Roid media™.... upping the knows"

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:28 pm

Coal causes a disproportionately large amount of deaths, but ST's point that coal also provides a disproportionately large amount of the world's power still seems relevant. Do you think you can normalize these numbers to per kilowatt (or something)? I have a feeling that coal will still be far worse, but it'd be a fairer comparison.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:57 pm

I would support replacing coal with nuclear, only if done in an economically viable way, that being…replacing old worn out coal plants with nuclear, but not some plan to tear down all of the existing infrastructure, all at one time.

I already pay out of my ass for electricity to run my business.

Look, we still live in the industrial era, when we get to the super technology age…things will be better.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:58 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Coal causes a disproportionately large amount of deaths, but ST's point that coal also provides a disproportionately large amount of the world's power still seems relevant. Do you think you can normalize these numbers to per kilowatt (or something)? I have a feeling that coal will still be far worse, but it'd be a fairer comparison.

Those sorts of statistics exist, and they show that coal power is waaaaay more deadly than nuclear. Hell, believe it or not, wind power kills more people per unit of energy produced than nuclear does.

Now this obviously doesn't mean that we can snap our fingers and magically get rid of every single coal-powered plant on the planet tomorrow, as nice as that would be; I don't think roid believes that any more than I do. But what it does show is that public sensationalism about types of energy production is directed in the completely wrong direction.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:23 pm

Looked up a plant that we pass on the way to the lake. Interesting.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:33 pm

One interesting statistic is the average amount of power produced by each type of power plant. In the US as of 2009:
There were 1436 coal fired power plants with a combined total output capacity of 338.732 gigawatts (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power ... ted_States ), which comes to an average of 235 megawatts per plant.
And there were 104 nuclear power plants with a combined total output capacity of 101.263 gigawatts (source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html ), which comes to an average of 973 megawatts per plant.

So given that there are a lot of voices around the US calling for increased power capacity, it seems like replacing old and worn coal plants with nuclear plants would be an effective solution to that and more. Although the electrical grid itself would also need significant upgrades or these nuclear power plants with designs that can exceed 1.5 gigawatts per reactor would burn it out in a flash, and nobody wants to do that either... -_-

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:02 am

Curious how the proposed nuclear reactor build up 30 to 40 years ago was squashed by the same environmentalist who now want to squash coal fired plants.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:48 am

Krom wrote:One interesting statistic is the average amount of power produced by each type of power plant. In the US as of 2009:
There were 1436 coal fired power plants with a combined total output capacity of 338.732 gigawatts (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power ... ted_States ), which comes to an average of 235 megawatts per plant.
And there were 104 nuclear power plants with a combined total output capacity of 101.263 gigawatts (source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html ), which comes to an average of 973 megawatts per plant.

So given that there are a lot of voices around the US calling for increased power capacity, it seems like replacing old and worn coal plants with nuclear plants would be an effective solution to that and more. Although the electrical grid itself would also need significant upgrades or these nuclear power plants with designs that can exceed 1.5 gigawatts per reactor would burn it out in a flash, and nobody wants to do that either... -_-

One problem is that Nuclear plants are more picky about where they are built.

Generally I agree, though.

Again I dream about fusion becoming viable......

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:58 pm

A company based in my little town, Corvallis, has developed a small, passively cooled reactor that can be built in a factory and can be easily shipped to any location for fast installation. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Instead of having huge, central, costly nuclear power plants, they can install more of these smaller, modular, easier to build, maintain and run reactor systems to put the electricity generation much closer to the end users without all the big hazards.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... r-Startup/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:45 pm

TC you still have the problem of transporting the spent fuel rods.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:38 pm

The largest cost of nuclear power is maintenance, and maintenance that requires a high degree of precision.

Fukushima was the only major incident that wasn't caused by human error.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:48 pm

woodchip wrote:TC you still have the problem of transporting the spent fuel rods.

And you still have the problem of millions of gallons of toxic coal ash sludge, which is still being stored on site at most power plants of which no good disposal "solution" has been thought up for either. In fact, there have been a couple of very large spills, which have contaminated the surrounding areas around the affected plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/us/30sludge.html

All electricity generation creates some form of waste. I guess it comes down to what type of waste do you want sitting around at your local power plant. Or, we could all become Luddites.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:32 pm

If I could rig up my computer to be powered by stationary bike, it'd probably be pretty damn good for my waistline.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:41 pm

Top Gun wrote:If I could rig up my computer to be powered by stationary bike, it'd probably be pretty damn good for my waistline.

Depending on your PC, this could be like riding your bike up a moderate incline, to riding your bike up the side of an orbital elevator and having to maintain 40 miles per hour.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:06 pm

Yeah, I know. It takes a pretty decent clip just to keep a 60-watt incandescent bulb lit.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:06 am

Perhaps before you jump on the nuclear bandwagon you should see what Japan is doing in light of the Fukishima disaster:

"TOKYO — Japan posted its biggest first-half trade deficit on record, according to government figures released Wednesday, highlighting the economic consequences as this nuclear-averse country imports fossil fuels to meet its energy needs."

"Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has lobbied for months about the need to resume use of nuclear power, which once supplied a third of Japan’s energy. For now, though, only two of the nation’s 50 atomic reactors are online.

so from nuke power to dirty fossil fuels...surprising what one little disaster will do for you.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:42 am

Yeah, and guess where they want to ship all that dusty coal from? Why, the ports of the Pacific Northwest. So we get a double whammy. First we get all that nice dust associated with moving coal around to ship it, especially if it gets spilled in some accident, then by happenstance and the jet stream, we get the burned residue AFTER they burn it for their power. Nice. If China ramps up their power production, we'll be under a permanent brown cloud of coal soot and dust. And by the way, why are we selling our coal to power their power plants? Let 'em dig for coal on their own soil, if they have it that is, and leave ours to us. If they don't have any power, they can't take our jobs either. It's a win, win for us.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2012/07/coal- ... northwest/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:25 am

Better coal dust than glow in the dark sushi

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:47 am

Sushi I can avoid. Black lung, or other lung diseases from continuously breathing coal dust and soot in the air I live in, I can't. It would be better if we could come up with a cleaner alternative for either method. But when we have an industry so bent on profit and self preservation that they actively dismiss developing other forms of energy that DON'T use coal or oil and hype theirs as "clean, safe and renewable" (brought to you by the API), we'll never get out of the dirty power morass we live in. Coal ain't clean no matter how you dress it and getting natural gas out of the ground does not have a LOW IMPACT on the environment, like that lovely blonde shill for the API claims in their propaganda infomercials.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:59 pm

http://northgowerwindactiongroup.wordpr ... er-plants/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:17 pm

Heretic wrote:http://northgowerwindactiongroup.wordpr ... er-plants/

Now, now Heretic, you'll damage TC's cognition skills by linking actual facts over hyperbole.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:53 pm

What a piece of propaganda if I ever read one.

And just HOW do they know that coal dust won't harm anyone? Most lung ailments take a long time to form or show up. Smoking takes YEARS to cause cancer. Do you guys want to be guinea pigs for testing whether airborne coal ash, usually loaded with toxic metals too, harms the lungs, or the human body? I'm not even talking about asthma, which HAS been linked to air pollution. As for coal dust, ask any miner who now has black lung disease and they'll tell you the coal companies don't give a damn about the effects. But you can bet that most communities are worrying about the dust from the coal trains. Watch this video someone shot of a long coal train going by their home. Notice all the dust coming off the train cars. Go ahead, breathe in deeply!

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:22 am

Heretic wrote:http://northgowerwindactiongroup.wordpr ... er-plants/
"...9,000 Ontarians who die every year from respiratory aliments caused in part by the emissions from coal based electricity plants."

That article seems to be reacting to a claim that coal is killing 10,000 a year in Ontario alone.
i want to point out that OP in this thread never said 10,000 in Ontario alone, it said 10,000 worldwide.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:28 pm

World wide hardly there are studies that say 13,000 die each year in the US alone.

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/powe ... /existing/

You might want to revamp your numbers there partner.

Another says 30,000 in the US alone

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

I'll think I go with the group that wants wind power than you bull★■◆●.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:47 am

So where are you going to get your power when the wind dies or blows too hard?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:57 am

No, I agree that if we want power, we need a way to generate it with the means we now have. Right now, ALL petrochemical, coal and nuclear methods have their toxic waste issues. But what we need is a concerted effort to find other, cleaner viable ways to generate electricity WELL before the necessity arises forces us to do it in a hurry, like when oil, coal and natural gas eventually run out, or poisons us in the process. Wind and solar are only stopgaps. But, right now, the API and coal industries are only thinking about profits from gas, coal and oil, while pollution isn't an issue (which they like to lie to us about in their infomercials) and concentrated research is essentially on the back burner as a tomorrow problem. And if Asia wants our coal, they'd better come up with a way to keep the railroad and transference dust to essentially zero. Otherwise, tough cookies.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:19 am

The amount of coal dust that comes off the railroad during transport would probably require hundreds or even thousands of years of exposure in order to give someone black lung, if ever. Coal miners can get black lung because they are exposed to the dust in a small sealed environment for 8 or more hours a day, every day, for years. The difference between the two levels of exposure is enormous. Climate change is a much bigger and potentially much more dangerous issue than coal dust coming off the railroads will ever be.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:31 pm

You're right about that. Climate change will affect everyone on the planet. People can deny the changes that are now becoming evident all they want, but they do so at the peril of all of humanity.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/am ... dings.html

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

But I'd still really hate to live right next to a coal train rail line.

EDIT: What a waste of natural gas, and it was all because of someone's really big boo boo.

Darvaza Flaming Crater

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:44 am

If the lights are out
in your neighborhood

Who you gonna call?
Coalpower!

If the toilet don't flush
and the smells not good

Who you gonna call?
Coalpower!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:43 am

tunnelcat wrote:People can deny the changes that are now becoming evident all they want, but they do so at the peril of all of humanity.

The only peril that all of humanity is facing, is the acceptance of totalitarianism as the alternative to "Global Warming".

It would have been a small thing for the U.S. government to fund research for alternative energy that would be just as practical as coal. Instead we see a disturbing trend toward accepting less viable energy alternatives, and forced compliance with lower energy consumption.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:09 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:People can deny the changes that are now becoming evident all they want, but they do so at the peril of all of humanity.
The only peril that all of humanity is facing, is the acceptance of totalitarianism as the alternative to "Global Warming".

It would have been a small thing for the U.S. government to fund research for alternative energy that would be just as practical as coal. Instead we see a disturbing trend toward accepting less viable energy alternatives, and forced compliance with lower energy consumption.

Sometimes, people need to be "forced" or "prodded" into doing what's best for them or society. People tend to be lazy and get into comfortable ruts. Forcing the issue NOW will be far better than going on blithely ignoring the consequences of what we are doing to our planet. Foresight is always better than hindsight. Why not get a head start and work on the problem EARLY and get used to it, before we are REQUIRED to by necessity?

That's not factoring in the other detail that fossil fuels WILL run out sometime in the future, and that China is going to be using up more of OUR coal faster and faster to feed THEIR power demands. In fact, why sell them OUR coal anyway? We need the power too and China's a world competitor, possibly even an aggressor, who doesn't have OUR interests at heart anyway.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:36 pm

You know, I could get really mad about someone doing something like what you just did. Instead I'll say welcome to America, ya ignorant [insert favorite derogatory name]. This is the U.S. of ****ing A. Totalitarianism is not a constitutional concept. You're just spouting propaganda.

But... you missed the point. My point was that I believe there are solutions consistent with individual liberty that have not been considered or pursued simply because for whatever reason (gee I wonder) totalitarian-esq ideas of government are the starting point. You could fill a book-shelf with plausible "what-if" scenarios for solving the questionable energy crisis without overstepping the constitutional bounds of our government established in this country.

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:15 pm

Ok, here's the thing, I agree with Thorne fundmentally, but it's no longer realistic. A change of order is coming, as TC just said, the question is whether you will be adaptive or mal-adaptive to it. It's not like we were not warned huh?