@wajoma saidNo, you were given a reputable source, but because it clashed with your preconceived, ideological bias (as made clear by your post above) you insist on rejecting any contrary evidence.
Soothfast seems satisfied with the source so I assume he thinks the question has been answered. He might be very serious about his answer.
If I had a reputable source it would have been quoted, rather than asking the question.
Are you menstruating or something?
@kazetnagorra saidI think he very well may be...
No doubt you are better qualified than all of the world's climate scientists.
@no1marauder saidYou don't question the motives and transparency of organisations such as:
No, you were given a reputable source, but because it clashed with your preconceived, ideological bias (as made clear by your post above) you insist on rejecting any contrary evidence.
-China Coal Society
-Coalbed Methane Committee - China Coal Society
-China Coal Industry Development Research Center
-China Coal Industry Network - Chinese coal industry's information, policy, science and technology, statistics and other information.
-China Coal Industry Association
-Statecoal.com - National Coal Network
-General Administration of Coal Geology
-State Coal Mine Safety Supervision
-National Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau
-Coal Mining Production Safety Information Network
-China Coal Research Institute - Coalfield Geology and exploration, coal mining, coal mine safety, coal mining machinery, coal washing, coal mine environmental protection, pipeline transporting coal and other professional applied & basic research.
-Beijing Research Institute of Coal Chemistry
Your anti-corporation credentials are in jeopardy when you swallow so wholeheartedly PR guff from the biggest baddest corporation of them all: The CPC.
Edit: BTW I'm a big fan of cheap abundant electricity made available by burning more and more coal. It can improve the lives of millions of people, particularly the poorest, we need more of it.
@no1marauder saidand it will never happen in your life time.. live with that fact.
Gee you're right; it would be best if almost all the countries in the world got together and negotiated a framework for each to take steps to slow the increase in world wide temperatures and thus reduce the effects of climate change. I wonder why no one ever thought of it before you?
1 edit
@wajoma saidHere's more insidious commie propaganda for you to reject out of hand because it might challenge the ossified configuration of your neural network:
Edit: BTW I'm a big fan of cheap abundant electricity made available by burning more and more coal. It can improve the lives of millions of people, particularly the poorest, we need more of it.
Air pollution in China kills 750,000 people every year, according to a study by the World Bank.[33] Issued in response to record-high levels of air pollution in 2012 and 2013, the State Council's September 2013 Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution reiterated the need to reduce coal's share in China's energy mix to 65% by 2017.[34] Amidst growing public concern, social unrest incidents are growing around the country. For example, in December 2011 the government suspended plans to expand a coal-fired power plant in the city of Haimen after 30,000 local residents staged a violent protest against it, because "the coal-fired power plant was behind a rise in the number of local cancer patients, environmental pollution and a drop in the local fishermen's catch."[35]
Again from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Efforts_to_reduce_emissions
Since you rejected the reference I supplied that stated that China's coal-fired plants are relatively more efficient, I must deduce that you believe China's plants are dirty. This in turn intimates that you recognize coal power as dirty. Since your previous post makes clear you love coal, I will be curious to see what manner of mental gymnastics you'll perform to refute my reference above concerning the human toll exacted by coal pollution.
I guess you'll have to weigh the lies of the World Bank commies against the People's Republic of China commies, and determine which conflict with your read-only ideological files less.
For your convenience:
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-read-only-file-2625983
@wajoma saidThose are listed as "External links" for further reading and not as direct sources. You should be a bit less careless in your perusal of linked articles.
You don't question the motives and transparency of organisations such as:
-China Coal Society
-Coalbed Methane Committee - China Coal Society
-China Coal Industry Development Research Center
-China Coal Industry Network - Chinese coal industry's information, policy, science and technology, statistics and other information.
-China Coal Industry Association
-Statecoal.co ...[text shortened]... coal. It can improve the lives of millions of people, particularly the poorest, we need more of it.
@wajoma saidBurning more and more coal when there are cheaper alternatives available (taking into account all the costs of coal) is utter madness.
You don't question the motives and transparency of organisations such as:
-China Coal Society
-Coalbed Methane Committee - China Coal Society
-China Coal Industry Development Research Center
-China Coal Industry Network - Chinese coal industry's information, policy, science and technology, statistics and other information.
-China Coal Industry Association
-Statecoal.co ...[text shortened]... coal. It can improve the lives of millions of people, particularly the poorest, we need more of it.
@soothfast saidYou posted stats for people killed by air pollution which did not single out coal fired power stations as being the cause or even coal alone, there are many sources for air pollution.
Here's more insidious commie propaganda for you to reject out of hand because it might challenge the ossified configuration of your neural network:
[quote]Air pollution in China kills 750,000 people every year, according to a study by the World Bank.[33] Issued in response to record-high levels of air pollution in 2012 and 2013, the State Council's September 2013 Action ...[text shortened]... ical files less.
For your convenience:
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-read-only-file-2625983
"...toll exacted by coal pollution."
I'm not sure what gymnastics are supposed to be performed. Coal is a cheap abundant energy source, modern coal fired power stations can operate cleanly and efficiently. There is a difference between 'clean and efficient' and just 'efficient', you do not favor gymnastics so much as sleight of hand. Stating the 750 000 number and hoping that it sounds impressive enough that no one would notice it was referring to 'air pollution' and not coal fired power stations specifically.
On the one hand you speak of Chinas superior clean coal power stations then you'd like to attribute 750 000 deaths to them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHey if they are cheaper then go for it, no way I'm arguing for more expensive, more unreliable power.
Burning more and more coal when there are cheaper alternatives available (taking into account all the costs of coal) is utter madness.
In Victoria (Australia) they've opted for unreliable wind, so when the wind does what we can always count on it to do i.e. stop. They need to power up the coal fired station, but that's not the way they work, you don't just turn a key and it's going, the most efficient way to run them is to run them steadily. So the stop and start thing in response to the stop and start wind is enormously inefficient. At one time an efficient plant is made inefficient to prop up the unreliable.
Yet another example of greenie dream feelings actually having a negative effect for everyone.
@no1marauder saidFair point.
Those are listed as "External links" for further reading and not as direct sources. You should be a bit less careless in your perusal of linked articles.
@wajoma saidYou are ignoring all the costs of coal, however.
Hey if they are cheaper then go for it, no way I'm arguing for more expensive, more unreliable power.
In Victoria (Australia) they've opted for unreliable wind, so when the wind does what we can always count on it to do i.e. stop. They need to power up the coal fired station, but that's not the way they work, you don't just turn a key and it's going, the most efficient way ...[text shortened]... le.
Yet another example of greenie dream feelings actually having a negative effect for everyone.
External costs of coal mining and power generation include the following:[3]
Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metals, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
Congestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide)
Non-fatal cancer, osteroporosia, ataxia, renal dysfunction (benzene, radionuclines, heavy metal, etc.)
Chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc. (particulates, ozone)
Loss of IQ (mercury)
Degradation and soiling of buildings (sulfur dioxide, acid deposition, particulates)
Reduction of crop yields (NOx, sulfur dioxide, ozone, acid deposition); some emissions may also have a fertilizing effect (nitrogen and sulfur deposition)
Global warming (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)
Ecosystem loss and degradation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a study of just one of those effects:
n 2009, the Department of Community Medicine, Institute for Health Policy Research, West Virginia University, published an epidemiological study of mortality rates between the years 1979 and 2005 in Appalachian counties classified as high levels of coal mining and low levels of coal mining, Appalachian counties where there was no coal mining, and other counties in the US.[9] From the estimated excess mortality (adjusted for age and socioeconomic conditions), they went on to estimate the corresponding financial value of statistical life (VSL) lost, both absolute and discounted future value, for comparison to the economic benefits of the coal mining industry.
Their estimates of the annual age-adjusted excess mortality ranged from 3,975 to 10,923, depending on years studied and comparison group, corresponding to VSL estimates between $18.563 billion and $84.544 billion with a point estimate of $50.010 billion. Adjusted for socioeconomic factors, the excess mortality estimates ranged from 1,736 to 2,889, and discounting the costs of that future mortality for the length of time before occurrence, arrived with a point estimate of the present cost of this mortality of $41.846 billion. This is 5 times greater than the current economic value of the coal mined, $8.088 billion annually.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal
There are numerous other studies of other effects yielding just as damning estimates. The only way coal is profitable is because those costs are socialized while the profit from coal generation is privatized. A all too typical example of laissez faire in action.
@no1marauder saidAnd your article ignores the benefits, lives, literally millions of lives rely on coal fired power. And the millions more poor folk clamouring for cheap reliable power.
You are ignoring all the costs of coal, however.
External costs of coal mining and power generation include the following:[3]
Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metals, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
Congestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide ...[text shortened]... he profit from coal generation is privatized. A all too typical example of laissez faire in action.
Hey No1 you've got electric, sucks to be someone who doesn't.
Sensationalist, emotive, exaggerated, vaguely defined snake oil list. They forgot to blame stinky breath and itchy balls to the list of woes.
Global warming: How much has the temperature gone up. How much of that rise can be attributed to man, of the total temp rise attributed to man how much of it can be attributed to coal fired power?
Eco system loss and degradation: Yes, they dug a hole in the ground. You need to check the holes they dig for batteries.
Particulates: Are these the old time power stations that can't be closed because greenies block newer cleaner power stations from being built.
Meantime we've got some other mob blaming x number of deaths on smoking, or eating too much sugar. One person dies and every whiner jackal focus group is trying to claim their death for their cause.
And from all this somebody waved a wand and put a dollar value on it.
BTW so a coal fired power station is Ok as long as it's state run.
No1: "...socialized while the profit from coal generation is privatized."
Soothfast claims the Chinese claim their power stations are cleaner and greener.
I express some skepticism.
No.1 post stats from dirty old (as far back as 1979) US outdated coal fired power stations.