With recent incidents in coal mines in Chile and New Zealand it's becoming increasingly clear that coal mining is dangerous and unsustainable and we can never be 100% protected against accidents, even at modern coal mines. In 2009, in China alone at least 2631 miners died* in hazardous coal mines underground where they are exposed to intense heat and dangerous gas leaks. Also, the transport of coal leads to many fatal accidents every year. And if this isn't bad enough, the waste generated by coal power plants produces harmful gases that will stay in our atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.
*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_coal_power#By_year
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraChina's government has chosen for (almost) no safety laws in and around their coal mines, because it is cheaper without them, which is good for their economy. The big mining coorporations have safety as a big priority to prevent giving their company a bad name (I.E. BP).
In 2009, in China alone at least 2631 miners died*
To show you 2631 aint that bad with bad safety laws: "An estimated 24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year and about 240,000 are injured."*
Still I agree with you that the world would be better off with less coal powerplants. But because the need for energy increases rapidly, which is our fault. As long as there isn't a decrease in the need for energy and there is no BIG SCALE alternative for hydrocarbons, we shouldn't complain about coal being bad.
Also on a side note: The CO2 produced by Coal Power Plants stays in our atmosphere 50-200 years, not hunderds of thousends of years.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike
Originally posted by yashinI'm not actually against coal power, we need at least some of it until we have some viable alternatives. I was satirizing opposition against nuclear power.
China's government has chosen for (almost) no safety laws in and around their coal mines, because it is cheaper without them, which is good for their economy. The big mining coorporations have safety as a big priority to prevent giving their company a bad name (I.E. BP).
To show you 2631 aint that bad with bad safety laws: "An estimated 24,000 people are ki ...[text shortened]... ars, not hunderds of thousends of years.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. After the Gulf disaster we should abandon petrolium as well.
Nuclear bad and coal bad.
Sounds like the petroleum industry is the big winner. Too bad we don't have natural gas stations to fuel cars.
Obviously Kaset is for solar and wind. Expensive and over rated.
Originally posted by yashinWe generally do not use Coal as a source of hydrocarbons (except here in SA where we make petrol out of coal), we mostly use coal to produce electricity. There are a number of BIG SCALE alternatives to coal which result in fewer deaths and less damage to the environment. Nuclear power is one such alternative. Many of the others are more expensive, but if more investment was put into them that might change.
As long as there isn't a decrease in the need for energy and there is no BIG SCALE alternative for hydrocarbons, we shouldn't complain about coal being bad.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyEverybody knows that its safer to fly than it is to cross the road. We should all stick to air transport.
Just so everyone knows, I'm done with cars now as well. I was driving to work the other day and saw two cars who had collided!! Who knew cars were so dangerous? It's time I started walking.
Note: Yes, I work for a company that owns aircraft.
1 edit
Originally posted by yashinLightning strikes could basically happen anywhere in the world, wherever it rains. So all the world's six billion people are potential victims.
To show you 2631 aint that bad with bad safety laws: "An estimated 24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year and about 240,000 are injured."
The death toll for Chinese miners is a tenth of that of lightning strikes, so unless you think that 10% of the world's population is employed as a Chinese miner, the risk there is certainly quite a lot higher.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe 50 workers of Fukushima are probably doomed but because there are so few of them, invoke lightning-strike probability and prove that their task is relatively safe.
Lightning strikes could basically happen anywhere in the world, wherever it rains. So all the world's six billion people are potential victims.
The death toll for Chinese miners is a tenth of that of lightning strikes, so unless you think that 10% of the world's population is employed as a Chinese miner, the risk there is certainly quite a lot higher.