re: Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds

quote:

---

The one possible problem with your pov is say we drop oil, coal, natural gas, etc. type energies that comes out of the ground. Just how many solar panels, wind turbines and any other above ground sources of energy will dot the countryside in order to provide all the fossil fuel energies now being used to provide energy at this day and time?

---

This is of course another issue with the greenies. They seem to ONLY focus on the POSITIVES of THEIR supported tech.

The sheer number of windmills and solar panels that would be required is staggering at this point. Yet, you never hear what the implications of that might be.

I was basing my post on the fact that I thought all this green energy stuff was about doing away with fossil fuels. Now if the green energy is cheaper to produce and cheaper for me to buy, sign me up. If not, then I don't want "experiments" dotting the countryside for a so-called just cause.

Didn't intend to criticize your post, just the argument for green energy.

quote:

---

Why is it so hard to believe we can improve efficiency in these technologies over time?

---

It's not just producing twice or three times the energy production of these renewables. It would require an exponential increase in efficiency over a very short period of time to just meet the current energy demands, not accounting for future demand increases.

These renewables are very, very ineffective. At some point, we will max out their production ability.

quote:

---

Right, but think about how much $ has been invested in improving the efficiency of traditional energy sources (coal, petroleum, etc). It took a long time (and a lot of money) to get where we are today.

---

But even those increased weren't exponential. It's a small example but the increase of fuel efficiency in cars over a 45 year period has been about 6 to 7 miles per gallon. In the U.S., passenger cars have gone from about 14 mpg to 21 mpg between 1960 and 2005. That's a 50% increase over 45 years.

quote:

---

"are" is the operative word. Cell phones, the internet, automobiles, airplanes and computers were also very ineffective at one point.

---

Again, those weren't exponential increases. Wind and Solar have such a lower starting point than fossil fuels and nuclear that it would require massive gains to just pull even.

I'm not saying that these renewables don't have a role in supplementing the energy grid. I just think its a pipe dream to expect them to ever get to the point which they are primary sources of energy within the next two centuries. Hence why I said that the obviously answer to this issue is nuclear. It's clean, it's abundant, and it's incredibly efficient.

"I don't think anybody is saying dump coal or oil. They're (I'm) just saying it would be a good idea to start investing in improving efficiency of solar, wind, tide, etc. in light of recent data. And yes, it might take another century."

I would be for funding of basic science research in these areas but that's it. Otherwise, private industry will do a better, more efficient job of figuring out the best applications based on conditions and market incentives that exist at those future times.

quote:

---

could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?

---

No.

quote:

---

I don't understand this line of thinking. There is a more efficient, cleaner source of energy available.

---

I assume you mean nuclear. That is something we absolutely should be using for our electricity. I was thinking more along the lines of autos/machines you don't plug in.

quote:

---

Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds

---

7 million, out of 7 billion? 1:1000 people? Surely, you aren't this guillable?

quote:

---

Its report identified air pollution as the world’s single biggest environmental health risk.

---

bullshite. Dysentery is the greatest third-world threat to life. Water based infection.

quote:

---

Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?

---

Nope. Not a bit. Because... assuming the outrageous claim is true... how many lives are SAVED because of access to food, medicine, pesticides provided by (and only by) cheap energy. Without it... many millions would be starving and more would be dying from entirely preventable disease.

For example... I was in a medical equipment museum a few weeks ago. Stirking that almost all of the equipment was built of stainless steel and glass. Cleaned between each use. Rife opportunity for infection. Now that plastic is widely available, everything is sterile (and disposable).

quote:

---

It's not just producing twice or three times the energy production of these renewables. It would require an exponential increase in efficiency over a very short period of time to just meet the current energy demands, not accounting for future demand increases.

---

AND finding feedstock replacements for plastics, paints, pesticides, medicines, asphalt...

quote:

---

how many lives are SAVED because of access to food, medicine, pesticides provided by (and only by) cheap energy. Without it... many millions would be starving and more would be dying from entirely preventable disease.

---

i was on my phone earlier when i posted, but this is exactly right. the desired regs put billions (with a B) of people at risk.