4 ms·

Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant differen

Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant difference to France, while Germany has more industry and a higher GDP.

nix23 5y ago
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Europe has a population of 746.4 million. So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million, is not a big deal, considering that both air pollution and coal power are currently a necessary evil to keep the economy running. The economy is what keeps all those people alive, by the way. Cut that economy by even a few percent and it will cost many more lives. And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power, over night, or even at all. You can't. Some industries depend on burning coal, so are even harder to switch. Transportation is nearly all fossil fueled, so that would take a decade or two to electrify. All that takes extra energy investment (burning CO2 etc) to realize. And then you need to ramp up nuclear power. With all the problems that come with it. Probably have to relax some safety regulations to encourage the industry to grow quickly enough. Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity, much less a long term storage. People aren't stupid, they know accidents are extremely rare, but if they do happen, they pay the full price. And even long before, their property prices plummet. And after several "this will never happen accidents" actually happened, "there will be no accidents" doesn't hold all that much weight with the people. All that alone makes it virtually impossible to start new projects.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million Attributed to coal-fired-plants alone, please read. >And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power Lacy reading i the bigger problem on your side, and yes replace coal-fired-plant with modern nuclear power (or anything else) would ZERO those 3000 death ATTRIBUTED TO COAL-FIRED-PLANTS. >Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity. As a Swiss i see the "free" and "democratically" thing a bit different than Germany, how much can your citizens influence European made law? And Nobody wants to have a coal-fired-plant in their vicinity too....i hope, the difference of objective and subjective danger. Nuclear power is objective danger but in reality negligible, coal power is subjective, you think oh that's not dangerous yet with every breath you suck it in. Let alone destroying vast forests to dig out more coal and make that coal then artificially cheap. Here's your brown-coal proudly sponsored by your government ;) BTW: Death from air-pollution (over all, NOT just from coal-fired-plants) in Germany is a "little" bit higher (~71000 in germany, 403'000 in Europe): https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/many-europeans-still-exposed-to-air-pollution-2015/premature-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/many-europeans-...
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Any nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima or even Tschernobyl would take a reasonable chunk out of our GDP because of the exclusion zone, even if the death count would be neglible as you seem to think. If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure.
      - nix23 5y ago
        >You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. No one ever said that, however it's still tumbling around in you head for whatever reason. >And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Future generation would probably say that a CO2 saturated atmosphere is worse...Earth is the new Venus. >If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. And if china builds Nuclear and Coal power plants you have to accept that too, and if N.Korea trows a ICBM into your country you have to accept that too, but i think thats not the discussion, the fact that Germany believes it's green when in fact they are brow (from the coal) is just laughable, and even sell that power to other country's, coal plants are there to make money and not as a "stop gap" and you get the "fresh" air. >Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure. Exactly wrong, "old" Nuclear power was the intelligent stop gap.

nix23 5y ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Europe has a population of 746.4 million. So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million, is not a big deal, considering that both air pollution and coal power are currently a necessary evil to keep the economy running. The economy is what keeps all those people alive, by the way. Cut that economy by even a few percent and it will cost many more lives. And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power, over night, or even at all. You can't. Some industries depend on burning coal, so are even harder to switch. Transportation is nearly all fossil fueled, so that would take a decade or two to electrify. All that takes extra energy investment (burning CO2 etc) to realize. And then you need to ramp up nuclear power. With all the problems that come with it. Probably have to relax some safety regulations to encourage the industry to grow quickly enough. Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity, much less a long term storage. People aren't stupid, they know accidents are extremely rare, but if they do happen, they pay the full price. And even long before, their property prices plummet. And after several "this will never happen accidents" actually happened, "there will be no accidents" doesn't hold all that much weight with the people. All that alone makes it virtually impossible to start new projects.
- nix23 5y ago
  >So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million Attributed to coal-fired-plants alone, please read. >And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power Lacy reading i the bigger problem on your side, and yes replace coal-fired-plant with modern nuclear power (or anything else) would ZERO those 3000 death ATTRIBUTED TO COAL-FIRED-PLANTS. >Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity. As a Swiss i see the "free" and "democratically" thing a bit different than Germany, how much can your citizens influence European made law? And Nobody wants to have a coal-fired-plant in their vicinity too....i hope, the difference of objective and subjective danger. Nuclear power is objective danger but in reality negligible, coal power is subjective, you think oh that's not dangerous yet with every breath you suck it in. Let alone destroying vast forests to dig out more coal and make that coal then artificially cheap. Here's your brown-coal proudly sponsored by your government ;) BTW: Death from air-pollution (over all, NOT just from coal-fired-plants) in Germany is a "little" bit higher (~71000 in germany, 403'000 in Europe): https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/many-europeans-still-exposed-to-air-pollution-2015/premature-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/many-europeans-...
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Any nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima or even Tschernobyl would take a reasonable chunk out of our GDP because of the exclusion zone, even if the death count would be neglible as you seem to think. If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >You still can't replace all air pollution with nuclear power. No one ever said that, however it's still tumbling around in you head for whatever reason. >And nuclear contamination is still worse than any coal contamination if it ever occurs. Future generation would probably say that a CO2 saturated atmosphere is worse...Earth is the new Venus. >If a majority of voters think this small risk of gigantic damage is not worth taking, you eventually have to accept that. And if china builds Nuclear and Coal power plants you have to accept that too, and if N.Korea trows a ICBM into your country you have to accept that too, but i think thats not the discussion, the fact that Germany believes it's green when in fact they are brow (from the coal) is just laughable, and even sell that power to other country's, coal plants are there to make money and not as a "stop gap" and you get the "fresh" air. >Coal is not the future, it is a stop gap measure. Exactly wrong, "old" Nuclear power was the intelligent stop gap.