4 ms·

What is the impact of "hundreds of tons" divided over the world's surface area? It of course sounds like a lot, but the Earth is also quite large, so it's hard

What is the impact of "hundreds of tons" divided over the world's surface area? It of course sounds like a lot, but the Earth is also quite large, so it's hard to know if these are trace amounts, or large enough to have real health impacts.

wmf 5y ago
AFAIK burning coal releases mercury and radioisotopes into the atmosphere in addition to the CO2 and particulates that people worry about but somehow we haven't banned coal.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Coal, much like alcohol and tobacco, is basically grandfathered in. If it were newly considered as an energy source with all the externalities we know now then it's unlikely we'd use it so widely.
- lgats 5y ago
  EPA estimates 50 tons a year from US coal plants. [1] Around 8.5% of global coal consumption is from the US [2], so a ballpark estimate would be 588 tons/year globally from coal. I would guess this estimate is a bit low as there are EPA standards to limit mercury emission by coal plants [3]. Top coal consumers like India and China are likely to have less mercury emission regulations, but I don't have a source for that. US coal varies in mercury content by up to 3x [1] so global mercury emissions are likely to be highly dependent on coal sources. [1] https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html#:~:text=EPA%20officials%20estimated%20that%20about,%2D%20and%20gas%2Dburning%20units https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html#:~:text=EPA%.... [2] https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count... [3] https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants
quantified 5y ago
Of course, the last thing you want is to discover that you underestimated the hazard, now you’re screwed because it’s all over the place. We’re getting along just fine without the satellites now. It will be a fitting irony if humankind lowers its IQ below the point where it can remediate its mistakes.

wmf 5y ago

AFAIK burning coal releases mercury and radioisotopes into the atmosphere in addition to the CO2 and particulates that people worry about but somehow we haven't banned coal.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Coal, much like alcohol and tobacco, is basically grandfathered in. If it were newly considered as an energy source with all the externalities we know now then it's unlikely we'd use it so widely.
lgats 5y ago
EPA estimates 50 tons a year from US coal plants. [1] Around 8.5% of global coal consumption is from the US [2], so a ballpark estimate would be 588 tons/year globally from coal. I would guess this estimate is a bit low as there are EPA standards to limit mercury emission by coal plants [3]. Top coal consumers like India and China are likely to have less mercury emission regulations, but I don't have a source for that. US coal varies in mercury content by up to 3x [1] so global mercury emissions are likely to be highly dependent on coal sources. [1] https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html#:~:text=EPA%20officials%20estimated%20that%20about,%2D%20and%20gas%2Dburning%20units https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html#:~:text=EPA%.... [2] https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count... [3] https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants

quantified 5y ago

Of course, the last thing you want is to discover that you underestimated the hazard, now you’re screwed because it’s all over the place. We’re getting along just fine without the satellites now. It will be a fitting irony if humankind lowers its IQ below the point where it can remediate its mistakes.