Halt Ordered on Study of Health Threat From Surface Mines

[KLATTU]

Your argument is circular reasoning: "Renewable energy doesn't meet our energy needs yet, therefore we shouldn't invest in it, therefore it doesn't meet all our energy needs."

Good thing we didn't try that philosophy when phasing out of the horse-and-buggy industry a century ago.

hold on there Mr Strawman. I never said any such ting. My statement was that there is a trade off between clean energy and jobs. You countered that we don't have to make that tradeoff. ( paraphrasing-correct me if I'm guily of building a strawman myself)
I countered countered that we aren't anywher near being able to supply US energy needs with renewables right now.So if you make coal, oil and gas more expensive, it will cost jobs.

 

[Phys251]

hold on there Mr Strawman. I never said any such ting. My statement was that there is a trade off between clean energy and jobs. You countered that we don't have to make that tradeoff. ( paraphrasing-correct me if I'm guily of building a strawman myself)
I countered countered that we aren't anywher near being able to supply US energy needs with renewables right now.So if you make coal, oil and gas more expensive, it will cost jobs.

Jobs that can be transferred over to the renewable energy sector with the right training. All those wind turbines? Someone's going to have to manufacture them. Someone's going to have to build them. Someone's going to have to maintain them. And guess what, China is ahead of us on that wind turbine manufacturing. What a perfect industry this would have been to revive the manufacturing sector of the Upper Midwest, but it appears that the anti-green-energy state governments of the Upper Midwest do not want to partake in such an opportunity.

And we haven't even talked about all the jobs that solar power is creating!

 

[Stinger]

I don't think being a miner one of the more desirable jobs to have. But I just ran across the following and it's kind of mind blowing when you think about the categories and respective fatalities.



And similar numbers above shows up in a Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/09/25/americas-10-deadliest-jobs/#2fc9330869f0

The most alarming number for me on the list was "PILOTS". :shock:

Helps explain how when you look in toto at how much men make and how much women make why men earn more.

 

[Stinger]

Jobs that can be transferred over to the renewable energy sector with the right training. All those wind turbines? Someone's going to have to manufacture them. Someone's going to have to build them. Someone's going to have to maintain them. And guess what, China is ahead of us on that wind turbine manufacturing. What a perfect industry this would have been to revive the manufacturing sector of the Upper Midwest, but it appears that the anti-green-energy state governments of the Upper Midwest do not want to partake in such an opportunity.

And we haven't even talked about all the jobs that solar power is creating!

Except large scale renewables aren't panning out and aren't preforming up to predictions and cost. They're not going to replace fossil fuels. We should be spending that money on nuclear instead of futile renewables.

 

[Phys251]

Except large scale renewables aren't panning out and aren't preforming up to predictions and cost. They're not going to replace fossil fuels. We should be spending that money on nuclear instead of futile renewables.

That is simply false.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212134211.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

 

[Stinger]

That is simply false.

High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver
$2.2 billion California project generates 40% of expected electricity

Some costly high-tech solar power projects aren’t living up to promises their backers made about how much electricity they could generate.

Solar-thermal technology, which uses mirrors to capture the sun’s rays, was once heralded as the advance that would overtake old fashioned solar panel farms. But a series of missteps and technical difficulties threatens to make newfangled solar-thermal technology obsolete.

The $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar power project in California’s Mojave Desert is supposed to be generating more than a million megawatt-hours of electricity each year. But 15 months after starting up, the plant is producing just 40% of that, according to data from the U.S. Energy Department.

Turns out, there is a lot more to go wrong with the new technology. Replacing broken equipment and learning better ways to operate the complex assortment of machinery has stalled Ivanpah’s ability to reach full potential, said Randy Hickok, a senior vice president at NRG. New solar-thermal technology isn’t as simple as traditional solar panel installations. Since older solar photovoltaic panels have been around for decades, they improve in efficiency and price every year, he said.

“There’s a lot more on-the-job learning with Ivanpah,” Mr. Hickok said, adding that engineers have had to fix leaky tubes connected to water boilers and contend with a vibrating steam turbine that threatened nearby equipment.


One big miscalculation was that the power plant requires far more steam to run smoothly and efficiently than originally thought, according to a document filed with the California Energy Commission. Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much help from fossil fuels to get the plant humming every morning. Another unexpected problem: not enough sun. Weather predictions for the area underestimated the amount of cloud cover that has blanketed Ivanpah since it went into service in 2013.

Ivanpah isn’t the only new solar-thermal project struggling to energize the grid. A large mirror-powered plant built in Arizona almost two years ago by Abengoa SA of Spain has also had its share of hiccups. Designed to deliver a million megawatt hours of power annually, the plant is putting out roughly half that, federal data show............

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-1434138485

And note how it relies on fossil fuel to even get started in the morning.

And please next time if there is something in a cite you believe supports your position and want to discuss then copy and paste the relevant parts, I don't chase blind links. Thank you.

 

[Phys251]

High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver
$2.2 billion California project generates 40% of expected electricity

That's one project. One single project. You're holding renewable energy to a higher standard than you're holding fossil fuel energy.

And the links that you didn't want to click on for some reason discuss the bigger picture.

 

[trouble13]

Jobs that can be transferred over to the renewable energy sector with the right training. All those wind turbines? Someone's going to have to manufacture them. Someone's going to have to build them. Someone's going to have to maintain them. And guess what, China is ahead of us on that wind turbine manufacturing. What a perfect industry this would have been to revive the manufacturing sector of the Upper Midwest, but it appears that the anti-green-energy state governments of the Upper Midwest do not want to partake in such an opportunity.

And we haven't even talked about all the jobs that solar power is creating!

What your arguing for is another version of the broken window fallacy



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Stinger]

That's one project. One single project. You're holding renewable energy to a higher standard than you're holding fossil fuel energy.

And the links that you didn't want to click on for some reason discuss the bigger picture.

It actually mentions two and I could go on. This was supposed to be a premier this is how it will be done and it's nowhere near where it is justified. Large scale is not panning.

 

[Phys251]

What your arguing for is another version of the broken window fallacy



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

One of the dumbest economic arguments I have ever heard. For several reasons.

1. In the example given, the video never discusses the implications on the property and the surrounding area by the broken window. By this video's logic, we should legalize window-breaking, because "it would stimulate the economy." By contrast, whether or not the baker spends money on a new suit is not going to have such an effect. So he's forced to waste the money just to break even on his restaurant's appearance.

2. The argument against public financing of public works assumes that people had the money to spend on their own in the first place. It acts as if we're all fairly wealthy, middle-to-upper-class citizens. More and more that is not the case. A divide is growing between the haves and the have-nots. Many have-nots rely on these public investments to generate jobs and thus economic investment. By contrast, the ultra-rich commonly take their money elsewhere, stashing it places such as tax havens. Their contributions to local economies do not scale up with their increased wealth.

 

[trouble13]

One of the dumbest economic arguments I have ever heard. For several reasons.

1. In the example given, the video never discusses the implications on the property and the surrounding area by the broken window. By this video's logic, we should legalize window-breaking, because "it would stimulate the economy." By contrast, whether or not the baker spends money on a new suit is not going to have such an effect. So he's forced to waste the money just to break even on his restaurant's appearance.

2. The argument against public financing of public works assumes that people had the money to spend on their own in the first place. It acts as if we're all fairly wealthy, middle-to-upper-class citizens. More and more that is not the case. A divide is growing between the haves and the have-nots. Many have-nots rely on these public investments to generate jobs and thus economic investment. By contrast, the ultra-rich commonly take their money elsewhere, stashing it places such as tax havens. Their contributions to local economies do not scale up with their increased wealth.

What are the implications on the property and surrounding area?

If I were the baker and you smashed my window every day I would raise my price of bread to cover so instead of me not being able to buy the new suit it would be you. Either way though your redirecting money from one part of the economy to another.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

What are the implications on the property and surrounding area?

If I were the baker and you smashed my window every day I would raise my price of bread to cover so instead of me not being able to buy the new suit it would be you. Either way though your redirecting money from one part of the economy to another.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

No, you'd call the ****ing cops. There are these things called property rights, and someone's smashing your windows violates those rights.

 

[trouble13]

No, you'd call the ****ing cops. There are these things called property rights, and someone's smashing your windows violates those rights.

Im disappointed. You strongly asserted your position until I challenged it, and now your cutting and running with this deflection. Its a shame I was looking forward to the conversation. Oh well, maybe some other time.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

Im disappointed. You strongly asserted your position until I challenged it, and now your cutting and running with this deflection. Its a shame I was looking forward to the conversation. Oh well, maybe some other time.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Oh I'm sorry, I make a perfectly logical point, it doesn't match what you were looking for, and you're going to immediately dismiss it and run?

That is not the winning strategy that you apparently think it is. I'll let you consider why.

 

[trouble13]

Oh I'm sorry, I make a perfectly logical point, it doesn't match what you were looking for, and you're going to immediately dismiss it and run?

That is not the winning strategy that you apparently think it is. I'll let you consider why.

We are having an economical discussion not a legal one. If you break my window everyday whether or not i call the cops does not matter. I still have to pay to repair it. your arguing that is benefitting the economy and i am arguing it does not.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

We are having an economical discussion not a legal one. If you break my window everyday whether or not i call the cops does not matter. I still have to pay to repair it. your arguing that is benefitting the economy and i am arguing it does not.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

OK there we go.

I think I may have misunderstood you; I was under the impression you were defending the brick-thrower. But I have to ask. That video makes a terrible argument when it transitions to its point about public works financing. It basically assumes an anti-Bernie-Sanders point: Everyone has money to go out and spend, and they can either spend it or pay taxes. Hell, that's one of the core flaws in the Republican platform, but way too many people fall for it. Wealth and inequality are real, and just pulling back on government spending does nothing to reduce those inequalities.

And none of this has even addressed the core issue that the OP raised: The hazardous effects of coal surface mining on the surrounding citizens. Here we have a cost in the form of health risks that the coal companies want to pass onto the people. This is where government can be effective, by tending to the needs of people and not just letting the powerful act as they please. But Trump appears to be on the side of Big Coal and its polluting ways, which is to be expected.

 

[KLATTU]

Jobs that can be transferred over to the renewable energy sector with the right training. All those wind turbines? Someone's going to have to manufacture them. Someone's going to have to build them. Someone's going to have to maintain them. And guess what, China is ahead of us on that wind turbine manufacturing. What a perfect industry this would have been to revive the manufacturing sector of the Upper Midwest, but it appears that the anti-green-energy state governments of the Upper Midwest do not want to partake in such an opportunity.

And we haven't even talked about all the jobs that solar power is creating!

all fiair points but what I am talking about is the overall jobs picture not the industry specific jobs picture.
When the price of gasoline or electricity or heating oil goes way up that has a devastating contractory effect on the economy.

Again, the renewable energy sector isn't even remotely close to being able to supply ht energy need of the US right now. So we are stuck with coal ,oil and gas( and nuclear-but that's a different animal.) If the price of those goes up, there go jobs. So it's a tradeoff. Do we accept a litttle less clean environment for lower costs /more jobs. What do you think the answer to that would be in most places?
( since I'm a commons sense conservative I know the answer).
OF course we all know there is a point where the trade off is unacceptable.

 

[trouble13]

OK there we go.

I think I may have misunderstood you; I was under the impression you were defending the brick-thrower. But I have to ask. That video makes a terrible argument when it transitions to its point about public works financing. It basically assumes an anti-Bernie-Sanders point: Everyone has money to go out and spend, and they can either spend it or pay taxes. Hell, that's one of the core flaws in the Republican platform, but way too many people fall for it. Wealth and inequality are real, and just pulling back on government spending does nothing to reduce those inequalities.

And none of this has even addressed the core issue that the OP raised: The hazardous effects of coal surface mining on the surrounding citizens. Here we have a cost in the form of health risks that the coal companies want to pass onto the people. This is where government can be effective, by tending to the needs of people and not just letting the powerful act as they please. But Trump appears to be on the side of Big Coal and its polluting ways, which is to be expected.

What I was challenging was a concept you advanced in the first post i quoted that started us off on this tangent. Im gonna paraphase it. You essentially argued that by investing in the more cost probihitive enery creation that it was helping the economy because it creates a bunch of new jobs that are needed to support these new forms of energy production.

This is where I introduced the "broken window fallacy" Its true that your creating new jobs but driving up production costs results in slowing an economy down.

Let me see if I can explain this another way. This is actually a famous story.

I believe it was in France but anyhow lets say it was. They were building a tunnel to connect two regions together to improve commerce traffic. The project manager invited an economist freind to the job site where they were digging the tunnel. The economist noticed that the men were all using shovels instead of bulldozers and backhoes to dig with. He inquired why to his freind and his freind quite proudly explained that they were not using heavy equipment to create jobs for the unemployed.

The economist thought for a moment and than replied why not take away their shovels and give them spoons to dig with. That will create even more jobs.

What your suggesting reminds me of that story.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

What I was challenging was a concept you advanced in the first post i quoted that started us off on this tangent. Im gonna paraphase it. You essentially argued that by investing in the more cost probihitive enery creation that it was helping the economy because it creates a bunch of new jobs that are needed to support these new forms of energy production.

This is where I introduced the "broken window fallacy" Its true that your creating new jobs but driving up production costs results in slowing an economy down.

Let me see if I can explain this another way. This is actually a famous story.

I believe it was in France but anyhow lets say it was. They were building a tunnel to connect two regions together to improve commerce traffic. The project manager invited an economist freind to the job site where they were digging the tunnel. The economist noticed that the men were all using shovels instead of bulldozers and backhoes to dig with. He inquired why to his freind and his freind quite proudly explained that they were not using heavy equipment to create jobs for the unemployed.

The economist thought for a moment and than replied why not take away their shovels and give them spoons to dig with. That will create even more jobs.

What your suggesting reminds me of that story.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

You keep refusing to acknowledge the health risks of coal mining. Even if all you want to talk about is economics, those health risks have serious negative economic consequences. This is an investment to transition to forms of energy that are far safer for humans, both in the short and long term.

And it's not like the government doesn't subsidize coal power as well.

That is a clever story about the tunnel diggers though. To get all the coal jobs back, that's basically what the coal industry would have to do. Automation has taken away a lot of coal jobs--heck, a lot of mining and manufacturing jobs, period. I wish I knew the answer off the top of my head to overcome it. I think it's going to come down to not doubling down on industries that just aren't creating as many jobs as they used to.

 

[JasperL]

We are having an economical discussion not a legal one. If you break my window everyday whether or not i call the cops does not matter. I still have to pay to repair it. your arguing that is benefitting the economy and i am arguing it does not.

OK, so the economic argument has to be some form of, 'Investing in renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) replaces an efficient/desirable/optimal form of energy (coal) with a less efficient/desirable/optimal form of energy, and that coal alternative is projected to remain less efficient for the foreseeable future." Or, a simpler way of phrasing the question is, all things considered, how do we want to produce energy in 20 or 30 years? Do we want far more of our electricity to come from solar/wind etc. or coal produced by lopping off the tops of mountains that when burned produces a mountain of toxic waste?

If we reduce that to purely economic terms, then you'd estimate the cost by source (i.e. coal, solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas) look at some discounted cost of electricity produced over 10 years for each method. But the problem is that cost figure has to be complete. If I can produce electricity at $80/unit, and solar costs $100/unit, but to get to my $80 I ignore that I kill a bunch of people and make MANY others sick, but because my method only does these things directly, I bear zero cost for those harms, then the comparison is a false one.

Just for example, the coal ash retention pond (i.e. toxic waste dump) at a TVA coal fired plant near me in Kingston failed a few years ago, and dumped millions of tons of waste into the lake and surrounding land. Now they're finding that the workers who cleaned up that mess are suffering from all kinds of serious illness because they didn't wear protective gear while cleaning up sludge loaded with toxic chemicals including arsenic. Well, the cost per unit of electricity at that plant HAS to include all the costs of that spill, including the future health costs of those who got sick cleaning up the toxic waste. It would be nice for TVA and coal advocates to not study those who got sick, trace it back to the cleanup, link the correlation with the causation, and then fine the ever loving crap out of TVA sufficient to cover the health costs of those sickened from the cleanup for life.

The TL/DR point is the studies are essential to, at a minimum, assigning a true cost to mining and burning coal. If we don't do them, it's just a way for coal companies to understate the cost of coal, and, relatedly, to offload those costs onto the rest of us.

 

[trouble13]

You keep refusing to acknowledge the health risks of coal mining. Even if all you want to talk about is economics, those health risks have serious negative economic consequences. This is an investment to transition to forms of energy that are far safer for humans, both in the short and long term.

And it's not like the government doesn't subsidize coal power as well.

That is a clever story about the tunnel diggers though. To get all the coal jobs back, that's basically what the coal industry would have to do. Automation has taken away a lot of coal jobs--heck, a lot of mining and manufacturing jobs, period. I wish I knew the answer off the top of my head to overcome it. I think it's going to come down to not doubling down on industries that just aren't creating as many jobs as they used to.

OK I wasnt avoiding the health concerns purposely but I will try to tackle them or at least share my perspective with you. The really short answer is I dont know.

For the sake of this discussion lets leave global warming concerns off the table. Lets talk the economic cost of healthcare related to traditional energy production. Its a very difficult topic for me because I do not know how to quantify how much we spend on health services related to this nor do I know how many costs we avoid with their health concern regulations.

How much damage are we doing when we burn fossil fuels? Can you tell me, because I really dont know and I dont think anyone has that information. For example I would be interested in seeing a study specific to the pollution a coal plant was making before a regulation banned it. What were the health costs before and then look at if the health problems decreased after the regulation was implimented and by how much? The problem of course is there are so many variables in these numbers its impossible to really say how bad this stuff is.

My philosphy is this (just so you understand where Im coming from when your talking to me bout this) I believe in mankinds ability to solve problems. In a sense Im an optimist. I believe any problem we can make we can fix. Energy is the name of the game. Energy converts to work. Keep it as cheap as you can because the more available energy is the more stuff that gets done, which includes fixing problems. Something as simple as the lightbulb gave us the ability to work long into the night.

Believe it or not I am a huge proponent of renewable energy for the future. I think we are idiots for not investing heavily in hydroelectric. I believe that is not a cost prohibitive energy source and its clean. Anyhow im starting to ramble so I will end it here. This post is already too long to keep someones attention around here lol.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

OK I wasnt avoiding the health concerns purposely but I will try to tackle them or at least share my perspective with you. The really short answer is I dont know.

For the sake of this discussion lets leave global warming concerns off the table. Lets talk the economic cost of healthcare related to traditional energy production. Its a very difficult topic for me because I do not know how to quantify how much we spend on health services related to this nor do I know how many costs we avoid with their health concern regulations.

How much damage are we doing when we burn fossil fuels? Can you tell me, because I really dont know and I dont think anyone has that information. For example I would be interested in seeing a study specific to the pollution a coal plant was making before a regulation banned it. What were the health costs before and then look at if the health problems decreased after the regulation was implimented and by how much? The problem of course is there are so many variables in these numbers its impossible to really say how bad this stuff is.

My philosphy is this (just so you understand where Im coming from when your talking to me bout this) I believe in mankinds ability to solve problems. In a sense Im an optimist. I believe any problem we can make we can fix. Energy is the name of the game. Energy converts to work. Keep it as cheap as you can because the more available energy is the more stuff that gets done, which includes fixing problems. Something as simple as the lightbulb gave us the ability to work long into the night.

Believe it or not I am a huge proponent of renewable energy for the future. I think we are idiots for not investing heavily in hydroelectric. I believe that is not a cost prohibitive energy source and its clean. Anyhow im starting to ramble so I will end it here. This post is already too long to keep someones attention around here lol.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

I agree with almost all of that. As an aside, lots of liberals want to crack down on fracking. Well, heck, fracking was a gift to Obama as far as the economy goes, cutting energy costs across the board. From all I've read one BIG reason why we've seen manufacturing jobs come trickling back to the U.S. is favorable energy prices here. Mess that up and we're screwed.

I'd just add that "cheap" requires us to at least estimate all the costs, including the admittedly difficult to quantify health costs and other costs related to pollution from mining and burning coal, for example. Studies on the health effects like those in the OP are how we get to those cost figures.

Second, cheaper today doesn't mean that it will be cheaper tomorrow, and with something like solar, where we have seen just massive leaps in efficiency in recent years, it seems extremely likely that in 30 years it will be cheaper by any measure than coal. We can wait and let the "market" work this out but that only makes sense if the "market" through pricing is sending the correct signals, and if we ignore pollution and health costs (forgetting the cost of AGW), then we'll hang onto coal for FAR longer than we should if those costs were properly reflected in the price per unit of energy at the 'pump' so to speak.

Put another way, we "subsidize" fossil fuels because we ignore the pollution costs (health and other) and offload them onto the public. Just from a 'market' standpoint, we just HAVE to also subsidize renewables or else the 'market' comparison between the cost of e.g. coal versus solar will be forever tilted unfairly in favor of coal.

 

[trouble13]

OK, so the economic argument has to be some form of, 'Investing in renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) replaces an efficient/desirable/optimal form of energy (coal) with a less efficient/desirable/optimal form of energy, and that coal alternative is projected to remain less efficient for the foreseeable future." Or, a simpler way of phrasing the question is, all things considered, how do we want to produce energy in 20 or 30 years? Do we want far more of our electricity to come from solar/wind etc. or coal produced by lopping off the tops of mountains that when burned produces a mountain of toxic waste?

If we reduce that to purely economic terms, then you'd estimate the cost by source (i.e. coal, solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas) look at some discounted cost of electricity produced over 10 years for each method. But the problem is that cost figure has to be complete. If I can produce electricity at $80/unit, and solar costs $100/unit, but to get to my $80 I ignore that I kill a bunch of people and make MANY others sick, but because my method only does these things directly, I bear zero cost for those harms, then the comparison is a false one.

Just for example, the coal ash retention pond (i.e. toxic waste dump) at a TVA coal fired plant near me in Kingston failed a few years ago, and dumped millions of tons of waste into the lake and surrounding land. Now they're finding that the workers who cleaned up that mess are suffering from all kinds of serious illness because they didn't wear protective gear while cleaning up sludge loaded with toxic chemicals including arsenic. Well, the cost per unit of electricity at that plant HAS to include all the costs of that spill, including the future health costs of those who got sick cleaning up the toxic waste. It would be nice for TVA and coal advocates to not study those who got sick, trace it back to the cleanup, link the correlation with the causation, and then fine the ever loving crap out of TVA sufficient to cover the health costs of those sickened from the cleanup for life.

The TL/DR point is the studies are essential to, at a minimum, assigning a true cost to mining and burning coal. If we don't do them, it's just a way for coal companies to understate the cost of coal, and, relatedly, to offload those costs onto the rest of us.

I adressed this in my response to phys when you were posting this but I will briefly readress it with you.

I dont know how to quantify what your asking. Im not discounting your point because its valid I just dont know. Because I do not know I defer to individual rights.Let me give you an example of individual rights.

Coal plant near me pollutes the air. That air crosses onto my property. I have the RIGHT to sue them because I did not give them my permission to use my property. I own 1 mile above me and 1 mile below me, if they keep their byproducts off my property or we have a contractual agreement allowing them to use my property we have no issue. We dont need regulations for this. You might think im splitting hairs but my argument is based on principle.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I agree with almost all of that. As an aside, lots of liberals want to crack down on fracking. Well, heck, fracking was a gift to Obama as far as the economy goes, cutting energy costs across the board. From all I've read one BIG reason why we've seen manufacturing jobs come trickling back to the U.S. is favorable energy prices here. Mess that up and we're screwed.

I'd just add that "cheap" requires us to at least estimate all the costs, including the admittedly difficult to quantify health costs and other costs related to pollution from mining and burning coal, for example. Studies on the health effects like those in the OP are how we get to those cost figures.

Second, cheaper today doesn't mean that it will be cheaper tomorrow, and with something like solar, where we have seen just massive leaps in efficiency in recent years, it seems extremely likely that in 30 years it will be cheaper by any measure than coal. We can wait and let the "market" work this out but that only makes sense if the "market" through pricing is sending the correct signals, and if we ignore pollution and health costs (forgetting the cost of AGW), then we'll hang onto coal for FAR longer than we should if those costs were properly reflected in the price per unit of energy at the 'pump' so to speak.

Put another way, we "subsidize" fossil fuels because we ignore the pollution costs (health and other) and offload them onto the public. Just from a 'market' standpoint, we just HAVE to also subsidize renewables or else the 'market' comparison between the cost of e.g. coal versus solar will be forever tilted unfairly in favor of coal.

I have very mixed feelings about subsidizing things like energy and food (which is another form of energy). I think ultimately I lean toward not subsidizing any of it but there is a compelling argument to be made to subsidize some things.

Anyhow Im just throwing this out for food for thought. Why are we not making better use of hydro electric. build some dams, runs some underground pipes that divrt big rivers like the missippi underground and across big wheels to spin turbines. I think wee are short sighted in our approachs. Heres what I like about renewable energy (which it really isnt). We should be looking at how to harness the massive amounts of energy the univers wastes instead of converting out matter into energy which is very wasteful. Heres a wild thought that if your a stoner I suggest you ponder after getting your head on. The Earth spins, thats energy. The moon spins. Thays energy too. Place 2 big magnets on each orb and let them produce magnetic energy then incorporate a Tesla style of wireless transmittion of that energy to where we need it. I wonder if any of those college snowflakes are working on this idea, lol

I floated that idea in good humor but tru;y I believe these arguments we are having are infantile. I believe we will overcome our obsticles. Its not a matter of if, its a mater of when. I am mankinds biggest cheerleader. Our only flaw is women *runs for shelter from angry fembots* lol

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

I adressed this in my response to phys when you were posting this but I will briefly readress it with you.

I dont know how to quantify what your asking. Im not discounting your point because its valid I just dont know. Because I do not know I defer to individual rights.Let me give you an example of individual rights.

Coal plant near me pollutes the air. That air crosses onto my property. I have the RIGHT to sue them because I did not give them my permission to use my property. I own 1 mile above me and 1 mile below me, if they keep their byproducts off my property or we have a contractual agreement allowing them to use my property we have no issue. We dont need regulations for this. You might think im splitting hairs but my argument is based on principle.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

No, I don't think you're splitting hairs, but you are ignoring the reality of the situation and why we need regulations. The reality is you can sue but realistically have no hope of finding a lawyer to take the case because the economics don't work. That coal plant imposes small costs on millions of people, and the costs are often indirect (I can no longer see the mountains on the horizon) or watery eyes, etc. What are your damages, exactly, and can you prove that the pollution from that coal plant right there caused them?

Around me we have a bunch of coal plants, and the pollution backs up sometimes near the Smokies. So even if I and a bunch of my neighbors get together and can consolidate our damages and file a class action suit, we still have a huge task ahead of us. There are several coal plants and millions of cars - to pick two big sources of pollution - all contributing to the pollution, so how can I prove that TVA plant #334 did the damage and not another coal plant run by another company 500 or 1,000 miles away from me, or millions of those cars, and must we as a class sue each car owner individually for the damage HER car does, which is minimal? (Just as an aside, pollution from China does reach CA...)

Point is your right to sue is completely hollow because even if you could quantify the damages, it makes no economic sense to sue. And even if you, say, get cancer and there is an economic incentive, proving that Company A is the culprit is functionally impossible. It's why we had to have EPA or equivalent - the market was not working to prevent pollution. These are classic negative externalities and the only way I know to deal with them is through government.