Slashdot Mirror

No, I mean exactly what I said.
If you look here at the global coal tracking site. you can see here where they track how much coal powered electricity countries use.
America's 1,344 operating is more than 1/4 of Chinas 4,271 (China has over 4x as many people)
American's get more electric power per person from coal, because they use so much more electricity than Chinese people do.

The US is lowering its coal and China increased it's coal by 0.4%, congratulations. But then why does America still use more coal powered electricity per person then China? This site tracks coal plants and if you look at you will see that
Chinese coal plants produced 3,573 MT of CO2 in 2017
American coal plants produced 1,056 MT of CO2 in 2017
Since China has 4.2 times as many people (over a billion extra people). America uses far more coal powered electricity per person,despite people like you claiming they are clean. (ie the only reason China's coal use is bigger is because China is a much bigger country than America.)
Could it be because American households use 8x as much power as Chinese households, 3x the world average?

No electricity consumption doesn't necessarily spell carbon emissions, but in the case of America is most certainly does. Don't feel too bad, the overlap of ignorance and self-righteousness entitlement is quite high. You are not alone.
I didn't even add in all the extra natural gas you use as well, it only gets worse for you.

How about you go fuck yourself instead. Pull your head out from your ass and try to understand actual reality.
Take a look in the mirror, because ignorant people like you are a much bigger problem than coal is.

Or is this just another of your lies where you grabbed a table, changed the header, put in some false values for china and America, and then think that ppl will not notice that you are lying?

That's funny coming from the king of lies himself. It came from that that coal tracking site you mentioned a few times.

Where did your 75% number come from again...?
That's right, your ass I forgot...

Analyses by Greenpeace (2016a) and Carbon Tracker(2016) have found the country’s existing coal plantsalready far exceed domestic power needs, with additional coal plants representing potentially billionsof dollars of wasted capital.

Your nation continues a massive build-up of coal, with no real reason for it. It needs to be stopped. Instead, they need to spend the money on AE along with nuclear power.
America has stopped building coal plants and continues to drop. We are headed in the right direction, just not fast enough. We need to re-start our nuclear power industry and replace all of our coal AND Nat gas plants.

Nice twist Windy. But the dates I was talking about were your posting dates...
You posted your lies of 700 at least twice in this very thread before being called out on it. And only after did you try to pretend you said outside China all along (another lie).
Go back and look, I'll wait.

Even your twist move is still a lie !!
Your data is October 2017. Mine was Jan 2018 from the site your site used for their data. https://endcoal.org/tracker/ Also just to show how even more wrong you numbers are, 180 of those plants are either announced or pre-permit.

Announced: Proposed plants that have been described in corporate or government plans but have not yet taken concrete steps such as applying for permits or acquiring land.
Pre-permit development: Plants that are seeking environmental approvals and pursuing other developmental steps such as securing land and water rights.

So 180 of those plants aren't even approved, and you know from previous facts that China is making it much much harder to get approval...most (all?) of them won't be approved and you know it.

As always Windy is full of shit.

PS: Still waiting for you to show any actual lie I said anywhere in any thread...

Select region East asia
Select map China
Just look at Announced, pre-permit, permitted and construction.(even though a lot of them will be cancelled)
Notice that the total is way less than 700.(zoom all the way out to make it clearer)
Click on shelved, notice most of the map turned blue.
Click on retired, notice how there is a lot more green than red yellow as well.
Finally click on cancelled, and see how tiny the little red and yellow bits are that you keep getting your panties in a twist about.

No doubt whatsoever you will continue the lie that China is building 700 coal plants and not shutting down or replacing old ones.

Even less doubt you are too stupid to understand it's the amount of coal burned at the pants and not the total number of plants anyway that makes the CO2.

(If you want to, add in the brown and realise China has a fuck ton of coal plants, which is bad. But it's getting better. Like I already showed before coal peaked years ago in China) The point is not to claim China is clean, it's not, but to show Windy is a lying sack of shit, and he knows he is.

Disclaimer: I went on a rant here... Parts of it is a bit offtopic, but this is not only a reply to the article, but about these types of misleading articles that gets posted.
Sorry for any spelling-errors or incoherence below, but this willful misleading and witch-hunt on anything with nuclear in it's name is irritating me.

I care about the environment, and i think we should continuously review our stand and plan to build things that will have the least amount of impact, but still allows our society to function.. Nuclear power, but maybe not the older plants in use, is a good way to do this for reducing the amount of CO2 and other pollution we release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So the top 3 there is related to nuclear weapons.. The remaining nuclear reactor disaster of Chernobyl was just a huge human screw-up where they disabled the safety systems on purpose and then doing that on a reactor that only had one of the most basic containment buildings around it.

Take hydro-electric..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Take coal.
https://endcoal.org/health/ ... Only around 800000 people per *YEAR* die prematurely..

For solar/wind do some research yourself, but don't forget to include the pollution created from producing those panels and batteries needed to keep us going..

So i would call nuclear power fairly safe compared to the rest..

One issue is that the public has been fed with incorrect information, like number of death's caused by chernobyl.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm...

The Chernobyl accident's severe radiation effects killed 28 of the site's 600 workers in the first four months after the event. Another 106 workers received high enough doses to cause acute radiation sickness. Two workers died within hours of the reactor explosion from non-radiological causes. Another 200,000 cleanup workers in 1986 and 1987 received doses of between 1 and 100 rem (The average annual radiation dose for a U.S. citizen is about .6 rem). Chernobyl cleanup activities eventually required about 600,000 workers, although only a small fraction of these workers were exposed to elevated levels of radiation. Government agencies continue to monitor cleanup and recovery workers' health. (UNSCEAR 2008, pg. 47, 58, 107, and 119)

But the numbers that has been fed to the public from organizations like Greenpeace:
https://www.greenpeace.org/arc...

31 workers died shortly afterwards. A total of between 600,000 and 800,000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up to 1989. Of these men, 300,000 received radiation doses 500 times the limit for the public over one year. Today, the ones who still survive are still suffering from the damage to their health.

How many of them have died to date from the disaster is a controversial question. According to government agencies in the three former Soviet

By keeping a coal plant open two days, you are a murderer!

And you wonder why there's an anti-environmental, anti-science backlash? How about we stop with the hyperbole and present the facts as is, without embellishment or absurd scare tactics? How many ridiculous now-provably-false doomsday scenarios were proclaimed over the past 40 years? Did you not think this would undermine public opinion at some point? Well, congratulations. People no longer trust scientists!

And somehow you got modded up to +5, even thought you did nothing to counter the argument other than emotional claims about "hyperbole". Did you even bother to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations? The facts seem to be actually as scary. Coal is this bad.

150000 people die daily. There's 6683 operating coal plants above 30MW worldwide. It is strongly debatable how many deaths can be attributed to pollution -- in China big cities there are claims it's 1/3 total deaths! China makes a good part of world's population and is about 50% urbanized, same as world's average. I don't know the methodology of the source I took the data from (or even remember the place), but their figure of 1/20 sounds like an underestimation to me. But let's take it at face value. Coal power plants have a massive share of pollution compared to other sources, not sure what's the share: for electricity generation it's 44% but I'd guess it's more for heating, steel production, etc. Let's round it to 1/2. That results in 1/40 deaths being attributable to coal, which is more than 1/44 required for the figure of one per two days per power plant.

Here's a picture of coal mine pollution. It doesn't show the mercury being released into the air when it burns. Do you have any pictures of solar cell pollution, or is that more a hypothetical thing?