The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

EVandPV wrote: »

You must study really hard !

Could we keep it courteous please on this thread?

pile-o-stone

GreatApe wrote: »

You need repeated experiments not studies. Studies are mostly nonsense propaganda

Many studies show the massive harm and cost of coal power generation

Yet when you do the actual experiment, shut down almost all your coal useage, eg UK, guess how much the coal savings were for the NHS......... somewhere between zero and negligible

Lol, what a ridiculous statement! Do you also think that new coal miners get black lungs in their first week of working in a mine? :rotfl:

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Lol, what a ridiculous statement! Do you also think that new coal miners get black lungs in their first week of working in a mine? :rotfl:

Interesting point but moot on a group level

Eg if a million snookers quit smoking many of the group's problems or rate of problems would improve instantly

Some other things like lower rates of lung cancer would show up over time

But even then the group is big enough that you should be able to see it statically Almost instantly on a group level

pile-o-stone

GreatApe wrote: »

Interesting point but moot on a group level

Eg if a million snookers quit smoking many of the group's problems or rate of problems would improve instantly

Some other things like lower rates of lung cancer would show up over time

But even then the group is big enough that you should be able to see it statically Almost instantly on a group level

I assume you can post proof that health hasn’t improved with the ‘shutting down of coal usage’?

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I assume you can post proof that health hasn’t improved with the ‘shutting down of coal usage’?

My assertion is that it has been negligible to the extent it won't show up
If you feel otherwise feel free to prove this view wrong

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_briefing_what_does_coal_cost_health_in_the_uk_29112013final1_1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj88pv584vnAhXLa8AKHcHTBBsQFjADegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2y7yN9PJLUfF9dqxseKk-T

Here is a 'study' posted before which is claiming UK coal power stations cost £1-3 billion a year in heath. well why didn't the same study group release a paper showing what the actual results were post the huge number of coal plant shut downs in the UK?

£1-3 billion is definitely big enough to show up on the NHS and the UK coal burn went down very rapidly so it's a good data set in that it wasn't decades apart from high to low coal

Has heath from lower coal burn improved? I don't know but what I know for sure is that if it did show up it would be plastered everywhere on the green media because it's actual experimental results not just a worthless 'study'

So I make the assertion again
The studies of billions in heath cost from coal power stations are BS

GreatApe

Also when I've discussed this with others more knowledgeable than most of you
It transpires that the heath cost of coal or any other thing you want to inflate is based on very ridiculous costings for heath and life

I recall having this discussion with someone else on here about a decade ago
He was very green minded but working in finance he was smart enough to be reasoned with
I recall he took your side
But when we investigated and found out that particular study was basing costs on lives lost at >$10 million a piece while the NHS isn't willing to spend more than £20k per life year extended (or whatever the NICE current valuations is) he was accepting of my assertion that studies are indeed mostly BS


The problem with 'studies' is they are almost always just a huge bag of guesswork and assumptions HEAVILY massages to fit a pre existing view point. For heath impact.of fossil fuels it's two huge bags of guesswork. 1 the heath impact and 2 valuing various heath impacts to a $$$ amount based on various models themselves

Overall I still maintain the studies on heath v fossil fuels are totally worthless

If you disagree we have an actual experiment
High coal burn UK going very rapidly to low coal burn UK
If there was a 3 billion a year cost.to heath it would have definitely shown up in the NHS

GreatApe

Bhlaraidh wind farm near Fort Augustus, Scottish Highlands - which has 32 turbines - was constrained for 29 per cent of 2018.

Nearly 30% of the wind output was curailed

The market is broken
We may need to return to regional electricity prices
Prices in Scotland would go down especially during windy times
An incentive to switch to electricity heating

Of course the lower prices would also mean fewer wind farms would be built in Scotland
Again a positive development in that you should build in England where they won't be curtailed to any significant degree

Hybrid gas/electric heating solutions are needed
Especially on Scotland
The curtialment cost of nearly £150 million a year can be reduced towards £0 with hybrid heating solutions

Deploy 500,000 smart resistance heaters in Scotland
They go on when there is excessive wind and only charge 3p a unit through those heaters which is equal or more than the gas saved

Can be done in under one year

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

Also when I've discussed this with others more knowledgeable than most of you
It transpires that the heath cost of coal or any other thing you want to inflate is based on very ridiculous costings for heath and life

I recall having this discussion with someone else on here about a decade ago
He was very green minded but working in finance he was smart enough to be reasoned with
I recall he took your side
But when we investigated and found out that particular study was basing costs on lives lost at >$10 million a piece while the NHS isn't willing to spend more than £20k per life year extended (or whatever the NICE current valuations is) he was accepting of my assertion that studies are indeed mostly BS


The problem with 'studies' is they are almost always just a huge bag of guesswork and assumptions HEAVILY massages to fit a pre existing view point. For heath impact.of fossil fuels it's two huge bags of guesswork. 1 the heath impact and 2 valuing various heath impacts to a $$$ amount based on various models themselves

Overall I still maintain the studies on heath v fossil fuels are totally worthless

If you disagree we have an actual experiment
High coal burn UK going very rapidly to low coal burn UK
If there was a 3 billion a year cost.to heath it would have definitely shown up in the NHS

An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts.

pile-o-stone

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I assume you can post proof that health hasn’t improved with the ‘shutting down of coal usage’?

GreatApe wrote: »

My assertion is that it has been negligible to the extent it won't show up
If you feel otherwise feel free to prove this view wrong

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_briefing_what_does_coal_cost_health_in_the_uk_29112013final1_1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj88pv584vnAhXLa8AKHcHTBBsQFjADegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2y7yN9PJLUfF9dqxseKk-T

Here is a 'study' posted before which is claiming UK coal power stations cost £1-3 billion a year in heath. well why didn't the same study group release a paper showing what the actual results were post the huge number of coal plant shut downs in the UK?

£1-3 billion is definitely big enough to show up on the NHS and the UK coal burn went down very rapidly so it's a good data set in that it wasn't decades apart from high to low coal

Has heath from lower coal burn improved? I don't know but what I know for sure is that if it did show up it would be plastered everywhere on the green media because it's actual experimental results not just a worthless 'study'

So I make the assertion again
The studies of billions in heath cost from coal power stations are BS

So, that’s a ‘no’ then :rotfl::rotfl:

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

So, that’s a ‘no’ then :rotfl::rotfl:

Please keep it civil.