Chernobyl deaths

[piscator]

All you have to do is find a way to harness pretty blue neutron beams from the chain reactions, and you'll have it dicked, Tesla-style.

[Blind groper]

To Mistermack

Re NZ.

We generate very little in the North Island compared to the south. A hell of a lot of Auckland's power requirements have to travel from over 1000 kms away.

Sad to see so much ignorance on this thread about burning coal. Coal needs to be left in the ground. Not burned at all. The USA has reduced its carbon emissions, not through deliberate action as Seth suggests, but because it found a heap more shale gas, which releases energy for less carbon.

On cost.

Gas generated electricity is cheapest, follow by dirty coal. Coal with emissions buried underground becomes as expensive as wind power.Hydroelectricity is similar to burning coal in cost, but those dams cause a hell of a lot of environmental damage. Nuclear is slightly more expensive than hydro, but cheaper than wind. It is entirely practical in economic terms.

[mistermack]

To Mistermack

Re NZ.

We generate very little in the North Island compared to the south. A hell of a lot of Auckland's power requirements have to travel from over 1000 kms away.

Sad to see so much ignorance on this thread about burning coal. Coal needs to be left in the ground. Not burned at all. The USA has reduced its carbon emissions, not through deliberate action as Seth suggests, but because it found a heap more shale gas, which releases energy for less carbon.

On cost.

Gas generated electricity is cheapest, follow by dirty coal. Coal with emissions buried underground becomes as expensive as wind power.Hydroelectricity is similar to burning coal in cost, but those dams cause a hell of a lot of environmental damage. Nuclear is slightly more expensive than hydro, but cheaper than wind. It is entirely practical in economic terms.

Where the fuck do you get your facts from? Inside your own head, by the look of it.
If you're too lazy to check them, I certainly won't treat them seriously, except to say that your ''facts'' are seriously shite.

And quoting coal with emissions buried underground is ludicrous.

[Blind groper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_ ... _by_source

To mistermack

You pay for what you get. Burning coal while permitting its emissions to escape to the atmosphere carries a cost that is not money. For a start, it means thousands of extra deaths each year from respiratory disease, plus a major contribution to global warming. Thus, it is best to look at the cost of responsible coal use, meaning with emissions buried.

My figures on cost came from the internet site on cost of electricity generation, as shown above.

The median figures for Australia, in Australian dollars per megawatt hour are ...

Nuclear 55
Coal 30
Coal with emissions buried 73
Gas 40
Hydroelectricity 55
Wind 63

These figures vary to some extent, from country to country, from time to time, and even to a degree based on ow they are calculated. But they can serve as a useful guide.

[Seth]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_ ... _by_source

To mistermack

You pay for what you get. Burning coal while permitting its emissions to escape to the atmosphere carries a cost that is not money. For a start, it means thousands of extra deaths each year from respiratory disease,

Which is offset by the millions or billions of deaths that will result from a grid collapse. There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever of your claim by the way, it's merely a guess made by environmentalists to try to justify forcing the economy to waste tens of millions of dollars per person who might possibly die prematurely.

plus a major contribution to global warming.

Which may save humanity and the planet from the impending ice age...

Thus, it is best to look at the cost of responsible coal use, meaning with emissions buried.

Well, until you can replace the energy capacity coal plants provide with something else that's as cost-effective and actually works, we'll just have to keep burning coal.

My figures on cost came from the internet site on cost of electricity generation, as shown above.

Let me guess...it's a "green" site.

The median figures for Australia, in Australian dollars per megawatt hour are ...

Nuclear 55
Coal 30
Coal with emissions buried 73
Gas 40
Hydroelectricity 55
Wind 63

These figures vary to some extent, from country to country, from time to time, and even to a degree based on ow they are calculated. But they can serve as a useful guide.

Oh look, coal is the cheapest. Bye now.

[Blind groper]

Certainly, for Australia, dirty coal is cheaper. However, dirty coal is also the most irresponsible. But to use coal in a clean manner, with the emissions buried, costs more than twice as much.

On safety.
Coal is the exception to a simple rule. In other means of generating electricity, the hazards are 'normal' industrial hazards like fire, steam burns, falling off high places and so on. Coal however, has a much higher hazard, meaning the breathing of its emissions. Not as bad as it once was, admittedly, with scrubbers and precipitators to partially clean the emission. But still enough so that an estimate of additional deaths can be calculated. The total varies from place to place, but is in the thousands per year.

Hazard is normally calculated as deaths per terawatt year of electricity generated. On this basis domestic solar cells are the worst, because of the home handymen who try to install solar panels themselves, and fall from ladders, killing themselves.

Wind power is also very hazardous due to workers having to operate at the top of towers, meaning a igh rate of fatal accidents. The safest, if we accept the death toll in my OP for Chernobyl, is nuclear. By a large margin!

[pErvinalia]

Coal burning also emits more nuclear radiation than a properly functioning nuclear plant. Not many people actually know that.

[mistermack]

Groper, you cherry picked your figures choosing Australia. It's nothing like New Zealand when it comes to hydro. It's hydro is tiny.
If you look at the numbers for France, (directly below), which actually does have a state-of-the-art nuclear industry, and hydro on a decent scale, you will see that nuclear costs 2.5 times as much as hydro.

As far as the New Zealand example goes, the hydro electricity that is sent north costs practically nothing. Because when the reservoirs are full, it's using the surplus, that the South Island can't use. They can either release the water freely to the sea without generating power, gaining nothing, or use it to generate surplus electricity to send north, saving fuel like gas and coal.
It's a no-brainer. They send electricity that costs practically nothing through the network. It's still cheap, even with transmission losses.

Also, the link works in reverse, and geothermal power is sent south, when the southern reservoirs are low. The North Island doesn't need power from the south. It can cover it's own needs. It's just economics.

As far as coal goes, yes it would be expensive to remove all the carbon emissions. If that were needed. But it isn't. People claim it is, but nobody has proved it.

[Seth]

Coal burning also emits more nuclear radiation than a properly functioning nuclear plant. Not many people actually know that.

That's because the amount of "nuclear radiation" emitted by either is negligible and of no consequence to anyone, given the fact that there is background radiation emitted from the earth all the time, everywhere, and then there's things like gamma rays...

"Radiation emission" from coal plants is just another Greenie scare tactic.

[Blind groper]

Mistermack

I did not cherry pick. I used the Australian figures as they were first on the web site, in an attempt to make sure I was NOT cherry picking. I could have looked through them and chosen whatever set of figures suited me best, but I was trying to be honest.

It is clear you have no concept of NZ's power set up, though. Not that there is any reason why you should. The South Island is the big power generator. The North is minimal and sends no power south.

[mistermack]

Mistermack

I did not cherry pick. I used the Australian figures as they were first on the web site, in an attempt to make sure I was NOT cherry picking. I could have looked through them and chosen whatever set of figures suited me best, but I was trying to be honest.

It is clear you have no concept of NZ's power set up, though. Not that there is any reason why you should. The South Island is the big power generator. The North is minimal and sends no power south.

That's not what wikipedia says. Unlike you, I check my facts. I don't just make them up, as you constantly do.

In 2011, around 37.1% of the total electricity generated was consumed in the South Island, while 62.9% was consumed in the North Island. South Island generation accounted for 40.9% of the nation's electricity in 2011, nearly all (97%) from hydroelectricity, while the North Island generated the remaining 59.1% from a mixture of mainly hydroelectric, natural gas and geothermal generation, plus smaller amount of coal and wind generation.[5]

Either you or wikipedia is pushing a load of bollocks. Wiki also says this :

If all currently commissioned generation is available, both islands have enough generating capacity at peak times, without the connection between the two islands.[6] However, the HVDC link provides benefits for customers in both the South Island and North Island:
: The link provides the South Island consumers with access to the North Island's thermal generation resources that can support the South Island demand during times of low hydro storage levels and low inflows to South Island hydro lakes.
: The link provides North Island consumers with access to the South Island's large hydro generation resources that can support the North Island demand at times of peak load.

Your invented facts are wrong on just about every count.
Only about 4% of total generation passes from south to north.

[JimC]

Coal burning also emits more nuclear radiation than a properly functioning nuclear plant. Not many people actually know that.

That's because the amount of "nuclear radiation" emitted by either is negligible and of no consequence to anyone, given the fact that there is background radiation emitted from the earth all the time, everywhere, and then there's things like gamma rays...

"Radiation emission" from coal plants is just another Greenie scare tactic.

Actually, I agree...

[Blind groper]

Mistermack

Your source says thermal, not geothermal. The biggest thermal generator is a coal burning station of 1 gigawatt capacity, which is huge by our standards. This is fired up at times of low lake levels but is on standby the rest of the time. That is the exception, not the rule.

[mistermack]

Mistermack

Your source says thermal, not geothermal. The biggest thermal generator is a coal burning station of 1 gigawatt capacity, which is huge by our standards. This is fired up at times of low lake levels but is on standby the rest of the time. That is the exception, not the rule.

Oh really?
Well, I have it on very good authority that ''the north is minimal, and sends no power south'' so that can hardly be possible.
Wiki also says that only 500 mw of the total 1448 mw of Huntley is on standby. And it takes 90 days to fire it back up. Another false fact. And geothermal is thermal too. There is about 1000 mw of geothermal operating in NZ, which matches the average output of Huntley.

[klr]

The stochastic fog is a great place to hide your dead.

That and just not collecting enough detailed statistics in the first place. In the late communist & post-communist eras, people probably had other things to worry about.