Fine particulates are also introduced into the environment from tyre wear and brake linings (significant quantities) and from biomass combustion. Coarser particulates predominately come from soil/land erosion and mining. Also if the idea is that electric cars are somehow a panacea , if we were all to convert to them, we would have to bring on stream 100% of the time an awful lot more power generation to cope.
There is very little difference between emissions of all sorts from either modern diesel and petrol Euro 6 compliant engines except of course the much higher C02 from petrol engines. A change to electric powered vehicles is just moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power stations. Be aware that all wind turbines, apart from the dreadful environmental damage they do to local environments, they must be continuously backed up by fossil fueled power stations at all times due to the dreadful intermittency of wind.
Be aware that all wind turbines, apart from the dreadful environmental damage they do to local environments,
What is the damage to local environments?
I'm guessing Werner is talking about the damage done to the environment during installation of wind turbines. I have seen evidence of flooding in areas which has been linked to the installation of wind turbines. I'm not sure how proven the link is but at least I'm guessing that is the damage being referred to here.What is the damage to local environments?
Which is one aspect of environmental damage. Given the number of wind-farms you have visited, live in proximity to and studied, what aspect of turbine farm operation is most likely to damage human health and well-being?Wind turbine syndrome, you know, like the opposite of the placebo effect where cranks convince themselves the presence of turbines is damaging their health so much they make themselves ill.
In my opinion it is the only source of energy which can viably replace burning hydrocarbons.Nuclear power stations...simples
Not particularly environmentally friendly and they certainly aren't viable options to replace hydrocarbons any time soon.Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?
Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?
It is interesting that so much attention is given to car emissions, particularly the emissions from diesel cars, when the largest 16 container ships in the world emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world; a large container ship currently emits as much as 50 million cars.
In my opinion it is the only source of energy which can viably replace burning hydrocarbons.
Fusion may be here within the next 30 years. If so then we will have access to almost limitless energy.
I like wind turbines and solar and wave power are a nice idea but only nuclear power provides a relatively safe and environmentally friendly option.
I thought that was only in harbours (as is the case in the EU now). China has changed it's omission standards for cars, reducing amount of sulphur emissions by cars from 50 to 10 ppm. That means the figure changes from 50 million cars to 93 million cars. N02 pollution levels from chips are similar to sulphur. It's not a good comparison though as car pollute where people live, ships less so.Different kinds of pollutants though -- sulfur is only one of them. And it is getting lots of attention -- marine bunker fuel is switching over to a low sulfur variety in 2020 so will be a thing of the past soon.
Hopefully there is a rational rather than ideological response from the public.Agree with you here. And MIT SPARC is only one of at least half a dozen serious commercial fusion efforts at the moment. Still a lot of hurdles to clear, but I'm quite optimistic about a credible fusion demo within a decade or so, well ahead of ITER.
I thought that was only in harbours (as is the case in the EU now).
Hopefully there is a rational rather than ideological response [to nuclear fusion] from the public.
For @Leo "Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted." The scientific view is less dismissive than yours. I'll maybe stick with the science, although this is only one of many such studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179699/
To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects.
We are a long way off from even approaching getting any reactor to 6.6 billion degrees Celsius (or 1.1 Billion under pressure confinement). The whole technology is really exciting though.* unless we hit the Holy Grail of aneutronic fusion.
For that reason, aneutronic fusion is unlikely in the thermalised environment of a tokamak. But you have the non-Maxwellian regime in a Polywell, and focused laser approaches, that could conceivably come to fruition. I suppose it wouldn't be the Holy Grail if it was easy!We are a long way off from even approaching getting any reactor to 6.6 billion degrees Celsius (or 1.1 Billion under pressure confinement). The whole technology is really exciting though.
To the layman that's suspending plasma hotter than the sun in a doughnut (torus) shape using magnetic fields. Yea, it's really cool technology but really needs to be stable.For that reason, aneutronic fusion is unlikely in the thermalised environment of a tokamak. But you have the non-Maxwellian regime in a Polywell, and focused laser approaches, that could conceivably come to fruition. I suppose it wouldn't be the Holy Grail if it was easy!
Agreed.But I'd happily take tokamak fusion with a conventional water boiler and a bit of short half-life low-level waste. Even that would start Agricultural+Industrial Revolution 2.0.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?