Recommended Posts

(edited)

1 hour ago, Tomasz said:

But Russia is weaponizing stuff.

Putin shatters peace in Europe as Russia invades Ukraine

Russia launches an all-out invasion of Ukraine by land, air and sea despite international condemnation.

Russia warns humanity at risk if West seeks to punish it over Ukraine.

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

23 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

No, the sun is driven essentially entirely by hydrogen to helium fusion. There are other fusion reactions and fission decays but they play a very minor role other than making new elements.

1.       imagine, solar system comprises of centrifugal force that could propel a derailment and inward pulling force that prevents it. For a system expands that wide with 9 planets in tow, the inward pulling force of the Sun must be very strong. Hydrogen alone might not have this ability? Could there be something else that is burning or disintegrating at the core?

    2. temperature at the core is said to be 15 million 'C. Could fusion of hydrogen, the smallest molecule of all atoms and molecules, achieve that alone?

   3. If fusion of atom hydrogen is the only activity, there  must have been plenty of helium accumulated. But ~73% is still hydrogen and ~25% is helium.

   4. the sun emits light, gamma ray, neutrinos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Sunlight_and_neutrinos

        a) The hyperlink on gamma ray indicates it is produced from decay of a nuclei, fission in another word. So is beta ray. Could we deduce that, generally, electromagnetic waves from the sun are generated from fission of something, not fusion?

        b) Could neutrinos be helium?

        c) Radiation of sun is made up of energy wave of different lengths. I am not sure if light bulb produces a single wavelength of light but if it is true, could this mean, single source of hydrogen may not produce variety of lengths?

        Although I believe pioneers/ ancient discoverers are rarely wrong, because all they had was free time, including the right attitude of sere curiosity, fusion technology is still far from mature....

       Instead of wasting so much money and energy on something that is so uncertain with weak foundation, why would we not concentrate on matured technologies e.g. recreating conditions suitable to have water reservoirs for water, for hydropower, for climate change mediation, double boiler, double wind-water mill of the old etc, shall we need something that urgently?

 

Edited by specinho
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, specinho said:

1.       imagine, solar system comprises of centrifugal force that could propel a derailment and inward pulling force that prevents it. For a system expands that wide with 9 planets in tow, the inward pulling force of the Sun must be very strong. Hydrogen alone might not have this ability? Could there be something else that is burning or disintegrating at the core?

    2. temperature at the core is said to be 15 million 'C. Could fusion of hydrogen, the smallest molecule of all atoms and molecules, achieve that alone?

   3. If fusion of atom hydrogen is the only activity, there  must have been plenty of helium accumulated. But ~73% is still hydrogen and ~25% is helium.

   4. the sun emits light, gamma ray, neutrinos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Sunlight_and_neutrinos

        a) The hyperlink on gamma ray indicates it is produced from decay of a nuclei, fission in another word. So is beta ray. Could we deduce that, generally, electromagnetic waves from the sun are generated from fission of something, not fusion?

        b) Could neutrinos be helium?

        c) Radiation of sun is made up of energy wave of different lengths. I am not sure if light bulb produces a single wavelength of light but if it is true, could this mean, single source of hydrogen may not produce variety of lengths?

        Although I believe pioneers/ ancient discoverers are rarely wrong, because all they had was free time, including the right attitude of sere curiosity, fusion technology is still far from mature....

       Instead of wasting so much money and energy on something that is so uncertain with weak foundation, why would we not concentrate on matured technologies e.g. recreating conditions suitable to have water reservoirs for water, for hydropower, for climate change mediation, double boiler, double wind-water mill of the old etc, shall we need something that urgently?

 

1) A gram of hydrogen is equal to a gram of Lead when it comes to gravity. It just takes more hydrogen atoms.

2) It is a matter to energy conversion. a small amount of matter can make huge amounts of energy,. E=mc^2

3) It is not the only activity, as other elements and unstable isotopes are formed (which then undergo fission). It is just their contribution is insignificant to compared to Hydrogen fusion.  There is lots of hydrogen left because the star (our sun) is relatively young - lots of fuel left.

4

a) yes many of the emissions are due to decay of unstable elements.

b) No.  Helium radiation is in the form of alpha particles.  Neutrions only very rarely interact with matter.

c) If you heat something up it will act as a black body radiator emitting many wavelengths of light.  The sun is "white hot" emitting the entire visible spectrum. You can only get a single wavelength of light using lasers or specialized atomic emission lamps, LEDs.

Edited by TailingsPond
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2022 at 3:27 AM, markslawson said:

Rob - it always help to read the source material, then your comments will be more relevant. The problem is that despite decades of talk about and massive investment in renewable energy, particularly in Germany, fossil fuels are still the only real energy source. That is likely to remain so for decades to come, if it ever does change. The failure to recognise this and endless demonisation of fossil fuels meant that the energy systems had been mismanaged to the point where they had become vulnerable to  major prices shocks, such as imposed by Russia (read the original post). Of course fossil fuel  subsidies in and of themselves are not the problem. But ending an impost on energy bills put there specifically by the UK government to fund renewable energy projects is one way to cut fuel bills in the UK. Whether the government then elects to subsidise such projects with other funds is up to them. UK and Europe now urgently need to stop the demonisation of fossil fuels and develop new sources of coal and gas and nuclear (the nuclear part is happening already). As for the bit about renewables being cheaper let's stop all subsidies and quotas and see if any green projects (apart from Hydro) survive. You will be sorely disappointed by the results, but whatever the market decides is fine by me. Hope that clarifies your thinking.  

What subsidies do oil companies receive? (fuelfreedom.org)

what is your take on this? 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The article lacks

1) specific breakdowns of the categories

2) comparison with renewable subsidies. There are plenty in the new projections.

Your article is more than four years out of date.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The article lacks

1) specific breakdowns of the categories

2) comparison with renewable subsidies. There are plenty in the new projections.

Your article is more than four years out of date.

This is true, but the point is that FF receives a lot of direct and indirect subsidies as well. 

For offshore production - think how for example ports were paid for by governments back in the day. 

NB! I am not blindly pro renewables, but I dont demonize renewables blindly either. Also, think were Europe would be today without WTGs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2022 at 11:08 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

what is your take on this? 

Rasmus - I know less about the US companies than I do the Australian, but you can tell just by looking at the graph that the writer is talking nonsense. The vast bulk of it amounts to tax concessions which are available, in different forms, to all other companies. Companies can deduct various costs incurred in setting up an oil well/coal mine/factory/shoe store against its taxable revenue. Just what they can and cannot claim is the subject of considerable black letter and case law. He says the allowed deductions are generous for resources companies, which means the excess generosity would then count as assistance, but he makes no real case for this and does not attempt to quantify the difference. Creating mines and wells is inherently risky and the tax system may well have taken that into account long before the climate debate kicked off. As for the rest there is often assistance for individual industries. Do resources companies get more assistance than the others or less? There could be a government body somewhere that evaluates these matters (as there is in Australia). However, once you discount the tax side the assistance does not seem to be generous, given the size of the industry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2022 at 8:12 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Putin shatters peace in Europe as Russia invades Ukraine

Russia launches an all-out invasion of Ukraine by land, air and sea despite international condemnation.

Russia warns humanity at risk if West seeks to punish it over Ukraine.

Lol, should have thought of that before starting the war. Russian death from war is glory, right? Bask in your glory, put in some new stain glass at the church. Give the priest gold for prayers. Don’t be a whimp and blame the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a time for government subsidies, it is now. Australia has the components for batteries but ships the materials to China. Make the batteries yourself. Same with Canada. Can’t get a pipeline? Get a few battery plants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boat said:

Lol, should have thought of that before starting the war. Russian death from war is glory, right? Bask in your glory, put in some new stain glass at the church. Give the priest gold for prayers. Don’t be a whimp and blame the world. 

Boat it would seem your mourning cup of Dumb A$$ was brewed with extraordinary care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Boat it would seem your mourning cup of Dumb A$$ was brewed with extraordinary care.

Cheers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nailed it, many thought reliance on a single Country was a bad idea, yet the EU and Merkel were stupid to believe that they could trust a single supply.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2022 at 12:31 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 Also, think were Europe would be today without WTGs?

Would have put R&D into breeder liquid salt reactors allowing EVERYONE to use Thorium which EVERY country has... for the next million years...  That is what would have happened instead of spending $2 Trillion Euro on Wind Turbines proving a pittance of the intermittent power instead of power on demand. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

By the way.  EU has ~230GW capacity installed generated ~430TWh https://www.anev.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/220222-Stats-Outlook.pdf#:~:text=• Europe’s wind farms generated 437 TWh of,capacity%3A 207 GW onshore and 28 GW offshore.

USA has ~120GW capacity installed generating 380TWh of power.  wikipedia tabulated that number from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_es1b  

Moral to story, ~1/2 the generating capacity obtains 85% of the power.  CAPEX is insanely in the USA's favor here... all before we talk power grid stability backup.  Geography matters.  Outside of the North Sea/Ireland, Europe will not be growing its wind power much on land without horrendous costs. 

In short, whoever owns the North Sea... is going to get filthy rich.  Everyone else, if they try "wind power" on land is going to go broke.   IE, my first link, which prophesies 75% of new wind in EU+UK will be on land... ROFL!!!!!!!!!  Hell no it won't. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2022 at 11:35 PM, Ecocharger said:

The article lacks

1) specific breakdowns of the categories

2) comparison with renewable subsidies. There are plenty in the new projections.

Your article is more than four years out of date.

One of the biggest unexamined expenses is the cost of building and renewing the existing electrical line infrastructure from top to bottom to meet the needs of wind and solar plants. The total costs much be examined, that include all governmental subsidies, plans, staffing, permitting, legal costs, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Would have put R&D into breeder liquid salt reactors allowing EVERYONE to use Thorium which EVERY country has... for the next million years...  That is what would have happened instead of spending $2 Trillion Euro on Wind Turbines proving a pittance of the intermittent power instead of power on demand. 

What research can you provide that proves the technology would work but nobody has actually used it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-iii-appears-to-signal-an-end-to-climate-change-activism-174330601.html

Yahoo News

King Charles III appears to signal an end to climate change activism

David Knowles
David Knowles
·Senior Editor
Fri, September 9, 2022 at 12:43 PM
 
 
Climate Change. Get the latest.
 
Climate Change. Get the latest.

Outspoken about the "existential" threat posed by climate change when he was Prince of Wales, King Charles III on Friday seemed to signal an effective end to his decades-long public advocacy for lowering greenhouse gas emissions, which are warming global temperatures.

In his first speech as king, Charles pledged to uphold the constitutional principles that kept the sovereign, including his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, from weighing in on what could be seen as political matters.

"My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities," Charles said in his videotaped speech. "It will no longer be possible to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I cared so deeply, but I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others."

King Charles III sits at a desk on which rest flowers and a picture of Queen Elizabeth.
 
King Charles III delivers an address from Buckingham Palace, London, on Friday. (Yui Mok/Pool via Reuters)

For more than 40 years, Charles had championed environmental causes, including the need to transition the global economy off of fossil fuels so as to avert a climate catastrophe. In November, at the start of COP 26, the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Charles said climate change was an "existential threat to the extent that we have to put ourselves on what might be called a war-like footing" and called on world governments to begin "radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable."

Three months later, however, Russia launched its own war on Ukraine, disrupting oil and gas supplies for Europe and the U.K. in the process and throwing the British government's pledge of reaching net zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 into doubt.

With Russia cutting off deliveries of natural gas, the continent is bracing for an energy crisis that will send energy prices skyrocketing during the cold winter months and cause governments to resume oil exploration and using coal at a time when climate scientists have warned that mankind needs to immediately transition to renewable sources of energy or face dire consequences such as those witnessed this summer in places like Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, Europe and the American West.

On Thursday, newly appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss announced measures to try to blunt the impact of skyrocketing energy prices over the coming months, including lifting a ban on hydraulic fracking and green-lighting new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. She has also appointed Jacob Rees-Mogg, who environmental activists call a climate science denier, to oversee the country's energy sector.

In 2020, Charles addressed the World Economic Forum, calling for "a shift in our economic model that places nature and the world's transition to net zero at the heart of how we operate."

Needless to say, a continued reliance on oil was not exactly what Charles had in mind. The king, being a symbolic figure who is not elected, has no control over the government's policies, however.

Truss also named Ranil Jayawardena, who has spoken out against the installation of solar farms on agricultural land, as environment secretary.

Over the years, Charles has been a champion of solar power, winning approval in 2021 to install panels atop London's Clarence House, his former residence, and praising India's expansion of solar capacity.

Charles had delivered countless speeches on addressing climate change, written books on the topic and had made the issue central to his role as Prince of Wales. That decision also earned him ample criticism from those who saw his activism as overstepping the bounds of the monarchy.

In his Friday speech, the new king did not mention the words "climate change," and that, in and of itself, spoke volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

What research can you provide that proves the technology would work but nobody has actually used it?

Said reactor was working in the 70's, but all they had to do was develop the chemical process to remove the Tritium from the salt.  But, Nixon was from California and his constituents were working on metal breeder reactors which were showing ZERO signs of working so naturally the Oakridge boys in Tennessee who were half a step from completing the worlds most efficient fuel burning reactor by many orders of magnitude, let alone most efficient power reactor due to operating at 2X the temp of the water reactors, got their funding axed immediately of course and everyone was fired on the spot(literally, as in drop your pencils, there is the door).    Only reason anyone knows of it at all is that it was rediscovered in the early 2000's when cleaning out lockers at Oakridge and the one guy in charge of cleaning stuff out chased down a couple guys who was still alive in their 80's/90's and they were able to interview them as to where they were in said research and what stopped them.  The molten salt breeder reactor guys in the 70's had the testing of all the components for wear etc done... all lost as some unknown crew in the late 70's came in and threw nearly everything away in the name of "cleaning up contamination".  Thank you Nixon!

Then 3 mile island happened and all the looney tune idiots came out of the woodwork and trying to explain to morons purposefully trying to be morons that a liquid nuclear fuel which can be DRAINED to emergency storage tanks deep underground is vastly superior to a giant PILE of nuclear fuel which cannot be moved and requires many meters of water on top of it... is beyond hopeless.  Jimmy Boy had the wackos on his political side so couldn't do anything and Reagan was in no position to fight that battle, so everything essentially vanished.

As for what research... Search interview Gordon McDowell on youtube.  He might still be around, though he has moved on I am sure.  Last I knew, he was trying to promote some other fuel type just to get the fuel processor boys on his side and get some political clout as he could never get funding for a new reactor which eats plutonium and uranium.... not exactly going to get the military boys on your side for that one eh?  Not like you can for pressurized nuclear metal rod fuel reactors where you get to reprocess the fuel by removing the Plutonium etc to make nuclear bombs.  He went this was I am sure, not that it was a great solution, but at least get nuclear going in right direction. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2022 at 8:12 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Putin shatters peace in Europe as Russia invades Ukraine

Russia launches an all-out invasion of Ukraine by land, air and sea despite international condemnation.

Russia warns humanity at risk if West seeks to punish it over Ukraine.

If punishing means Russia loses and Putin becomes irrelevant, Putin made that certain by starting the war. Russians don’t grasp the economic and military size of their impact in the pecking order. They may change a few numbers for a couple of years. That success will haunt them for decades. The Ukraine will be on their border and in their face for many decades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2022 at 6:35 AM, Ecocharger said:

The article lacks

1) specific breakdowns of the categories

2) comparison with renewable subsidies. There are plenty in the new projections.

Your article is more than four years out of date.

Try this one then IMF: fossil fuel industry the recipient of subsidies of $5.9tn per year - Power Technology (power-technology.com)

The point is - your view is extremely unbalanced. 

Renewables has a place in energy industry, so does FF and nuclear. Renewables doesn't make sence in all cases, but they do in some. 

Balance is the key. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/7/2022 at 3:53 AM, TailingsPond said:

1) A gram of hydrogen is equal to a gram of Lead when it comes to gravity. It just takes more hydrogen atoms.

2) It is a matter to energy conversion. a small amount of matter can make huge amounts of energy,. E=mc^2

3) It is not the only activity, as other elements and unstable isotopes are formed (which then undergo fission). It is just their contribution is insignificant to compared to Hydrogen fusion.  There is lots of hydrogen left because the star (our sun) is relatively young - lots of fuel left.

4

a) yes many of the emissions are due to decay of unstable elements.

b) No.  Helium radiation is in the form of alpha particles.  Neutrions only very rarely interact with matter.

c) If you heat something up it will act as a black body radiator emitting many wavelengths of light.  The sun is "white hot" emitting the entire visible spectrum. You can only get a single wavelength of light using lasers or specialized atomic emission lamps, LEDs.

image.png.75b29bc86c2b881e07b64aefb0b5cb00.png

under this formula, lead is probably heavier than hydrogen. Hence, the smaller the mass, the smaller the energy?

2. not too sure if you have seen this.... it is a funnel wishing well. They way it functions is when one puts a coin onto it, the coin will roll, encircling the shape before dropping into the hole......

image.png.9176b2e6f3a9f6b12a341ca5d89f8e3f.png

This is when the center is fill with air only. If the speed of coin is fast enough, it will swirl at the same spot for a few round before dropping its speed and roll downward. Hence, I might be wrong that there might be no attraction at the center of the Sun but sere speed of rotation of planets that sustains them on their respective path....

3. If, when bond form, energy is released.

If fusion of hydrogen can be represented as H + H ------> He + energy

If fission of uranium can be represented by N + U --------> explosion -----> energy + smaller stable atoms

not too sure why am I sensing something is not quite match with fusion..... This is not my field. I barely passed physics. Just a feeling........ 🤗

image.png.10f8410b4b93c3706417af314aa608d5.png

Edited by specinho
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 12:07 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Said reactor was working in the 70's, but all they had to do was develop the chemical process to remove the Tritium from the salt.  But, Nixon was from California and his constituents were working on metal breeder reactors which were showing ZERO signs of working so naturally the Oakridge boys in Tennessee who were half a step from completing the worlds most efficient fuel burning reactor by many orders of magnitude, let alone most efficient power reactor due to operating at 2X the temp of the water reactors, got their funding axed immediately of course and everyone was fired on the spot(literally, as in drop your pencils, there is the door).    Only reason anyone knows of it at all is that it was rediscovered in the early 2000's when cleaning out lockers at Oakridge and the one guy in charge of cleaning stuff out chased down a couple guys who was still alive in their 80's/90's and they were able to interview them as to where they were in said research and what stopped them.  The molten salt breeder reactor guys in the 70's had the testing of all the components for wear etc done... all lost as some unknown crew in the late 70's came in and threw nearly everything away in the name of "cleaning up contamination".  Thank you Nixon!

Then 3 mile island happened and all the looney tune idiots came out of the woodwork and trying to explain to morons purposefully trying to be morons that a liquid nuclear fuel which can be DRAINED to emergency storage tanks deep underground is vastly superior to a giant PILE of nuclear fuel which cannot be moved and requires many meters of water on top of it... is beyond hopeless.  Jimmy Boy had the wackos on his political side so couldn't do anything and Reagan was in no position to fight that battle, so everything essentially vanished.

As for what research... Search interview Gordon McDowell on youtube.  He might still be around, though he has moved on I am sure.  Last I knew, he was trying to promote some other fuel type just to get the fuel processor boys on his side and get some political clout as he could never get funding for a new reactor which eats plutonium and uranium.... not exactly going to get the military boys on your side for that one eh?  Not like you can for pressurized nuclear metal rod fuel reactors where you get to reprocess the fuel by removing the Plutonium etc to make nuclear bombs.  He went this was I am sure, not that it was a great solution, but at least get nuclear going in right direction. 

Well, the research should continue. Wind and solar are apparently not reliable technologies that are affordable to replace fossil fuels and nuclear. https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/experts-question-economic-environmental-value-wind-power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2022 at 2:35 PM, specinho said:

image.png.75b29bc86c2b881e07b64aefb0b5cb00.png

under this formula, lead is probably heavier than hydrogen. Hence, the smaller the mass, the smaller the energy?

2. not too sure if you have seen this.... it is a funnel wishing well. They way it functions is when one puts a coin onto it, the coin will roll, encircling the shape before dropping into the hole......

image.png.9176b2e6f3a9f6b12a341ca5d89f8e3f.png

This is when the center is fill with air only. If the speed of coin is fast enough, it will swirl at the same spot for a few round before dropping its speed and roll downward. Hence, I might be wrong that there might be no attraction at the center of the Sun but sere speed of rotation of planets that sustains them on their respective path....

3. If, when bond form, energy is released.

If fusion of hydrogen can be represented as H + H ------> He + energy

If fission of uranium can be represented by N + U --------> explosion -----> energy + smaller stable atoms

not too sure why am I sensing something is not quite match with fusion..... This is not my field. I barely passed physics. Just a feeling........ 🤗

image.png.10f8410b4b93c3706417af314aa608d5.png

Question. Why does the sun appear yellow if it is white hot? Probably something to do with our atmosphere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Question. Why does the sun appear yellow if it is white hot? Probably something to do with our atmosphere. 

image.png.09fc7e0ebd45c8564fe356ffa06e4b5b.png

not too sure if dust particle theory is popular but generally.......... 

Early in the morning, if the day before was hot but morning after is humid and cooling in the tropics, the sun usually looks red. The theory is............ hot weather dries up dust particles hence, allows dust particles to fly higher up and fly everywhere. Condensation allows particles to settle on cloud or water vapour gathered. The combined density allows only radiation with the longest wavelength to penetrate i.e. infrared ray. And the sun and clouds across it appear reddish.

If weather was cooling the day before and cooling morning after, it might mean there would be less dust particles and vapour in the air. The sun appears yellow or orange due to less resistance on ray penetration. And so forth...

As water vapour or morning mist evaporated, the sun resumes whitish...... due to its hot burning center.

The deduction is hence, thickness of resistance layer in the air, formed by pollutants and water vapour would determine the colour we see........

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 10:53 AM, Michael Sanches said:

This chart shows economic growth has occurred while emissions of air pollutants have decreased.

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/history-reducing-air-pollution-transportation

  • New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s.
  • Fuels are much cleaner—lead has been eliminated, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to regulation.
  • U.S. cities have much improved air quality, despite ever increasing population and increasing vehicle miles traveled.
  • Standards have sparked technology innovation from industry.

Now take a large city in the US and look at the estimated health care costs from pollution along with deaths. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.