European Environment Agency: Air pollution 'causes 467,000 premature deaths a year in Europe' - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Within the European Union (EU), more than 430,000 people died prematurely due to PM2.5 in 2013, the most recent year with figures available. According to the EEA's Air quality in Europe - 2016 report, the toxic gas nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - released by vehicles and central heating boilers - has an impact equivalent to 71,000 premature deaths a year. Ground-level ozone (O3) is also killing people - an estimated 17,000 annually in the EU. Unlike the protective ozone layer in the stratosphere, ground-level ozone is harmful, formed when emissions like NO2 react with other pollutants and "cook" in heat or sunlight. ... In the UK, air pollution overall costs the economy more than £20bn per year - just under 16% of the NHS's annual £116bn budget. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38078488[/url]

China for comparison: [QUOTE]Air pollution is killing about [B]1.6 million[/B] people every year in China, or nearly [B]4,400[/B] people every day, accounting for [B]seventeen[/B] percent of all the country's deaths, a new study has found.[/QUOTE] [url]https://news.vice.com/article/heres-how-many-people-die-each-day-in-china-because-of-its-filthy-air[/url]

[QUOTE=ferrus;51419142]China for comparison: [url]https://news.vice.com/article/heres-how-many-people-die-each-day-in-china-because-of-its-filthy-air[/url][/QUOTE] China is taking a pretty hard stance on emissions though and pushing clean tech pretty hard. So hopefully in the next decade we will see that figure take a nosedive. Hopefully it takes a nosedive all over the world if governments push for it.

in america though, its opposite day in logic land we gotta depend on private companies like tesla to push clean energy for the next 4 years, not the goverment.

What exactly does "premature" mean? Does that include people who would have lived 1 day less than they would have normally? [editline]23rd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Wii60;51419417]in america though, its opposite day in logic land we gotta depend on private companies like tesla to push clean energy for the next 4 years, not the goverment.[/QUOTE] Tesla only happened because of the US government's subsidies and rediculously good environmental loans.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51419424] Tesla only happened because of the US government's subsidies and rediculously good environmental loans.[/QUOTE] i know that. im saying due to the recent election, we cant really depend on the goverment anymore to push clean energy along. just corps. thats what i ment by opposite day.

Tesla banked on those subsidies because it's literally impossible to start a large scale car manufacturer from scratch in a highly regulated country like the US

[QUOTE=Wii60;51419441]i know that. im saying due to the recent election, we cant really depend on the goverment anymore to push clean energy along. just corps. thats what i ment by opposite day.[/QUOTE] The single best form of clean energy on a mass scale, nuclear, has a better chance of wide acceptance under Trump than it has in a long time.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51419705]The single best form of clean energy on a mass scale, nuclear, has a better chance of wide acceptance under Trump than it has in a long time.[/QUOTE] and i hope it goes through but we need more than just nuclear for clean energy to succeed massively and become our new major source of energy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51419705]The single best form of clean energy on a mass scale, nuclear, has a better chance of wide acceptance under Trump than it has in a long time.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Trump campaigned on fossil fuels and has oil execs in his transition team. I doubt nuclear is even an afterthought to coal right now.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51420347]No it doesn't. Trump campaigned on fossil fuels and has oil execs in his transition team. I doubt nuclear is even an afterthought to coal right now.[/QUOTE] Pretty certain one of the people he wants to appoint was a former nuclear executive.

[QUOTE=download;51420373]Pretty certain one of the people he wants to appoint was a former nuclear executive.[/QUOTE] Someone who campaigned so extensively for coal isn't going nuclear.

Man, China mist be busy with keeping up their conspiracy :v:

[QUOTE=sgman91;51419705]The single best form of clean energy on a mass scale, nuclear, has a better chance of wide acceptance under Trump than it has in a long time.[/QUOTE] 4 reactors started construction under Obama. I doubt Trump will do anymore than that at best.

Hey no worries guys he's gonna solve it all with clean coal. No more people dying to air pollution, you just watch.

This is why we need nuclear power now for base load. there is simply no time to wait on other energy generation methods.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51420766]This is why we need nuclear power now for base load. there is simply no time to wait on other energy generation methods.[/QUOTE] Nuclear reactors still take the best part of a decade to build.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51420913]Nuclear reactors still take the best part of a decade to build.[/QUOTE] Well if not for the radical greens having so much influence we would have built them yesteryear... now we somehow have to bridge the base load demand with gas and other less then ideal methods. Start the plans today for nuclear, for the future.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51420932]Well if not for the radical greens having so much influence we would have built them yesteryear... now we somehow have to bridge the base load demand with gas and other less then ideal methods. Start the plans today for nuclear, for the future.[/QUOTE] Don't blame a fringe group "radical greens" for the corruption of greedy politicians and their oil company lobbyist chums.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51420932]Well if not for the radical greens having so much influence we would have built them yesteryear... now we somehow have to bridge the base load demand with gas and other less then ideal methods. Start the plans today for nuclear, for the future.[/QUOTE] It's hard to get political support for them because so many people are against them. Due to the long build times there's not much incentive for Trump to do it either, since chances are by the time they come online he will no longer be president.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51420913]Nuclear reactors still take the best part of a decade to build.[/QUOTE] They only take that long because of red tape and incompetence on the part of the regulator. They used to put up PWRs in less than 4 years in the 60s and 70s. [editline]24th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;51420955]It's hard to get political support for them because so many people are against them. Due to the long build times there's not much incentive for Trump to do it either, since chances are by the time they come online he will no longer be president.[/QUOTE] Rob Adams of [url=http://atomicinsights.com/]Atomic Insights[/url] has a long trail of information suggesting more anti-nuclear power groups were initially funded by oil and coal companies.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51420766]This is why we need nuclear power now for base load. there is simply no time to wait on other energy generation methods.[/QUOTE] Ze germans need to hurry up with fusion reactors

[QUOTE=download;51420957]They only take that long because of red tape and incompetence on the part of the regulator. They used to put up PWRs in less than 4 years in the 60s and 70s.[/QUOTE] When you're building a nuclear reactor you probably want a lot of red tape to make sure every detail is exactly as the engineers planned it. We don't want to let contractors cut corners unknowingly on building nuclear power stations just so they can make more money.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51420964]When you're building a nuclear reactor you probably want a lot of red tape to make sure every detail is exactly as the engineers planned it. We don't want to let contractors cut corners unknowingly on building nuclear power stations just so they can make more money.[/QUOTE] Please cite an example of a Western reactor that killed someone because someone cut corners.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51420949]Don't blame a fringe group "radical greens" for the corruption of greedy politicians and their oil company lobbyist chums.[/QUOTE] Those are largely the same people though... [editline]24th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;51420964]When you're building a nuclear reactor you probably want a lot of red tape to make sure every detail is exactly as the engineers planned it. We don't want to let contractors cut corners unknowingly on building nuclear power stations just so they can make more money.[/QUOTE] Nuclear reactors can be (and have, see nuclear submarines) standardized to a point that you can 'mass produce' them and they remain safe... i think it was samsung who has a shipping container sized standardized nuclear generator developed? or even the westinghouse toshiba, or general electric ones are standardized power plants that can technically be built to spec in 5 years. the red tape is all political bullshit and 'notinmybackyard-ism'... nuclear power plants are a bit bigger, more concrete and steel and have more safety features, that’s it... no magic Absolutely disgusting.

[QUOTE=download;51420977]Please cite an example of a Western reactor that killed someone because someone cut corners.[/QUOTE] Just because no one has died yet doesn't mean we should allow people to cut corners now does it? Western countries have pretty strict inspections of existing nuclear power plants to check for any potential defects. TEPCO cut a lot of corners with the Fukushima plant and look what happened there. I'm all for nuclear power but I don't see any reason to cut the regulations around it.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51421006]Just because no one has died yet doesn't mean we should allow people to cut corners now does it? Western countries have pretty strict inspections of existing nuclear power plants to check for any potential defects. TEPCO cut a lot of corners with the Fukushima plant and look what happened there. I'm all for nuclear power but I don't see any reason to cut the regulations around it.[/QUOTE] In every other industry companies are required to spend up to about $10m for every life saved, this is called quite simply "the value of life". For example if not having a filter on a coal power plant kills 5 people over the filter's predicted life then the company would be required to spend up 5*US$10m on that filter. The US civilian nuclear industry has never killed anyone. Why should they be place under special and economically crippling requirements while other industries kill people every day? The aircraft industry is a good example of an industry that carries great technological risk (engineering safety factors can be as low as 1.2 in the aircraft industry) but is managed safely.

[QUOTE=download;51421074]In every other industry companies are required to spend up to about $10m for every life saved, this is called quite simply "the value of life". For example if not having a filter on a coal power plant kills 5 people over the filter's predicted life then the company would be required to spend up 5*US$10m on that filter. The US civilian nuclear industry has never killed anyone. Why should they be place under special and economically crippling requirements while other industries kill people every day? The aircraft industry is a good example of an industry that carries great technological risk (engineering safety factors can be as low as 1.2 in the aircraft industry) but is managed safely.[/QUOTE] With nuclear power plants you obviously have severe consequences if things go catastrophically wrong. Like the whole area having to be evacuated and uninhabitable for a considerable amount of time. The coal, gas, and oil industry aren't paying their fair share for damage either though. Personally i'd rather they took the time to triple check everything while they build the plant than to have to potentially deal with some idiot cutting corners to make a few quid and all the nuclear reactors all over the world being shut down by politics.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51419155]China is taking a pretty hard stance on emissions though and pushing clean tech pretty hard. So hopefully in the next decade we will see that figure take a nosedive. Hopefully it takes a nosedive all over the world if governments push for it.[/QUOTE] They are? That place is the smoggy version of Silent Hill.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51419155]Snip-O[/QUOTE] China is everything that Soviet Russia isn't. They are a force of change and are starting to become a first world country just as others are slipping into second and third world.