I feel like there’s a reasonable optimization. Everything has an environmental cost, even the production of green energy infrastructure. I think we can reasonably compare and contrast the probable lifetime impact of an energy source, including decommission and possible recycling. That is nothing is perfect but it’s about what’s the best we can manage given what the market can financially support.
Yes, that is my point. It is completely unreasonable to make gas clean enough to not affect air quality. We do what we reasonably can. And that results in pollution.
I’m still not fully sold that it appreciably does affect air quality, I’m aware it’s not zero but is it causing like cancer and birth defects in people around the powerplant? I think you and I are more aligned than the others on this thread.
To keep on topic what I could find was 17% of all lung cancer cases in heavily impacted regional studies. That is communities within a 2- to 5-kilometer. It seems fairly insignificant or inconclusive for people further outside that range. Seems like there just needs to be a buffer zone around said gas fired powerplants which honestly I think everyone wants. I can’t imagine home prices near any form of powerplant or data center are amazing.
Just fyi, asthma is not “off topic”. Natural gas is one of the leading causes. I tell you this as someone who now has life long asthma, likely because of my family’s natural gas stove.
A “buffer zone” doesn’t do anything when an inversion happens, because an inversion traps the bad air at lower levels (you know, where people breathe) and the bad air spreads much further because of that.
I just meant the topic of cancer which seemed to be a focus. Also I’ve noticed a continual jump between power plants and stoves or other gas household appliances. You are right though that geography and wind patterns definitely play a role. If a buffer zone didn’t matter that would mean one could put a gas fired powerplant on the other side of the earth and they would be at the same health risk as if they were camped out feet away from the exhaust which simply isn’t true. There’s some degree of distance where the effects become negligible. Generally speaking though no one wants to live near power generation of nearly any sort or high power lines which have their own issues.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for us to go back to a time before electricity. PV, solar thermal, hydro, geo thermal, and wind are good, some depending on how they store power, ultimately nuclear is the king and hopefully one day fusion will come around to solve the issue once and for all. Maybe if we find a novel and efficient way of generating antimatter that would be the true ultimate. Coal and gas still have a role to play in many areas not well suited for greener energy and where people get the heeby geebys about nuclear. It does cost more but that could generally be managed by government subsidies.
I feel like there’s a reasonable optimization. Everything has an environmental cost, even the production of green energy infrastructure. I think we can reasonably compare and contrast the probable lifetime impact of an energy source, including decommission and possible recycling. That is nothing is perfect but it’s about what’s the best we can manage given what the market can financially support.
Yes, that is my point. It is completely unreasonable to make gas clean enough to not affect air quality. We do what we reasonably can. And that results in pollution.
I’m still not fully sold that it appreciably does affect air quality, I’m aware it’s not zero but is it causing like cancer and birth defects in people around the powerplant? I think you and I are more aligned than the others on this thread.
Yes it is.
Then again everything causes cancer. Aging causes cancer.
But cancer like coffee or cancer like strong ionizing radiation?
Cancer like cancer alley in texas, where life expectancy is a full decade lower than the nice neighborhood five miles further.
Gas plant pollution is currently responsible for approximately 21% of asthma cases in the country.
To keep on topic what I could find was 17% of all lung cancer cases in heavily impacted regional studies. That is communities within a 2- to 5-kilometer. It seems fairly insignificant or inconclusive for people further outside that range. Seems like there just needs to be a buffer zone around said gas fired powerplants which honestly I think everyone wants. I can’t imagine home prices near any form of powerplant or data center are amazing.
Just fyi, asthma is not “off topic”. Natural gas is one of the leading causes. I tell you this as someone who now has life long asthma, likely because of my family’s natural gas stove.
A “buffer zone” doesn’t do anything when an inversion happens, because an inversion traps the bad air at lower levels (you know, where people breathe) and the bad air spreads much further because of that.
I just meant the topic of cancer which seemed to be a focus. Also I’ve noticed a continual jump between power plants and stoves or other gas household appliances. You are right though that geography and wind patterns definitely play a role. If a buffer zone didn’t matter that would mean one could put a gas fired powerplant on the other side of the earth and they would be at the same health risk as if they were camped out feet away from the exhaust which simply isn’t true. There’s some degree of distance where the effects become negligible. Generally speaking though no one wants to live near power generation of nearly any sort or high power lines which have their own issues.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for us to go back to a time before electricity. PV, solar thermal, hydro, geo thermal, and wind are good, some depending on how they store power, ultimately nuclear is the king and hopefully one day fusion will come around to solve the issue once and for all. Maybe if we find a novel and efficient way of generating antimatter that would be the true ultimate. Coal and gas still have a role to play in many areas not well suited for greener energy and where people get the heeby geebys about nuclear. It does cost more but that could generally be managed by government subsidies.