Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?

Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Oil --> 18.43

Biomass --> 4.63

Gas --> 2.82

Hydropower --> 1.3

Wind --> 0.04

Nuclear --> 0.03

Solar --> 0.02

Jakob wrote:
­Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Jakob wrote:
­Take a look at this:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Jakob wrote:
­Every time one terawatt-hour of electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant, 24 people will be killed.

Jakob wrote:
­Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Jakob wrote:
­Oil --> 18.43

Jakob wrote:
­Biomass --> 4.63

Jakob wrote:
­Gas --> 2.82

Jakob wrote:
­Hydropower --> 1.3

Jakob wrote:
­Wind --> 0.04

Jakob wrote:
­Nuclear --> 0.03

Jakob wrote:
­Solar --> 0.02

Jakob wrote:
­The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Jakob wrote:
­And if we also take the climate into consideration using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Jakob wrote:
­I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers,

Jakob wrote:
­but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel,

Jakob wrote:
­and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create,

Jakob wrote:
­rather than use cheaper renewable energy,

Jakob wrote:
­then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Jakob wrote:
­There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

Jakob wrote: Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Jakob wrote: Take a look at this:

Jakob wrote: The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Jakob wrote: And if we also take the climate into consideration ...

Jakob wrote: ... using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Jakob wrote: I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Jakob wrote: There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?

Nope. It is not mass murder to use any fuel. However, installing a Marxist government is guaranteed to result in mass murder.

Let's continue using fuels and let's avoid all Marxism.

Jakob wrote: Take a look at this:

I read it. Did you call BOOOOOLSCH'T like I did?

Jakob wrote: The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

Well, that's good. I think we all know that every casualty in the war between Russia and Ukraine is a result of the socialist governments that were installed in the past.

Jakob wrote: And if we also take the climate into consideration ...

... we necessarily begin with a formal, unambiguous, definition of the global climate that does not inherently violate science, math, logic, economics laws or the language in which it is expressed.

I eagerly await the definition.

Jakob wrote: ... using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

Great news! Fossils don't use any fuel! Whew, we dodged that bullet.

Jakob wrote: I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

Hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas, are the world's cheapest, most abundant, safest and most reliable renewable energy sources. Only Marxists claim otherwise.

Hydrocarbons take hours to minutes to form under the Fischer-Tropsh process. We can drill all we wish; the earth will make more.

Jakob wrote: There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.

I agree. Hydrocarbons are the best.

... although I'm a fan of nuclear as well.

Jakob wrote:
­



Is it mass murder to use fossil fuel.?


Take a look at this:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Every time one terawatt-hour of electricity is produced by a coal-fired power plant, 24 people will be killed.

Brown coal --> 32.72

Coal --> 24.62

Oil --> 18.43

Biomass --> 4.63

Gas --> 2.82

Hydropower --> 1.3

Wind --> 0.04

Nuclear --> 0.03

Solar --> 0.02

The numbers for Oil and Gas do not include the extra killings it will cause in the Russian war against Ukraine.

And if we also take the climate into consideration using fossil fuel in big scale might be the worst crime against humanity that ever can happen.

I'm sorry to take away the innocence of fossil fuel lovers, but when they want the tax payers to pay more for fossil fuel, and further drain the world's resources that it took mother nature 300 million years to create, rather than use cheaper renewable energy, then it must be fair to document some of the deadly seriousness in their mind-numbing policy.

There are overwhelmingly many good reasons to switch to renewable energy.
­

GasGuzzler wrote: Nowhere did the article describe how a death was determined be from pollution. Nowhere did the article show the medical history and personal lifestyle habits of the deceased. Nowhere did the article describe in detail how a life essential gas can be labeled pollution. Nowhere did the article show any calculations with margin of error.

GasGuzzler wrote: And you, Jakob, continue to talk about fossils and then randomly change the subject to fuels. For the respect of the site owner, can we please stay on topic? Thanks.

GasGuzzler wrote: Just for something to think about....

How many lives are saved because of gas and oil? How big is the list of emergency equipment that depends on reliable fuels? Just a few off the top and then I have to scoot.

Ambulance-road, ambulance-air, fire trucks, police, hospitals...all saving lives every damn day, performing at a level that could not be matched relying on cool breeze.

GasGuzzler wrote: Please, [Jakob] you can do better.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: Please, [Jakob] you can do better.

What makes you so sure? He's a Marxist. I don't know where you get your rose-colored optimism.

Jakob wrote:
­


Before we go any further, I have a question for you:

How much more will you pay per KWh to save 24 people from dying every year.?
­

Jakob wrote:
That's not the question, I just want to see how you value human life per KWh.
­­

HarveyH55 wrote:
How many lives are saved by burning fossil-fuels? Specially in the winter... Electricity is great, but not for everything. Grid power fails...

Jakob wrote:
­Before we go any further, I have a question for you:

How much more will you pay per KWh to save 24 people from dying every year.?
­

Jakob wrote:
­

That's not the question, I just want to see how you value human life per KWh.

No matter what new power plant you buy it will cost money.
Depending on how much you will pay maybe you can even afford a nuclear plant, at least for a while.
­
­

Jakob wrote:
­

HarveyH55 wrote:
How many lives are saved by burning fossil-fuels? Specially in the winter... Electricity is great, but not for everything. Grid power fails...

Yes, you need a better grid to save more lives but the number of lives you can save with the grid you already have will on the output side not be changed if the electricity comes from a windmill instead of a coal power plant.
If the heart starter needs 1 kWh to bring a person back to life it won't matter what power plant the 1 KWh comes from. All that matters is that it is there, when it is needed.
So far so good.

However on the input side it makes a big difference, and that is my point.
So how much more will you pay per KWh if it can save 24 lives every year.?


Is 0,1 $ too much.?

­

Jakob wrote:
­




Already in 2009 the windmills in Texas saved 480 lives.



Well done Texas.!

That is if coal plants had been the alternative.
Think about it.

Jakob wrote:
­Already in 2009 the windmills in Texas saved 480 lives.

Jakob wrote:
­Well done Texas.!

That is if coal plants had been the alternative.
Think about it.
And check the math if you want to. (it might be a good idea. lol)
https://www.eia.gov/renewable/state/archive/srp2009.pdf
Wind 2009: 20.026.000 MWh
20 x 24 = 480
­

Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Jakob wrote:
And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.

Jakob wrote:
­I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.

Jakob wrote:
­It only sounds like you want to take on a similar role as the tobacco industry's lawyers.

Jakob wrote:
­What the motivation is for this, I don't know, but in any case their role was not to save human life.

Jakob wrote:
­And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Jakob wrote:
And it's a little lame that you don't recognize the good work that's been done in Texas.

Are you speaking of all the wind turbines that failed in the cold weather during the cold period in the winter of 2021?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.

Into the Night wrote:
I do.

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.

Jakob wrote:
As with climate,

Jakob wrote:
I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

Jakob wrote:
It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

Jakob wrote:
But if you want to

Jakob wrote:
because you don't trust the science,

Jakob wrote:
there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

Jakob wrote:
I rather think that the numbers are too low

Jakob wrote:
precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

Jakob wrote:
if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Jakob wrote:
I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it

Jakob wrote:
using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Jakob wrote:
I am glad that you cannot find any specific errors in my calculation.­

Your calculations were meaningless. You still haven't described how it is we know a person has died prematurely due to anything.

As with climate, I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

Jakob wrote:
­It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

Jakob wrote:
­But if you want to because you don't trust the science,

Jakob wrote:
­there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

Jakob wrote:
­I rather think that the numbers are too low, precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

Jakob wrote:
­if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Jakob wrote:
­I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Jakob wrote:
­

Into the Night wrote:
I do.

No, you're just derailing the topic.

Into the Night wrote:
You deny science. It is NOT a scientist's job to check each other.

The death rates from coal, oil, and gas used in these comparisons are sourced from the paper of Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (2007) in the medical journal, The Lancet. To date, these are the best peer-reviewed references I could find on the death rates from these sources. These rates are based on electricity production in Europe.

Jakob wrote:
­

Into the Night wrote:
You deny science. It is NOT a scientist's job to check each other.

­https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

The death rates from coal, oil, and gas used in these comparisons are sourced from the paper of Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson (2007) in the medical journal, The Lancet. To date, these are the best peer-reviewed references I could find on the death rates from these sources. These rates are based on electricity production in Europe.

What "peer-reviewed" means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

­­

Jakob wrote: As with climate, I don't want to swim out and drown in a sea of data.

Jakob wrote: It is the scientists' job to check each other and correct mistakes.

Jakob wrote: But if you want to because you don't trust the science,

Jakob wrote: there are plenty of explanations and references on the page I linked to in the first post on the subject.

Jakob wrote: ... precisely because science is afraid of losing credibility

Jakob wrote: ... if the lawyers of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries want to use all the tricks to cast doubt.

Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Jakob wrote: No, you're just derailing the topic

The Netherlands has unveiled its plans for a 100% wind-powered naval fleet by 2048. Vice-Admiral Rene Tas lauded his country's intention to leverage exclusively wind power to inflict "mass murder" on those who dare oppose his royal fleet. The plan also calls for 23,440 hydrocarbon-powered tugboats to keep the fleet powering ahead into the future.

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Who are "they"? What is being calculated?

Jakob wrote:
­

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I assume that you already have a sense of how they can calculate it using data from countless medical records, jobs, residences, etc.?

Who are "they"? What is being calculated?

It is probably mostly doctors and statisticians who have access to work scientifically with data from medical records.

Jakob wrote:
­They can compare professional groups and see life expectancy and diseases among people who work with coal and compare them to others. They can also see measures of coal air pollution in local areas and compare it with disease and death in other areas.
Finding reliable estimates of coal kills is a complicated and difficult calculation, and it will likely be impossible to completely avoid mistakes, but basically it is simple logic that it is a relevant and possible social scientific calculation to do.
­

Jakob wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Who are "they"? What is being calculated?

It is probably mostly doctors and statisticians who have access to work scientifically with data from medical records.

Jakob wrote: They can compare professional groups and see life expectancy and diseases among people who work with coal and compare them to others. They can also see measures of coal air pollution in local areas and compare it with disease and death in other areas.

Jakob wrote:Finding reliable estimates of coal kills is a complicated and difficult calculation, and it will likely be impossible to completely avoid mistakes,

Jakob wrote: ... but basically it is simple logic that it is a relevant and possible social scientific calculation to do.

IBdaMann wrote:

The Netherlands has unveiled its plans for a 100% wind-powered naval fleet by 2048. Vice-Admiral Rene Tas lauded his country's intention to leverage exclusively wind power to inflict "mass murder" on those who dare oppose his royal fleet. The plan also calls for 23,440 hydrocarbon-powered tugboats to keep the fleet powering ahead into the future.

GasGuzzler wrote: I'm going to need you to square this up a bit. Are you actually saying wind cannot sustain our every energy need?

GasGuzzler wrote: Jakob seems to think we can have oil and gas in museum by next week! One of you is really stupid.