The nation is the world's second-largest emitter of climate change gases after the United States and the world's largest coal burner. But as a developing country it is not obliged to reduce emissions under the [Kyoto] protocol.
About 70 percent of China's energy comes from burning the fossil fuel and with hundreds more coal-fired power plants being built -- often with old, heavy-polluting technology -- the situation is only going to deteriorate.
China last year built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants -- a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.
But even the central government conceded the real number was much higher, with local and provincial governments building many unauthorized coal plants in an effort to ensure economic growth steamed ahead.
A report issued by the International Energy Agency in July said that every two years China was adding new electricity capacity equivalent to that of the total annual output of France or Canada.
Correspondingly, China's coal production has more than doubled since 1990, from one billion tonnes to a forecast 2.16 billion tonnes this year, according to Chinese government and industry figures.
The massive amount of extra pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere has had predictable short-term impacts on the environment.
China's coal burning has put five of the nation's cities in the top 10 of most polluted cities in the world, the International Energy Agency report said.
"Acid rain falls on one-third of China's territory and one-third of the urban population breathes heavily polluted air. Poor air quality imposes a welfare cost of between three and eight percent of GDP," it said.
"China's power sector is the single largest culprit," responsible for an estimated 44 percent of sulphur dioxide emissions, 80 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 26 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, it said.
Yes, but saying why coal is bad, even though it is, does not effectively persuade anyone to choose nuclear power. The fact remains that perhaps it isn't the best alternative, in my opinion. If you were going to type that much it should have been about nuclear power (for those who don't know about it), instead of the coal addiction of China.
I grew up in Kentucky. Google "Mountain Top Removal" - I am well aware of coal, its health issues and the destruction of the environment both in the collection and burning. As for oil - there's a bunch of dead Iraqis that might talk about oil and warefare. As for nuclear, I grew up on top of a waste site. A waste site that is so vast, so poisonous the government will still not discuss it in scope or detail. I have a list of friends who have died of rare and never-seen-before cancers.
Instead of pointing to nuclear - a dangerous, odious and proven poisoner in every way except for the "perfect case scenario," or continuing with the other poisonous and commodity based power sources of coal and oil, it is time to find and move into solar, wind and properly harness hydrogen so it becomes a positive energy producer. Toss your hands in the air - and squall that nuclear is the way to go. But I saw my utilities skyrocket when the local utility company gave up on their nuclear plant when it was 10 years behind and millions over budget. They converted it to coal. And I'll be more than happy to forward the funeral cards for many friends so you can see a few of the faces of those nameless human beings who have been lost to a clean, nuclear energy world.
[2 points]187 days ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 187 days ago by sillynilly
Whilst going trough the site i could only find 1 accindent from 2000 and none in the timeframe 2001-2008, page not updated or have there been no major accidents since then?
It was updated last in '07. A cursory look online didn't turn up any recent ones, but I wouldn't take that as a recommendation against future occurances. ;-)
We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Favorite
Embed
Options
Loading...
Think China.
Take a look:
The nation is the world's second-largest emitter of climate change gases after the United States and the world's largest coal burner. But as a developing country it is not obliged to reduce emissions under the [Kyoto] protocol.
About 70 percent of China's energy comes from burning the fossil fuel and with hundreds more coal-fired power plants being built -- often with old, heavy-polluting technology -- the situation is only going to deteriorate.
China last year built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants -- a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.
But even the central government conceded the real number was much higher, with local and provincial governments building many unauthorized coal plants in an effort to ensure economic growth steamed ahead.
A report issued by the International Energy Agency in July said that every two years China was adding new electricity capacity equivalent to that of the total annual output of France or Canada.
Correspondingly, China's coal production has more than doubled since 1990, from one billion tonnes to a forecast 2.16 billion tonnes this year, according to Chinese government and industry figures.
The massive amount of extra pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere has had predictable short-term impacts on the environment.
China's coal burning has put five of the nation's cities in the top 10 of most polluted cities in the world, the International Energy Agency report said.
"Acid rain falls on one-third of China's territory and one-third of the urban population breathes heavily polluted air. Poor air quality imposes a welfare cost of between three and eight percent of GDP," it said.
"China's power sector is the single largest culprit," responsible for an estimated 44 percent of sulphur dioxide emissions, 80 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 26 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, it said.
Source: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Coal_Addiction_Causing_Environmental_Disaster_999.html
Yes, but saying why coal is bad, even though it is, does not effectively persuade anyone to choose nuclear power. The fact remains that perhaps it isn't the best alternative, in my opinion. If you were going to type that much it should have been about nuclear power (for those who don't know about it), instead of the coal addiction of China.
Also, it isn't exactly completely green anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power
Perhaps you should explain to the children of Chernobyl why you think Nuclear is better.
Chernobyl was human error and could have been prevented.
Yes. But shall we assume that no human will ever error again? Perhaps we should automate it. Computers never fail. Well, unless programmed by humans.
As if nobody ever dies of coal/oil eh?
Chernobyl was long serie of human errors and mistakes, other power sources are not immune to incompetence either.
That's a great point!
I grew up in Kentucky. Google "Mountain Top Removal" - I am well aware of coal, its health issues and the destruction of the environment both in the collection and burning. As for oil - there's a bunch of dead Iraqis that might talk about oil and warefare. As for nuclear, I grew up on top of a waste site. A waste site that is so vast, so poisonous the government will still not discuss it in scope or detail. I have a list of friends who have died of rare and never-seen-before cancers.
Instead of pointing to nuclear - a dangerous, odious and proven poisoner in every way except for the "perfect case scenario," or continuing with the other poisonous and commodity based power sources of coal and oil, it is time to find and move into solar, wind and properly harness hydrogen so it becomes a positive energy producer. Toss your hands in the air - and squall that nuclear is the way to go. But I saw my utilities skyrocket when the local utility company gave up on their nuclear plant when it was 10 years behind and millions over budget. They converted it to coal. And I'll be more than happy to forward the funeral cards for many friends so you can see a few of the faces of those nameless human beings who have been lost to a clean, nuclear energy world.
Also harnessing ocean currents too...
Sounds terrible, even the idea of people living near a waste site.. what are the government thinking?
Can you fix it if there is an nuclear accident? The answer is no. You can use better, cleaner technology on your coal plants though.
Before you jump on the nuclear bandwagon, though, read this website:
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Whilst going trough the site i could only find 1 accindent from 2000 and none in the timeframe 2001-2008, page not updated or have there been no major accidents since then?
It was updated last in '07. A cursory look online didn't turn up any recent ones, but I wouldn't take that as a recommendation against future occurances. ;-)
Of course not, but i hope the safety and technology have advanced somewhat in the decades that have pased ;>