Comments on: The True Cost of Fossil Fuels

By: Cancer Rates and Fossil Fuels | Renewable Energy Business Consulting and Investment Services

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:45:22 +0000

[...] Thanks very much for this. I’m reminded of some of my previous posts on the externalities associated with fossil fuels and how to quantify them. Ironically, it’s far easier to find numbers for the things that carry [...]

By: LaVonna Bledsoe

LaVonna Bledsoe — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:25:10 +0000

Hi Craig,

Thanks again for all the enriching viewpoints. I love reading the posts. I agree. It’s a time to make hay even though the sun is not shining as brightly as before.

MERRY HOLIDAYS!!!

By: Chip Aadland

Chip Aadland — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:10:30 +0000

Something that scientists and all humans should worry about more than carbon dioxide, as great a problem as that is, should be the pollution such as lead, mercury, nitrous based compounds. These pose a greater threat and a more immediate threat to humanity. Neurogenic diseased are increasing dramatically, respiratory diseases are rampant, and cancers from air and water pollution, many of which come from fossil fuel power plants, are on the rise. If we take the actual cost of fossil fuels in their totality, human beings can’t afford it.

By: Craig Shields

Craig Shields — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:49:10 +0000

It’s funny; my blogging software somehow identified your post and asked me to approve or reject it, where normally anyone can post a comment. Of course, when I read it (though I disagree with what you’ve written here) I approved it immediately. I’m not into censorship; as long as we’re all respectful of one another, I encourage divergent points of view.

By: Paul Judd

Paul Judd — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:26:40 +0000

Nuclear Energy is not a option, If all the nations were to go to NE then we’ed have to find an alternative energy in 30years as all known resources will have been used up. Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete that emits huge amount of CO2 in the process. Then there’s the matter of all that energy required to bury the waste in more concrete.
Renewable Energy directly (solar of various types) or indirectly (wind, wave, bio-energy from waste) from the sun or geothermal is the only real option. Increased lifespan is from medical advances not from changes in the atmosphere. Some countries still don’t get this privilege of increased lifespan. It is only the wealthy energy hungry natons that have the increased lifespan, to the detriment of many others. My dad told me how he used to feel his way home in London’s “Pea Soupers”, the smog so thick from coal fires he couldn’t see more than foot.

By: The Five Most-Commented Posts of 2009 | Renewable Energy Business Consulting and Investment Services

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:32:31 +0000

[...] The True Cost of Fossil Fuels [...]

By: Rudy Behrens

Rudy Behrens — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:33:51 +0000

I am engineer who worked on a repair team during the TMI accident. On a cost per kilowatt of installed capacity, or on a cost-per-kilowatt hour basis, nuclear power is costlier than any renewable technology. We need not even consider the safety issues. It is very expensive. Also, none of the ‘new’ nuclear technologies has been successfully run at a commercial level.

The main virtue has over renewable energy is only a limited few entities can afford to own one and they have meters. Were someone able to figure out how to own the sun and put a meter on it we would have solar power tomorrow.

By: Alex C.

Alex C. — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:59:44 +0000

You make my case…deaths caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power plants are tiny. Do you know how many people die in car crashes each day? Nuclear power was not the root cause of the Russian incident but rather failure of the country to properly design and safeguard an industrial process. Japan, France, USA, and others now use nuclear power and it is very clean and very safe. May the true facts and real technological progress help us achieve a clean planet and prosperous one based on freedom and not idealogical control based on scare tactics and the end of the world. What is % make-up of CO2 in the atmosphere? Has warming caused CO2 increase or vice versa? Climate swings have naturally occurred in the past and will again. Facts are clearer now…and Climate-gate reveals the scam….see just one article of many that exposes the truth…link here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
It is becoming clear that man made CO2 has not caused global warming…in fact the earth has been cooling for the last decade. Even the CBC understands it…see the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#
You can ignore the facts and truth, bu it will not change them. We need more men of integrity who can at least debate with facts rather than scare tactics. The general public are also not buying it anymore…new public opinion polls now shows a major swing against this largest scientific-political scam in the world’s history. The UN and Copenhagen is not about protecting humans and the environment…it is all about stealing from the weathly to give to poor countries becuase of jealously and false guilt. The truth is that the free countries like the USA and free market capitalism will maximize propsperity AND provide the best technology to reduce or eliminate harmful pollutants. True enviornmentalists who want clean air and water should focus on real science and and technology and economical solutions and exit the political control & corruption arena.
Thank God the world is waking up!

By: Jacob Silver

Jacob Silver — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:31:21 +0000

The burning of fossil fuels in roughly 60,000 vehicles worldwide, and in 50,000 coal fired electrical generators worldwide creates, in a traditionally forested world, about a 10% gape of non-absorbed carbon in the atmosphere. This accumulates each year, thickening the carbon filter of solar energy. But it is not a traditionally forested world. Hundreds, thousands of acres of forest are being cut down in Indonesia and Brazil. The result is a gap of 25% non-absorbed carbon. This has already created an atmospheric carbon index of 390 ppm, with an increas of 2 ppm each year. And, as the permafrost, in Canada and Siberia has begun to melt, methane is being released into the atmosphere. Methane retains solar energy 20 times more than carbon dioxide. This rapid increase has been going on for the last 10 years without any attempt to ameliorate it until very recently. But, the amound of heat retained has already started the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. When melted, these two glaciers will increase the sea level by 167 feet. That will inundate most of coastal land, and coastal cities, worldwide. But that will take about 40 years. In 25 years the level of rise will be about 40 to 50 feet. That will be enough to end civilization as we know it, as well as most states, including the United States, in the world.

And the efforts to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, thusfar, are less than meager. Nothing is being done to alter the 25 years schedule described above. Anyone want to cost out this doing practically nothing?

By: dan case

dan case — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:08:36 +0000

Listen to all pros & cons, argue what you will, read the bible, Christian or not, the final outcome is the same if we continue to argue, “the one world government” & a world-wide “Nazi Germany.” Have a very Merry Christmas!