And some small dams have been removed because of this, but there is already a significant amount of hydro. I'm not going around advocating new dams.

No I know. I agree with u on literally every thing u say in this thread haha kinda don't even have to ever post because you crush it.

I am not crusading, I said it was fine when I was there. A picture with no context was posted with Asian people riding bikes in what appears to be smog? How is that different then me saying it was fine the few days I was there.

The average traffic cop after 20 years on the job. But don't forget to mention the other attributing factors such as heat, arthritis and standing for extended periods of time.

Why is it rising DESPITE pollution problems?

My correlation is not like saying that at all. The positives that come from burning coal or any fossil fuel that emits pollution or CO2 far out weighs any negatives. Are you saying life was better in places like China and India before they started to burn fossil fuels and industrialize?

No it doesn't because the major changes due to global warming aren't even in full effect now. Once the climate goes over the edge the effects are barely reversible.

I agree that we can't expect emerging countries to stop using fossil fuels when we already used them to build our wealth. I also agree its much cheaper to get results if we could persuade them to use renewable energy for their industrialization. So the rich countries should give them incentives to do so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...lion/81359834/

Why is it the Federal governments responsibility to pay off a cities wishes. The City should repair their system with increased taxes. Otherwise, the city should just shut the water system off. The city can install a new system at the taxpayers expense.

Liberal cities are failing, and to keep the gravy train, they turn to federal government, thus everyone else, to pay for their red tape.

People can move if they don' want to pay for it.

It the water in the dam was used for fish it could increase fish populations. If the water in Castaic lake was used to improve steelhead populations a more constant and steady oxygenated flow below the dam to be used to increase fish populations 100 fold if they so desired.

Water settling basin destroyed the populations on Santa Clara river in Ventura county imho. The fish would go up fine, but come down into the basins and die.

If we used just a few square miles of solar for desalination, the Santa Clara river could be restocked and restored and the dams at Piru and Castaic used to improve fisheries and populations to higher than historic value.

Farming and municipal use can hurt populations more. The best place to fish is often below a dam because all the nutrients of the lake are released from the deep water.

Most dams were not designed to help fish, but to provide irrigation, flood control, and municipal water.

No, I'm saying that if they have an option to produce that electricity in any other way, they should use it which they are starting to do. Maybe it was necessary to kick-start their economy, maybe they could have gone nuclear earlier.

Coal kills like no other energy form.

What are the major changes? Is it global warming or climate change, it's so hard to keep up with you guys.

The rich country's should give incentives? Like what? Who pays for the incentives?

Who says they have a way to produce electricity another way? I agree they should use the technology available to burn it cleaner.

Can you explain to me why life expectancy is at all times high DESPITE burning fossil fuels?

Because the quality of life has risen. Air pollution itself is not some cure even though it might be the indicator of industrialization and economic activity.

You don't seem to get it, coal power is the worst polluter per Kwh by far in every country out of the major energy sources. Clean coal power is an oxymoron even with current technology. Coal sucks.

Why do you think quality of life has risen? Do you think that perhaps the ability for machines to do work for us has anything to do with that?

You don't seem to get it. Coal is Finland's (assuming thats where you live) one of the leading energy source's, fossil fuels account for over 50%. 75% of North Dakota net consumption is from coal and they are among the leaders in air quality the US. Sure does suck, it's only lifted billions out of poverty and extended billions of peoples lives.

Yes and we're driving the use of it actively down. Also there's like 5.5 million of us in a huge country compared to China where Beijing is 20 million, North Dakota is even more sparsely populated. Not to mention global pollutants like CO2.

There's a whole town which depends on mining asbestos in Russia. That doesn't make asbestos great.

Coal still sucks.

It could be money or technology. There are different methods. Abolishing subsidies for certain areas so that 3rd world countrys can compete with our producers esp. acriculture.

Who pays for it? Well it would be us or better all these countrys which have profited from cheap energy all these years and put this planet into this bad shape over the years.

Amazing! So your a socialist (not surprising most "green" people are). I would call it benefiting from cheap energy not profiting.

Can you tell me why the planet is in such bad shape? With life expectancy at all time highs, climate related deaths at all time lows and global poverty rates declining.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/...-power-prices/

Wind power sold for an average of $.025/kwh in the US in 2013

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/...-power-prices/

Solar coming in under $.04/kwh in the US.

New project under $.05/kwh in Peru with no subsidies

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/25/...-unsubsidized/

Coal fired plants are going to disappear purely for economic reasons even if they aren't forced to pay for the damages their pollution causes.

I don't see how anyone other than a shill would think that the cost of the pollution in terms of the environment and health shouldn't be added to the price of coal power though.

I don't think you understand what the word economic means. Making something cheaper doesn't make it more economical. Wind and Solar are still unreliable and intermittent.

Wind is almost completely reliable and predictable if you put the turbines in the right place and your timeframe is longer than a few days. The traditional problem with wind was the high upfront cost of manufacturing the turbines.

The problem is that in energy production the timeframe is not few days. It's about now. Also you can't product all the energy in the right place.

The right place is not a big problem anymore with the latest high voltage technologies. Timing is the bigger problem until we come up with much better storage solutions.

"Storage" is repeated over and over until it seems like a much bigger problem than it is.

The real complexity is that the solution is really many solutions and it takes more than one sentence to say. The lobby for fossil fuel just needs to say one word. It used to be "cost", now it's "storage."

What are you referring to here?

Super high voltage transmission. Reduces energy loss.

Especially for DC, there are higher and higher voltage transformers becoming practical.

China is building a 1200 mile 800kV transmission line. But, higher voltage will be coming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian...ai_HVDC_system

Storage is a real problem and it directly affects the actual price.

Some kind of energy that is easily adjustable is needed a lot (it doesn't need to be on 24/7) if most energy production is done with wind and solar.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nment_b-gdneco

Good read on more Nevada drama.