Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Even if the electricity source would burn similar fuel, just the fact that you don't pullote right in the middle of population centers makes a huge difference. In reality, it's not only that, but _also_ that they use cleaner methods of energy production.




This is only the issue if you are a city dweller and want to spend your whole life there. For rural folks this is actually best possible situation.

The pollution always goes somewhere, and its not like we have large swaths of useless places that we can pollute without consequences.


Huh, no. Pollution close to humans is bad for both city and rural people.

> The pollution always goes somewhere,

"The solution to pollution is dilution". We want the concentration of pollution low, so the health effects are low too, and we can give natural processes the time to decay/oxidize/etc the pollutants.

> not like we have large swaths of useless places

We do... we mostly care about the lower ~100 meters of atmosphere because that's where people live. That's less than 1% of the total atmosphere. This means we can distribute pollution over a volume a 100x larger than that that is important for us. And then I'm not even counting the vast amount of the planet that's uninhabited / non-land.

Also, smokestacks are designed to not directly pollute the air close to people, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYdt4T76mk




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: