Thread: Oil Spill in the yellowstone river

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

You said very clearly that you wouldn't cut back if it meant sacrificing your sense of "moving forward," including more toys, larger cars and a longer commute. All of these involve an increase in consumption.



Yes, but they're not equivalent. If the level of danger produced by windmills is lower, then the rate at which these increase with increased use will also be lower. Since they're not equivalent, then the obvious statement that you made is pretty valueless.

I'm not sure you're correct there. If windmills had a failure/accident rate of 10% and you double your windmills, the failure/accident rate is still going to be 10%.

The "Level of Danger" has no impact whatsoever on the likelihood or rate of accidents. What dex said was correct, statistically the more you increase ANYTHING, the more incidents you will have. The only difference is that the rate of incidents wont change (given normal circumstances).

Originally Posted by Menoske

I'm not sure you're correct there. If windmills had a failure/accident rate of 10% and you double your windmills, the failure/accident rate is still going to be 10%.

The "Level of Danger" has no impact whatsoever on the likelihood or rate of accidents. What dex said was correct, statistically the more you increase ANYTHING, the more incidents you will have. The only difference is that the rate of incidents wont change (given normal circumstances).

Yes, but the rate of change can be very different. To simplify things:
Let's say that wind power causes 10 deaths per GW of power produced (units arbitrary), while coal power kills 100 people per GW produced. Now, let's say we double our energy usage from 1 to 2 GW. If you're on wind power, you've added 10 deaths. If you're on coal power, then you've added 100 deaths.

If one power source is twice as dangerous, it will have twice the rate of effect as it grows. To say "yeah, but the negative effects of wind power will also increase" as if this increase causes comparable harm, ignores this fact. If you're saying it to try to show equivalence, you're being dishonest. If you're saying it regardless of the lack of equivalence, then you're not making any valuable point.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, but the rate of change can be very different. To simplify things:
Let's say that wind power causes 10 deaths per GW of power produced (units arbitrary), while coal power kills 100 people per GW produced. Now, let's say we double our energy usage from 1 to 2 GW. If you're on wind power, you've added 10 deaths. If you're on coal power, then you've added 100 deaths.

If one power source is twice as dangerous, it will have twice the rate of effect as it grows. To say "yeah, but the negative effects of wind power will also increase" as if this increase causes comparable harm, ignores this fact. If you're saying it to try to show equivalence, you're being dishonest. If you're saying it regardless of the lack of equivalence, then you're not making any valuable point.

Bolded the part I disagree and have been trying to say. I think its really semantics or you're using the wrong words. Yes, in your example adding 1 GW Coal would cause more deaths, however its not the rate that is changing. The rate is still 100/1 for Coal compared to 10/1 on Wind (or the rate of deaths due to power generation of coal is 10x that of Wind). The Rate is not changing at all. The effect or impact of power generation of Coal is greater but the rate does not change whatsoever.

Take your example, 100 people die from 1 GW of Coal; 10 people die from 1 GW of Wind (10:1 ratio)
Add a GW, 200 people die from 2 GW of Coal; 20 people die from 2 GW of Wind (still a 10:1 ratio)

The rates don't change, just the effect itself. The point that dex was trying to make was not that coal kills less people, but that if you increase a system, the impact that system will have will grow. It has nothing to do with a comparison between coal and wind (at least thats how i took it, Dex please correct me if I'm misinformed), but just a generalization that Increasing the use of one system will still increase the impact that system has (More wind = more deaths or more coal = more deaths)

Had to post quick due to co-workers coming into my office. In summary, to reword your phrasing so that it sounds correct;
If one power source is twice as dangerous, it will have twice the effect as it grows. Not that the rate of effect is increasing, just the actual effect.

Edit: Dangerous, not ganerous.