Peter your assumption that I haven't studied the links you provided is wrong. I did, but because I didn't blindly accept their assumptions like you did, I came to a different conclusion.

I hadn't realised you were referring to a dollar value – I thought you meant that many people. (Or is the $ sign just a typo?)

If, as you say, I'm wrong, perhaps you could provide the link because I don't recall seeing that figure in any you've provided so far.

Aidan,

You being dishonest again. There was no $ sign in my comment and you din't have a $ sign in your strawman, response:
"The nuclear safety standards are not to blame for causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year. AIUI that figure is for all air pollution, not just that from power generation."

You made up a strawman argument (intellectual dishonesty), made an incorrect and unsupported statement about the 1.3 million people was from all air pollution. (What is your sources for your assertion? )

You're a waste of time, Aidan. I despise dishonesty. You would do well to read about intellectual dishonesty, motivated reasoning and denial.

Peter I'm not being dishonest. Though there wasn't a dollar sign in your earlier comment (or my response to it) you inserted one in your comment this afternoon.

And your accusation of dishonesty looks suspiciously like an attempt to shift the focus away from your mystery source.

Not knowing where you got the figure from, and not finding it in your previous links, I googled it and found http://theconversation.com/pro-nuclear-greenies-thinking-outside-the-box-with-pandoras-promise-18941 which, in an argument for nuclear power, claims that "...outdoor air pollution is a major contributor to about 1.3 million deaths every year."

If that's not your source then what is?

You have repeatedly displayed intellectual dishonesty when denigrating the capabilities of renewable energy. You baselessly claim that they're not sustainable. Or rather, your claim had a blatantly absurd basis that indicates a severe lack of critical thinking. If you don't believe me, try explaining how an advanced society could possibly require an EROEI of at least 7 without assuming any other constraint?

Because I know you're so prone to displaying intellectual dishonesty, I was suspicious that you might be trying to shift the goalposts again. But rather than assuming you were, I did mention the possibility that the $ might just be a typo. So if it's not a distraction tactic, your whinging is pointless.

>"Peter I'm not being dishonest. Though there wasn't a dollar sign in your earlier comment (or my response to it) you inserted one in your comment this afternoon."

That's dishonest. My typo was AFTER your dishonest comment. Your latest comment simply compounds your BS, dodging, weaving, diversions and dishonesty.

Your comment is an attempt at projection of your behaviour onto me:
>"And your accusation of dishonesty looks suspiciously like an attempt to shift the focus away from your [dishonesty]."

The Conversation article links to WHO and misquotes it. The WHO article says:

"- Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012.

- In addition to outdoor air pollution, indoor smoke is a serious health risk for some 3 billion people who cook and heat their homes with biomass fuels and coal."

You can read the references I've linked. I'm not going to bother with changing your nappies for you every time you cry, especially since this just a diversion from addressing the point in my comment of 24 May 2:18 PM where I said:

>" >"I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Not even if you understand that those policies are causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year? "

Address that point seriously rather than try diversions. The 1.3 million is irrelevant to the main point. Arguing about that detail is just a distraction (Just to confirm, it is correct and you can find it if you want to). If, after you addressed the issue I raised (honestly), and I am satisfied you've done so, and you still want the source for the 1.3 million, and have seriously tried to find in the references I've given, and haven't, then I'll give it to you. But you have to do your homework and demonstrate you are willing to learn.

And round and round and round...

If RE with storage is to supplant fossil fuels, before or after they disappear, it must fairly out-compete all other options on its own merits, no knobbling of other competitors or subsides.

It's stupid to leave out storage from this determination if fossil fuels are to be completely supplanted, and ingenuine to argue that it should be. How else is intermittency to be dealt with? Certainly not with Minn's fantasy infinity drive contraptions.

How ingenuine it is not to accept the constraint of EROEI upon what can be done with the available money and time needed for RE to supplant fossil fuels and to mitigate AGW. To trash EROEI as a concept, or effective EROEI, is the last bastion of a scoundrel who insists, simultaneously, and in direct contradiction to the only real world data available (not hypotheticals), that technological advancement will change the basic equation. This is the position of blind and blithely faithful, the pied-pipers leading us to oblivion.

Due to its tiny effective EROEI, to supplant fossil-fuelled electricity generation, buffered RE must be installed at a scale so preposterously massive, costly, and time consuming that it can't possibly compete with other options other than by totalitarian decree and the impoverishment of the world. A Great Leap Forward for those who don't have to do the suffering, but misery to the rest.

Aiden, in putting the challenge to "try explaining how an advanced society could possibly require an EROEI of at least 7 without assuming any other constraint", be absolutely public in your own assumption that money will fall from heaven to bring your wish to fruition.