• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting Look at the Deaths in France's Heat Wave

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DaZ
Um, yeah right. Tell me, how many homes in New Hampshire have AC? North Dakota? Vermont? Maine? A lot higher % than France.
Click to expand...

Quick note, I live about 5-6 hours NORTH of North Dakota, and about 85% of the houses on my street have A/C. Of course its been about 90-95 everyday for the last two-three months..

Its interesting how people can claim Nuclear Energy is a clean source of power. Sure the plant doesnt give off any different immediate pollution then the average plant (heat pollution), but are people forgetting the Radio Active Waste? That stuff hangs around for decades, if not centuries. Sure we can just 'sweep it under a rug', but that rug is completely un-safe for any human use for a very long time..

Fusion power is the wave of the future!.. Just need to develop containment systems.... hmmmm
Click to expand...

coal power generates plenty of toxic waste which is pumped into the atmosphere. i'll bet theres some radioactive waste in there as well. heck, maybe as much as a nuke plant (it takes several cars of coal to power as much as a couple tablets of nuke waste) seriously, i'd much much much rather have radioactive waste in a concentrated form that we can lock away somewhere rather than just pumping it into the atmostphere. and its not like that stuff wasn't radioactive when it was pulled out of the earth.
Click to expand...


I agree, I would much prefer a properly designed (read: safe) nuke plant to several coal plants. Sure, nuke waste has a half life of millions of years, but chances are that in a few hundred years space travel will be cheap enough to throw that stuff into the sun...

On problem I have is that I've heard old nuke plants never lived up to their full potential (ie, they cost tons to run and didn't produce too much energy). Are newer plants different?
 
What a lot of bull crap!

I am European, born and raised there for 30 years. I have lived all over Europe and the last 5 years I live in Chicago. What a coincidence!

You can NOT compare European cities with cities in the US (or any other continent for that matter). You compare cities in the same continent and latitude.

Paris being up North in France is a relatively cool place. They receive part of the Golf Stream hitting the European coasts as well as the breeze from the Channel (mostly cool air coming from England and Northern Europe). The river crossing Paris is also providing a lot of breeze too. So, yes, overall, it is a cool and comfortable place and AC is not that common because they don't need it. Also, because Europeans DO tend to be more environmentally friendly than Americans - this is not an insult, just fact.

What you miss is that Europe has had the hotest and driest summer in almost 200 YEARS! This was not just 5 days of high heat but a cascading effect of 3 months of drought and high heat. It also helped that Paris has a fairly aging population. The construction of the city had some to do with it too; there is a lot of stone used for streets and buildings which radiates heat more than other building materials. And I can tell you for a fact, that it is nowhere as expensive as you are implying to have AC in France or Europe.

Your bs 'study' also missed a different aspect of this issue: geographical location!

75F in Greece or Italy is a relatively cool temp. 75F in England is a hot-as-$hit day where everybody gets out to sunbathe and gets red all over in 20 minutes. 75F in Chicago is a comfortable day where you hardly sweat, let alone get really hot. 75F is pretty much the highest people in Paris get to experience -normally. For those wondering, an aspect of the differences in geographic locations has to do with the distance from the sun. I am from Greece where 120F is very common during summer (has always been and people are still dying after 5000 years) yet, I can tell you for a fact that 75F in England burns your skin like worse than hot candle being poured on you! I was stunned the first time I experienced that.

Your study missed all those 'minor details'. Instead you consume yourself in anti-environmentally bs. "If anyone else is doing it, why shouldn't I?". Right! The global warming is a scientifically proven fact that cannot be refutted, yet you suggest that we $crew it anyway because the Kyoto treaty will not make a difference. I hope the rest of the 6 billion humans in this planet have a different attitude.

And if you want some measurements, the USA is only 4.2% of the world population yet, it consumes more than half of the world energy production and produces more than 60% of the world's polution!

You can be as anti-environmentalist as you wish, it is your kids that will have to live in the dump that we are all creating!

PS: Not many Chicagoans have AC? You've never been to Chicago, have you?
 
I can tell you for a fact that 75F in England burns your skin like worse than hot candle being poured on you! I was stunned the first time I experienced that.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that Ireland is similar? When I was in Ireland in June, they were having some unseasonably high temps (~80 degrees F). The sun there is INTENSE. I'm pretty tan. Actually very tan. And I almost rarely burn over here in the states...but only a couple hours over there in the sun left me pink.

As for the article. I don't buy it. It's difficult to compare a city that has inhabited buildings that are older than our entire country to cities of our own. Not to mention very different types of climates.
 
That study would be good if it were based on any objective evidence whatsoever. He completely disregards the expected and designed for climate of France and Europe in general, provides no evidence of "Frances high taxes on Energy being the cause for no A/C"

France also generates something like 70-80% of its electricity from Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power is hugely expensive compared to the Coal/Hydroelectric/Natural Gas which powers most of the US. It would be interesting to see comparative electrical costs between the US and France. Anyone found that?

 
Table on International Electricity Costs: 2000

Lowest: Iceland at 2.2c/KwH

Highest: Russia at 43c/KwH

France: at 4.8c/KwH
US: at 4.3c/KwH

Staggering Differences there, yep that must account for the lack of A/C.

From bchydro.com
 
Roadraider said-

"And if you want some measurements, the USA is only 4.2% of the world population yet, it consumes more than half of the world energy production and produces more than 60% of the world's polution!"

Where did you get these figures ? My limited research indicates the USA uses a bit more than 20% of world energy production, and creates a similar % of world GDP from that use..

 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Table on International Electricity Costs: 2000

Lowest: Iceland at 2.2c/KwH

Highest: Russia at 43c/KwH

France: at 4.8c/KwH
US: at 4.3c/KwH

Staggering Differences there, yep that must account for the lack of A/C.

From bchydro.com
Click to expand...

Um, nifty. You take the subsidized cost for industry and present it as the cost for individual customers.
 
world gdp table

pdf file of world energy consumption page 37 (39 of 44) is the one with the listings we want



from the pdf we get the US uses 24.4% of world energy, and produces 21.45% of the world's gdp. now, those might not be the same year, but i doubt that US energy consumption suddenly shot up to double what it was in 2001

if you really wanted to you could fire up excel and find out how efficient each country is in terms of %gdp/%energy consumption, the US is probably near the bottom, i'll give you that. but we're no where near as bad as made out
 
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Roadraider said-

"And if you want some measurements, the USA is only 4.2% of the world population yet, it consumes more than half of the world energy production and produces more than 60% of the world's polution!"

Where did you get these figures ? My limited research indicates the USA uses a bit more than 20% of world energy production, and creates a similar % of world GDP from that use..
Click to expand...

Why doesn't anyone ever post linkage to their figures?
 
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Roadraider said-

"And if you want some measurements, the USA is only 4.2% of the world population yet, it consumes more than half of the world energy production and produces more than 60% of the world's polution!"

Where did you get these figures ? My limited research indicates the USA uses a bit more than 20% of world energy production, and creates a similar % of world GDP from that use..
Click to expand...

Why doesn't anyone ever post linkage to their figures?
Click to expand...

ElFenix just did.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Cliff note:

The reason so many died in France compared to the even hotter summers in the US is the general lack of AC in France, due to extremely high energy costs due to high taxes.

Stop being lazy and read the article. It makes some very good points.
Click to expand...
Good summary 😉
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
That study would be good if it were based on any objective evidence whatsoever. He completely disregards the expected and designed for climate of France and Europe in general, provides no evidence of "Frances high taxes on Energy being the cause for no A/C"

France also generates something like 70-80% of its electricity from Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power is hugely expensive compared to the Coal/Hydroelectric/Natural Gas which powers most of the US. It would be interesting to see comparative electrical costs between the US and France. Anyone found that?
Click to expand...

In the US, nuclear and coal generated electricity are essentially equal in cost and considerably cheaper than oil and natural gas today. (Hydro is almost always federal funded so it is close to free.) In Europe, nuclear is far cheaper than any other source except the limited hydro.

References (the first two are uranium mining companies, the last is Exxon and appears to be a couple of years old because the gas prices don't reflect the recent increases):

Cameco

Uranium Information Center

Exxon
 
OK, let's nip something in the bud right here. There is an ignorant claim that because the "AVERAGE" temp in summer in Paris is 75F, that this is as high as it gets in an average summer.

This is a forum of geeks. Can ANYONE besides me point out the flaw in this logic?

Here's a clue: The average temperature in Los Angeles in July is 74.3.

Who here from LA thinks the it often gets MUCH hotter than 74.3 in July in LA???
 
try to find an apartment in SD that comes with AC. i dare you. even $1200 and $1400/month 2 room apt's dont have AC. $1600/month maybe. what do they give us? a heater. that we will never use. because it is a desert in socal.

the solution isnt waste intensive air conditioners, its fans. i doubt the ppl over in france cant afford a small electric fan, nor is it electric costs, cali's sky rocketed but ppl still can have run electrics fans and computers all day long. (such as my apt mate who leaves the comp on all day long and fan too even when not home).

electricity prices should be higher.
but only during peak times
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami


electricity prices should be higher.
but only during peak times
Click to expand...


Why?

Why should any price be higher so long as the supplier is making a profit?
 
Originally posted by: Amused
OK, let's nip something in the bud right here. There is an ignorant claim that because the "AVERAGE" temp in summer in Paris is 75F, that this is as high as it gets in an average summer.

This is a forum of geeks. Can ANYONE besides me point out the flaw in this logic?

Here's a clue: The average temperature in Los Angeles in July is 74.3.

Who here from LA thinks the it often gets MUCH hotter than 74.3 in July in LA???
Click to expand...

Now who is making the ignorant claim??

Look here, and yes, the average temp. at LAX in July is 75 degrees...But, at the civic center, the average July temp is 83 degrees. Gee, why do you think there's a difference in the two?? How could that be?? Could it be because LAX is on the coast, next to the gigantic body of water that is around 70 degrees at is subject to sea-breezes during the afternoon, while the civic center is 10 miles inland?? Do you think that could have anything to do with different avg. temps??
So, yes, it does get much hotter in LA during the summer than 75 degrees, but that is not near the coast, not near the place of the avg. 75 degree temps that you cited. The coast may have its share of days in the 80's, but it doesn't get MUCH hotter on the coast than 75 degrees.

Next time you try to point out flaws in logic, look to cover your own ass first, or else you'll have more ignorant posts like this.
Are you still going to claim that the climates of Paris and LA are comparable?? Please, put your foot in your mouth again.
 
Environmentalists warn us that unless we stop global warming (search), urban death rates will skyrocket, as this will supply an additional increment of heat. The way to stop global warming, of course, is to restrict the use of fossil-fuel energy, which can only be accomplished by raising the price to a level at which people begin to self-ration their consumption.
Click to expand...

rolleye.gif
I hate it when these articles (directed at the author, not Amused) claim that global warming due to fossil-fuel use is a scientific fact vs a theory (and a pretty bad one at that).

Bill
 
this article is just bs
what you don't mention is that the heat wave in Europe basically went on for WEEKS. It's been unusually warm since spring.
and we don't have ac because we don't need it, not because we can't afford it. I'm not going to get an ac to use once every 25 years.

this is just one of those "we are so much tougher, better, smarter, ....., blablabla" because we are americans.
 
Freegeek: you make a good point.

Anyway... why don't the Americans send out relief to France like they do with every other country in crisis... ?





Oh wait...
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Table on International Electricity Costs: 2000

Lowest: Iceland at 2.2c/KwH

Highest: Russia at 43c/KwH

France: at 4.8c/KwH
US: at 4.3c/KwH

Staggering Differences there, yep that must account for the lack of A/C.

From bchydro.com
Click to expand...

Um, nifty. You take the subsidized cost for industry and present it as the cost for individual customers.
Click to expand...



As if the US weren't subsidizing our industries on many levels. Do you have any data on the evil French subsidies to power companies? Your article talks about excesive taxes that make Energy prices too high. Now you say that they subsidize it to keep it low? Which is it?

That is the cost to the consumer and in real terms it doesn't make for hugely different power bills. You still haven't presented any data to support your contentions. You could just keep saying you hate the French.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top