4 ms·

According to [1], 8,400,000 acres have been disturbed by surface coal mining in the United States. My calculations makes that almost 34,000 square kilometers di

According to [1], 8,400,000 acres have been disturbed by surface coal mining in the United States. My calculations makes that almost 34,000 square kilometers disturbed by surface coal mining. [1] https://www.gem.wiki/The_footprint_of_coal https://www.gem.wiki/The_footprint_of_coal

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 4y ago
While I am the last person to minimize how bad coal is compared to every other option, "disturbed" does not mean "blackened death, devoid of life" in most cases. There are a lot of replanted strip-mined mountains. It's not good, but does revert to nature... mostly.
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Point taken.
- ace2358 4y ago
  Yikes, that’s quite a bit of mental gymnastics you’re pulling there. Coal mines are horrible when they’re open and the horrible once they’re closed, don’t believe the P.R.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    Yes coal mines are horrible. However, reclaimed mines are not worse for the environment than literally replacing equivalent acreage with a blanket of monolithic fused-silicon solar collectors (under which, there is no environment). My point is not that coal is good, it is that the acreage comparison is not good.
    - jonnycomputer 4y ago
      What about putting solar on those old coal mines?
    - rob74 4y ago
      No environment? These sheep would beg to differ: https://www.photovoltaik.eu/sites/default/files/styles/aurora_default/public/aurora/160168.jpeg https://www.photovoltaik.eu/sites/default/files/styles/auror... Ok, it's mostly done in photovoltaic plants (and has advantages for both sides, because it stops plants that could eventually overgrow the solar modules), but I don't think there's anything stopping solar collector plants from being used the same way...
      - bpodgursky 4y ago
        Yes, if you choose to use twice the acreage, you can have half the panel density.
        jonnycomputer 4y ago
        Yes; but in some cases the shade provided by the solar panels can increase productivity of the land (e.g. better quality wool, crops that don't like full sun, or even to protect crops from excessive heat in these ever hotter days.
        7952 4y ago
        Thats just plain wrong. In this case the environment means grass + wild flowers + insects + birds eating insects + insects and fungus that lives in the soil. That all survives under the panels and is ok with some shade and cooling. In fact this is better for the soil than intensive agriculture. And all possible without reducing panel density.
    - bob29 4y ago
      > under which, there is no environment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217929 Also, if you put a solar panel on a roof of a building, there will still be a building underneath the solar panel. Many people live in them, they dont get obliterated just because they are underneath a solar panel.
      - smcl 4y ago
        The point was that land which used to be a Coal mine can be surprisingly green. To the extent that something we normally consider unquestioningly eco-friendly - like large arrays of solar power collectors - could have a more degraded local environment in their direct vicinity (though they are beneficial overall). I don't think anyone's saying coal is good or solar is bad here.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > Yes coal mines are horrible. However, reclaimed mines are not worse for the environment than literally replacing equivalent acreage with a blanket of monolithic fused-silicon solar collectors (under which, there is no environment). Citation very much needed. For starters, assuming we're mining the coal in order to burn it, rather than just for rock collectors, then the pollution and waste from that activity alone is enough to make it worse than solar. Killing more people, and animals, and destroying more environment while also costing more money. You claim you're not the kind of person to minimize how bad coal is, but that's exactly what you're doing. We don't need to do what you're suggesting (there's plenty of sensible places to put solar PV) but even if we did I would be highly surprised if it was worse than coal mining.
- ninju 4y ago
  A strip mine is leaching enough chemicals to kill birds that land there https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2020/04/13/montana-bird-watcher/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2020/04/13/montana-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlPTE-UmY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlPTE-UmY4
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    That's a copper mine, and yes mercury occurs naturally in copper ores.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  Please read the facts about mountaintop removal.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bpodgursky 4y ago

While I am the last person to minimize how bad coal is compared to every other option, "disturbed" does not mean "blackened death, devoid of life" in most cases. There are a lot of replanted strip-mined mountains. It's not good, but does revert to nature... mostly.

jonnycomputer 4y ago
Point taken.
ace2358 4y ago
Yikes, that’s quite a bit of mental gymnastics you’re pulling there. Coal mines are horrible when they’re open and the horrible once they’re closed, don’t believe the P.R.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Yes coal mines are horrible. However, reclaimed mines are not worse for the environment than literally replacing equivalent acreage with a blanket of monolithic fused-silicon solar collectors (under which, there is no environment). My point is not that coal is good, it is that the acreage comparison is not good.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    What about putting solar on those old coal mines?
  - rob74 4y ago
    No environment? These sheep would beg to differ: https://www.photovoltaik.eu/sites/default/files/styles/aurora_default/public/aurora/160168.jpeg https://www.photovoltaik.eu/sites/default/files/styles/auror... Ok, it's mostly done in photovoltaic plants (and has advantages for both sides, because it stops plants that could eventually overgrow the solar modules), but I don't think there's anything stopping solar collector plants from being used the same way...
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      Yes, if you choose to use twice the acreage, you can have half the panel density.
      - jonnycomputer 4y ago
        Yes; but in some cases the shade provided by the solar panels can increase productivity of the land (e.g. better quality wool, crops that don't like full sun, or even to protect crops from excessive heat in these ever hotter days.
      - 7952 4y ago
        Thats just plain wrong. In this case the environment means grass + wild flowers + insects + birds eating insects + insects and fungus that lives in the soil. That all survives under the panels and is ok with some shade and cooling. In fact this is better for the soil than intensive agriculture. And all possible without reducing panel density.
  - bob29 4y ago
    > under which, there is no environment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217929 Also, if you put a solar panel on a roof of a building, there will still be a building underneath the solar panel. Many people live in them, they dont get obliterated just because they are underneath a solar panel.
    - smcl 4y ago
      The point was that land which used to be a Coal mine can be surprisingly green. To the extent that something we normally consider unquestioningly eco-friendly - like large arrays of solar power collectors - could have a more degraded local environment in their direct vicinity (though they are beneficial overall). I don't think anyone's saying coal is good or solar is bad here.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > Yes coal mines are horrible. However, reclaimed mines are not worse for the environment than literally replacing equivalent acreage with a blanket of monolithic fused-silicon solar collectors (under which, there is no environment). Citation very much needed. For starters, assuming we're mining the coal in order to burn it, rather than just for rock collectors, then the pollution and waste from that activity alone is enough to make it worse than solar. Killing more people, and animals, and destroying more environment while also costing more money. You claim you're not the kind of person to minimize how bad coal is, but that's exactly what you're doing. We don't need to do what you're suggesting (there's plenty of sensible places to put solar PV) but even if we did I would be highly surprised if it was worse than coal mining.
ninju 4y ago
A strip mine is leaching enough chemicals to kill birds that land there https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2020/04/13/montana-bird-watcher/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2020/04/13/montana-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlPTE-UmY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlPTE-UmY4
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  That's a copper mine, and yes mercury occurs naturally in copper ores.
NoGravitas 4y ago
Please read the facts about mountaintop removal.