6 ms·
As a person whose roots in Appalachia (West Virginia/southwest Virginia border) go back a long ways, I'd love to see someone talk about the other dirty aspect o
by JPKab 14y ago
As a person whose roots in Appalachia (West Virginia/southwest Virginia border) go back a long ways, I'd love to see someone talk about the other dirty aspect of coal: the way its mined. I get the feeling that a very large percentage of the population has no idea that they are literally blowing the tops off of mountains throughout Appalachia to get this stuff. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable has proably never been to a site where it has been done(it looks like the surface of the moon), or lived near a creek which gets filled in with the massive amounts of runoff from it.
I wish they would go after coal the old fashioned way, but it is more expensive and more dangerous that way.
- rickdale 14y agoRight, in correct terms there is no such thing as 'clean coal'
- criley 14y agoUsing these definitions that include the entirety of the process, no energy is clean energy except for Sunlight + 6CO2 + 6H2O -> C6H1206 +6O2. Even solar power will have something "dirty" along the chain somewhere. The closest we can get is to "offset" the dirtiness.
- skore 14y agoDitto for nuclear. Had my fair share of discussion with neckbeards on the Internet touting how incredibly clean nuclear energy is. You know, as long as you leave out the mining (radon emissions being one of the commonly known issues, the chemicals involved in mining not as well known; furthermore, many mines don't get any cleanup after decommission) and the storage of the nuclear waste (which is simply an unsolved problem). But hey, less CO2, right?
- melling 14y agoWell, what is the lesser of all evils? We need lots of energy, and it's only going to get worse as India, China, and the rest of the world come online.
- skore 14y agoIf you're into that sort of thing, just look through my comment history, it's not that far down. I'm pretty much done with that discussion.
- knowtheory 14y agoJust for the sake of urgency, this discussion is already behind the curve. China already consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ajross 14y agoWhat's the logic there? That nations other than china shouldn't bother with (or without) new coal technology and energy policy because it is only a "small contribution?". That argument gets pretty much everyone who isn't the USA or China off the hook. Luxembourg and Botswana should just pollute as much as they want? That's just dumb. Energy choices are important everywhere; it just happens that the only forums available for enacting this policy are in nations with diverse sizes. You still need to do it everywhere.
- knowtheory 14y agoActually no, my point is that we should not be looking at this as some future event. Our coal problems are not on the horizon, they're substantial problems now. I don't care if there's additional room for growth in the coal power plant market in Africa, current coal consumption is more than sufficient to warrant action.
- pasbesoin 14y agoGiven all the production that's being sourced from China, we should also view it as our problem and not merely China's, in terms of its cause. How convenient, to dodge the cost of e.g. scrubber technology, by moving production to where it isn't required. Meaning, by the way, for contaminants such as mercury and other heavy metals. IMO, CO2 sequestration is pure folly.
- krschultz 14y agoStoring nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome. The dangerous radiation is simply not going to be around for 25,000 years. We need to be really really sure that the harmful stuff is safe for 100-200 years. That doesn't seem hard to me considering a couple million people a day are driving over bridges into NYC that are 100+ years old. Steel and concrete last a pretty long time. Water absorbs radiation pretty well. Combine it all with a hole deep into a dry dessert, and you are fine.
- gnosis 14y ago"Storing nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome." There are very good reasons why people don't want nuclear waste in their back yard: 1) lack of trust in the people who build and maintain the containment units, 2) evidence of massive screwups at nuclear facilities that led to the likes of Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to mention smaller screwups, lies, and coverups of shoddy maintenance and safety issues at other nuclear facilities. The technical issues of nuclear waste containment might be solved, but the social issues related to who stores the waste have not. There are no guarantees that the waste will in fact be stored properly, and that the people who store the waste will be competent enough to do so, nor that they will refrain from cutting corners on safety so they can make a quick buck, earn some kickbacks, or score some political points.
- rosser 14y agoWater absorbs radiation pretty well. Water absorbs radiation incredibly well. You can swim in a spent-fuel pool, so long as you don't go too deep.
- eikenberry 14y agohttp://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- yareally 14y agoThe fuel could be reused and reduce the amount of of waste. I believe the reason it is not is the threat politicians have been lead to believe that it can also be used to build weapons.
- nitrogen 14y agoWhere would you rather store the waste products from power generation? In casks at nuclear plants, or in your lungs?
- skore 14y agoRed. Herring.
- ahi 14y agoThis is just one of the worst disasters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood Plenty of other "accidents" large and small.
- JPKab 14y ago"Additionally, the chair of the Citizen's Commission, Norman Williams, the Deputy Director of the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, called publicly and in testimony before the legislature for the outlawing of coal strip mining throughout the state. He testified that strip mining could not exist as a profit making industry unless it is allowed by the state to pass on the costs of environmental damage to the private landowner or the public." This is the key point of coal, and really all forms of fossil fuel harvesting. The current U.S. (and India/China) regulatory environment inevitably passes the negative externalities of extracting and consuming the fuels onto the citizens of said countries. (if you factor in carbon, then the citizens of the world)
- networked 14y agoIn Eastern Europe there are certainly numerous environmental consequences to the coal mining. One that isn't that grave but makes for a lasting impression is the huge spoil tips (e.g., http://imgur.com/a/aB1EJ http://imgur.com/a/aB1EJ) that can often burn slowly inside.
- rayiner 14y agoThere is a Harvard study that analyses this issue. The cost is enormous: http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_ful... (takeaway on page 91) The public health burden in Appalachia alone is estimated at $75 billion per year.