4 ms·

This is all over the local news here. Coincidentally, I was just listening to some talk about alternative energy [0] with some interesting arguments for solar

This is all over the local news here. Coincidentally, I was just listening to some talk about alternative energy [0] with some interesting arguments for solar and hydro power over coal. Makes me wonder if we've become inured to the environmental cost/risk of coal power and processing? Also, coal is big part of the WV economy [1]. So this would seem to have the potential for an extended impact. First with the water problems. Second in any backlash that arises against the industry in response to the spill. 0: http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal

mikeash 13y ago
We've been inured to the environmental cost of coal since roughly forever. Coal is horrendous, but it's cheap and plentiful and heavily used so everybody just kind of averts their eyes. I imagine you're familiar with the recommendation that children and pregnant women should limit their fish intake, due to mercury present in seafood. The largest part of that mercury comes from emissions from burning coal. Similarly, there is much more worry about the safety of nuclear power than coal power. But guess which one emits more radioactivity into the environment? You guessed it: coal. I believe this is true even if you account for nuclear accidents, although I admit that I'm going by memory on this one. Coal accounts for something like a million deaths a year worldwide. That's a significant chunk of overall human mortality. Coal kills more people each year than nukes have ever killed, even if you count the atomic bombs.
jotm 13y ago
I didn't even know that coal needs to be treated with dangerous chemicals - add that to the list of problems with coal power...
- code_duck 13y ago
  Coal processing also involves leaving giant reservoirs of fly ash, which can lead to incidents such as this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 Not to mention mountain top removal mining, or any other destructive practices considered A-OK in the industry.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Well it doesn't strictly have to be treated, it's an attempt to make it "cleaner." Unintended consequences and all that.

mikeash 13y ago

We've been inured to the environmental cost of coal since roughly forever. Coal is horrendous, but it's cheap and plentiful and heavily used so everybody just kind of averts their eyes. I imagine you're familiar with the recommendation that children and pregnant women should limit their fish intake, due to mercury present in seafood. The largest part of that mercury comes from emissions from burning coal. Similarly, there is much more worry about the safety of nuclear power than coal power. But guess which one emits more radioactivity into the environment? You guessed it: coal. I believe this is true even if you account for nuclear accidents, although I admit that I'm going by memory on this one. Coal accounts for something like a million deaths a year worldwide. That's a significant chunk of overall human mortality. Coal kills more people each year than nukes have ever killed, even if you count the atomic bombs.

jotm 13y ago

I didn't even know that coal needs to be treated with dangerous chemicals - add that to the list of problems with coal power...

code_duck 13y ago
Coal processing also involves leaving giant reservoirs of fly ash, which can lead to incidents such as this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 Not to mention mountain top removal mining, or any other destructive practices considered A-OK in the industry.
ams6110 13y ago
Well it doesn't strictly have to be treated, it's an attempt to make it "cleaner." Unintended consequences and all that.