By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Sat Jun 2, 12:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON - America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others — and it's not always the ones you might expect.
The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states' contribution to climate change.
The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.
_Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.
_Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.
_In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state.
This was indeed a surprising read. I figured Pennsylvania would be the leader on this one.
My father-in-law works for the Boilermaker's Union, and he says they are building coal power plants like mad here in PA so I wouldn't be surprised to see PA move up a slot or two over the next 5 years or so.
I do know the 4th biggest coal polluter in the US is not far from where I live, as it was often the site of numerous Greenpeace "protests".
I know a few people who live upwind of this power plant, and they tell me every so often they used to wake up to their cars covered with white soot.
Fortunately, about a year ago, several of the locals joined together and sued Allegeheny Energy and forced them to put "scrubbers" in it's stacks, in order to cut down on the pollution.
Due to the efforts of dubya when he was governor, there are more coal fired power plants in Texas than in pennsylvania and, due to his hand picked replacement jerk in the governorship, they are a-fixin to built more and burn higher sulphur coal
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Sad.... IMO coal should be the LEAST relied upon source of power. The worst part is, it isn't just burning the coal that makes it so ugly. I lost count of the number of properties that have been strip mined here over the last few years because of the increase in the price of coal and the number of coal plants being built all over the US.
Sure, it isn't like the old days where they just leave the property totally devoid of life and never refill the holes where they took the coal from, but each piece of earth that is stripped will NEVER be the same afterwards, no matter how good of a reclamation they do and still leaves an obviously ugly scar for at least 5 years.
Problem I have, is everybody out here is either a coal miner or their dad or grandfather was/is a coal miner. You bring up getting rid of coal and suddenly the "natives" aren't too friendly anymore.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yep.
Was the same around where i lived in Alabama.
And the coal interest work hard to keep 'em ignorant and uneducated, so they can be assured of their vote at the polls.
" each piece of earth that is stripped will NEVER be the same afterwards, no matter how good of a reclamation they do and still leaves an obviously ugly scar for at least 5 years"
And acid water draining into every creak and river downstream for decades and more, killing off EVERYTHING that once lived there.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:And the coal interest work hard to keep 'em ignorant and uneducated, so they can be assured of their vote at the polls.
Coal miners out here are all Union, and vote what the Union tells them. You would think that after seeing first hand what mining coal does to the environment, (i.e. their homes), they would brighten up... But, at least around here, nobody seems to care. Perhaps because it has been this way for so long that it seems normal. To me, being raised out west, it was a total shock.
Perhaps also it's because mining coal has been many a Pennsylvanians livelihood since the mid-1700's, so to give up mining coal is to put themselves out of a job...
quote:And acid water draining into every creak and river downstream for decades and more, killing off EVERYTHING that once lived there.
Yeah it's sick. I am almost afraid to step in some of the creeks and rivers around here with my shoes on. I once watched a gas company run a line across a small creek that was just like you said, TOTALLY devoid of life because of acid drainage. The entire bottom was covered with a disgusting orange slime that stuck to everything. According to DEP, the gas company was required to replace the dirt removed with clean stone. Within 12 hours the clean stone looked exactly the same as the rest of the stream bottom.
Posted by jon clogger on :
Please tell me you are kidding NR.
If not, then that is awfully sad.
Posted by bdgee on :
I used to fish a creek that wandered off to the SE from the Black Warier river maybe 30 miles below Bessemer Alabama. One winter, they stripped the timber from several thousand acres along the drainage of the creek and opened that cleared forest land to strip mining coal. The next spring there were no fish.....or worms or bugs or frogs or anything but a rusty reddish slime that coated everything, which even creeped into the flow of the Black Warier for a quarter mile down. Next winter, one of my favorite places to set out a stool of duck decoys was useless and the situation was the same years later when I left Alabama.
Now, I don't wish toblame it all on the coal mine, as to the south of Tuscaloosa Alabama, I watched them clearcut a huge plot of the National Forest and saw similar destruction of the surface waters there (wonder what test of the ground water around those places would have revealed?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
I wish I was kidding.... and I haven't even mentioned what happens to the coal after it gets burned up.. It's called "fly ash" and it, and it's "disposal", are yet another ugly facet of the whole "coal to energy" process.
P.S.
Friendly Tip:
If someday you happen to drive your vehicle across a pile of fly ash for whatever reason, make sure it isn't going to rain or you won't be leaving any time soon.
Posted by jon clogger on :
I'm speechless. I did not know.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Yeah, that's how I felt when I first moved out here a few years back. Granted, PA, especially Western PA, is probably the worst of the worst when it comes to environmental damage due to coal, the damage is the same everywhere coal is mined, except maybe not as widespread and on as large a scale as it is here.
Strip mining is common here because the coal is so close to the surface and that makes it cheaper to mine. From what I have seen, it is the most damaging way to mine coal, but underground mining has it's hazards too.
I've seen a few places around here where old underground coal mines have filled up with ground water over the years, and a steady stream of yellow acid drainage pours straight out of the mine entrance. Any time we get heavy rains, the fresh water percolates down into the mine and pushes the stagnate acid water into the light of day....
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Jon Clogger,
I spent a good hour or two looking through my personal photo archives today, but interestingly I couldn't find any pictures of streams ruined by acid drainage..... Probably because I try to take pictures of the beautiful things in nature around here. In the future I will try to take some so that I can show others the damage that coal really does to the environment.
Just so you can get an idea though, here is a picture I found on the web that pretty much looks the same as the stream I told you about earlier.
Posted by T e x on :
dang, NR--you're psychic, too...coal junk was front-page, here, today...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Jon Clogger,
I spent a good hour or two looking through my personal photo archives today, but interestingly I couldn't find any pictures of streams ruined by acid drainage..... Probably because I try to take pictures of the beautiful things in nature around here. In the future I will try to take some so that I can show others the damage that coal really does to the environment.
Just so you can get an idea though, here is a picture I found on the web that pretty much looks the same as the stream I told you about earlier.
That picture doesn't half show how bad it really looks, but it probably reflects as much as any picture can. In these situation, a picture hasn't any hope of matching a thousand words. (The damned places can stink too!)
And I still believe, because I have seen the effect from clear cutting forest, that maybe coal isn't the problem, but the denuding of the strip mined area inevitably will bring the acidification in those areas where acid soils are prevalent.
Posted by jon clogger on :
Thank you for your post NaturalResources. I am blown away. There would be a major protest and riot if any of California's streams looked like that.
I still can't wrap my mind around how bad it is. I'm used to seeing stuff like this in the third-world, but not the good-ol USA.
Especially with the EPA. One of my friends who owns a machine shop was cited by the EPA for some of the aluminum shavings that spilled in the parking lot.
I was there, there might have been 25 small chips. Not even an ounce!! He had to pay $3500.00
So are these guys political money hungry a$$ clowns? What a double standard if there are streams full of acid like this. Shame.
Posted by glassman on :
the EPA seems to be very hit-or-miss.... here in MS? the growers burn their fields after harvest... they recently cut the winter wheat and are burning, we just had a big truck accident on the hi-way from the smoke blinding them... even tho we are in drought condition...
i am talking about 100-200 acre burns being small ones too.... you can see them for 20plus miles... this smoke is full of the residues from whatever they sprayed on the crops,
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by jon clogger: Thank you for your post NaturalResources. I am blown away. There would be a major protest and riot if any of California's streams looked like that.
I still can't wrap my mind around how bad it is. I'm used to seeing stuff like this in the third-world, but not the good-ol USA.
Especially with the EPA. One of my friends who owns a machine shop was cited by the EPA for some of the aluminum shavings that spilled in the parking lot.
I was there, there might have been 25 small chips. Not even an ounce!! He had to pay $3500.00
So are these guys political money hungry a$$ clowns? What a double standard if there are streams full of acid like this. Shame.
Jon Clogger,
I too grew up in California and like you, was in total shock after the first few weeks after I moved out here to PA. My job as a land surveyor involves lots of hiking to "off the beaten path" locations and so almost every day I see this type of thing first hand. Many of the heavily polluted areas are not in locations normally viewed by those just passing through.
I think part of the reason why it is so bad here in PA is because a lot of the coal mining that occurred went on long before there were things like reclamation bonds and the EPA. Coal has been taken from this area since the mid 1700's. Most people who now own polluted properties such as these cannot be held responsible for the acts of those before them, and even if they were, most, if not all, could not even begin to afford the costs required to even attempt to "fix" the damaged areas.
There are some programs, both state and federal, that are providing money for reclamation projects in some of the worst areas, but they are lacking in funds and even if they had the money needed, IMO it would be decades before reclamation work would be finished in all the effected areas and maybe even centuries before the environment in the damaged areas returned to "normal".
According to the EPA, more than 66,500 documented sources of coal mine drainage in Appalachia have polluted an estimate 17,000 km of streams and watercourses.
While pollutions controls and coal miner accountability have increased dramatically since the 1970's when the EPA was created, coal mining, both underground and strip mining continue to be a source of pollution and destroyer of the environment. Even with EPA oversight and reclamation bonds, strip mining not only changes the local topography, it destroys the entire surface of the area mined, thus the entire ecosystem or habitat that existed above the coal seams.
A even more dramatic form of strip mining that is practiced in both PA and WV is called 'mountaintop mining' ( http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/ ). This involves removing the entire top of a hill or mountain to get to the coal underneath. Overburden is simply piled into the nearest ditch or gully, blocking what ever streams or drainage ditches are there and polluting ground water that percolates through it.
Fortunately, many of the locals in WV, where it is more common, have become fed up and are trying to make changes to have that particular type of mining banned. ( http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06057/661362.stm )
Perhaps to some, I may seem like I am going on and on, but after living here for 3 years and seeing what I've seen, I just cannot stress enough that coal is an archaic source of energy, and is not worth the environmental damage that results from its recovery, use and disposal.
Posted by bdgee on :
Excellent post, NR.
Posted by jon clogger on :
Indeed it is an excellent post NR.
I just showed the photos to my wife who aptly said "self-castration for profit, hope it was worth it".
What the mining companies are doing is beyond harmful, it's dark.
Posted by jon clogger on :
By the way NaturalResources, I find it fascinating that you are a land surveyor. I can only imagine how you see the world on a daily basis.
I enjoy meeting people in specialized "niches".
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Jon Clogger,
Like any job, it has both good and bad aspects to it.
The Bad: -Exposure to the elements -Feuding neighbours or hostile landowners who "know" where the boundary is.. -Bugs and Poison Ivy and Oak -Long hours and little recognition or appreciation -Barbwire fences, dogs and snakes -Lots of very expensive, heavy equipment to carry around
The Good: -Being out among nature and not trapped in a cubicle -Decent Pay -Challenging -Often a new jobsite every day -Using maps, deeds and math to find that pin in the ground that was set 30+ years ago and hasn't been seen since.
I could probaby type up paragraphs about what it is like to do my job every day, but instead I will just post a few pictures from my personal archives (I carry a camera with me almost every day), since they will probably say more about what it's like to be a land surveyor than I ever could using words.
Posted by glassman on :
at least there's no 'gators in PA Posted by NaturalResources on :
True, but we have plenty of bears to make up for the lack of 'gators.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Posted by jon clogger on :
Oh MAH GAAWWDD!!! Those pictures are awesome!! You may have missed your calling in photography NR.
Thank you, thank you! Yes, your place in this world exceeds what I expected. You are fortunate in spite of the downside. I would love to trade places for just one week.
Your career is noble, altruistic, and full of purpose (unlike most cubicle jobs). Your influence will certainly outlive your presence.
Posted by turbokid on :
looks like you stumbled across bambi's hangout. cool pics
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by turbokid: looks like you stumbled across bambi's hangout. cool pics
Interestingly, I had one other close encounter with a young deer in my outdoor treks, and fortunately had my camera ready.
Often times when surveying as the "gunman", one must stand in the same place on a known point for 10-15 minutes while the other person the "rodman" looks for information on the ground needed for the survey.
It so happened that during one of those times, I was standing silently and heard a rustling in the bushes nearby that was getting closer and closer. It was fairly loud and I knew whatever it was, it must be bigger than the squirrels or wild birds one usually hears rustling in the woods.
I pulled out my camera hoping that I could at least get a good shot of whatever popped out of the brush before it saw me and ran away, or in the case of a bear, mauled me to death.
Then, a young deer, probably a few months old appeared and looked up at me. Then to my surprise, instead of turning and fleeing, it stood completely still. I looked at it, and it looked at me for about 30 seconds before I realized I had my camera in hand.
I snapped a picture thinking this would be the closest I would ever get to a deer in the wild... But then, (and this will sound unbelievable), this deer started walking closer. I snapped pictures as it approached. I crouched down to make myself smaller and extended my hand out in front of me. The deer came closer and closer until it stopped a few feet away and just stared at me. I couldn't believe this was happening. It was like something out of a movie. At this point, I decided to see if I could bridge the final gap, and touch this wild creature that had walked up to me without any fear.
Unfortunately, I was unable to, because just as I closed within a few inches of it, the "rodman" yelled out "I found it!", (the pin for the property corner), from a few hundred feet away and startled the deer, which ran off in the woods, never to be seen again.
My hands shaking, I shared the story with the "rodman" who had walked back over to me, and of course he thought I was full of it, but I told him I would prove it the next day when I downloaded the images from my camera.
All day I couldn't stop thinking about the whole incident and how my pictures would turn out. When I finally got home, I was a bit disappointed because I guess my hands were so uneasy that the pictures were pretty blurred, but still, here they are. It may sound corny, but I will never forget that incident as long as I live.
Posted by glassman on :
no spots? usually over three months old.. they fade in fall... that looks like spring at least?
pretty cool stuff....
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Glass,
Those pictures were taken right around the begining of June.... I only assumed it was a few months old because it was very small, yet didn't have spots, and seemed not to fear me, which I have heard is common with deer that are very young and haven't yet learned to stay away from humans.
Posted by bdgee on :
In Texas there is an early deer season for bow hunting and I was out about 30 miles west of Austin in the Hill Country. There isn't much winter in Austin and this was well before that. I was sitting in the shade of a live oak with my back against the trunk. The warm sunny day had its effects and I fell asleep after about an hour on my stand.
I must have been asleep for about an hour when I felt a warm breeze on my right cheek. What wind there was that day was from the south and as I was facing west, so I knew something was there. I opened my eyes and a young fawn was sniffing at my feet. Behind him, I saw maybe a dozen more mixed fawns and does about 15 yards away, watching intently. But even closer and the source of the warm breeze that woke me, working its way over my head and shoulder, sniffing and curious, was the nose of another doe that I could only make out peripherally.
I sat motionless for about ten minutes, trying not to even blink or move my eyes. The doe continued smelling and investigating and two others broke from the group out front and stepped carefully up to join the investigation. These two made a circle about me and the tree trunk sniffing and snorting, stiff and unsure, then ambled back to the heard. Finally, I decided to move.
"Do I smell good enough to eat or are you just gathering data?" I said calmly and not too loudly. The fawn that had never moved from where he had sniffed my feet popped to attention and backed up all the way to the herd, starring at me the whole way, but the doe only stood erect and stopped her sniffing. The herd of does and fawn now got edgy and alert and began milling about. I turned my head to the right and looked directly into the does eyes and said, "We can't keep meeting this way, you know, I am a married man.
That still didn't get much reaction from the doe by my side, but the herd began backing away with their tails high, the white underside away from me. when they were around 30 yards away, finally, one barked and turned and trotted away. The rest, except for the doe by my side, trotted off behind. She stomped the ground and snorted, not an alarm call, more like a challenge, paused maybe 5 seconds to see what I might do, then went through the same sequence twice more.
I didn't intend to, but that sight made me laugh out loud, which did get a reaction form the doe. She pranced to where the herd had stood watching, turned and did her challenge routine again, then finally trotted off to join the herd somewhere over the hill.
These were not pet deer. It was toward the end of the bow season and those deer in that valley had been hunted pretty hard that year. I have no idea what that doe might have been thinking. Who knows, it was female, maybe it was having a blonde moment.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Glass,
Those pictures were taken right around the begining of June.... I only assumed it was a few months old because it was very small, yet didn't have spots, and seemed not to fear me, which I have heard is common with deer that are very young and haven't yet learned to stay away from humans.
nice sequence
Posted by jon clogger on :
You may quite possibly have the best job ever. I thought I had the best job when I brewed beer at Anheuser-Busch, and worked the hops recipes, but coming within inches of a deer? Kudos.
Posted by andrew on :
jon clogger....I am worried you are becoming to close to NR.
Posted by jon clogger on :
What, are you the "compliment sheriff?" LOL
Posted by bdgee on :
I don't suspect that NR is that sort!
"...close to NR...)
Ewwwwweeeee
Yech
There are some things that even NR won't do.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Blowing the Top Off Mountaintop Mining By Brandon Keim
quote:At 4 o'clock every afternoon except Sunday, the blasting starts in the mountains around Judy Bonds' home in Whitesville, West Virginia.
There as elsewhere in the Appalachian coal country that stretches through Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, coal is produced by what's self-descriptively known as mountaintop-removal mining.
Mining companies clear forests from mountaintops, dynamite the peaks, excavate buried coal, and dump the waste into nearby valleys. It's cheaper and more efficient than old-fashioned mining, but the effects of mountaintop removal -- or MTR -- are devastating.
In just two decades, hundreds of mountaintops, more than a thousand miles of stream, and hundreds of square miles of forests have been obliterated by the practice. Opponents say the pollution is also dangerous to people who live in the region.
"There is no place on earth like this place, and it's being destroyed," says Bonds, the outreach coordinator for Coal River Mountain Watch, an anti-MTR activist group. "They call West Virginia 'almost heaven,' and it is, until the coal industry bombs your home."
Activists have fought a losing legal battle against MTR. First they claimed the practice violated Clean Water Act rules against dumping waste in waterways. But in 2002, the Bush administration rewrote or "clarified" the rule, so that MTR debris wouldn't be classified as waste.
MTR opponents then turned to the stream buffer-zone rule, a Reagan-era regulation for streamside mines. They say the rule forbids any mining within 100 feet of a stream, which would effectively end MTR. Mining companies, on the other hand, say the rule only requires that mining be done as cleanly as possible.
That's the interpretation favored by a new rule issued August 24 by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining. The regulation is currently scheduled to take effect after a 60-day public-comment period ending October 23. As written, it will make life even harder for MTR opponents.
"The law's intent was never to stop (MTR) from happening, but to mitigate its impact on water quality," says National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich. Under this and other regulations, environmentally destructive mountaintop-mining operations are supposedly not allowed.
"If you're intending to place your dirt and rock directly into a stream, you have to get a permit. You have to show that you won't harm downstream water-quality standards. You have to show that the plan is the most environmentally protective," he says.
But activists say regulators ignore the requirements.
"There's a huge disconnect between the Bush administration's own scientific studies concluding that the environmental damage caused by mountaintop-removal mining is widespread and irreversible" on the one hand and the granting of mining permits on the other, says Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for environmental group Earthjustice.
Long read but definitely worth it...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Coal use grows despite warming worries By ELAINE KURTENBACH, AP Business Writer
quote:JUNGAR QI, China - Almost nonstop, gargantuan 145-ton trucks rumble through China's biggest open-pit coal mine, sending up clouds of soot as they dump their loads into mechanized sorters.
The black treasure has transformed this once-isolated crossroads nestled in the sand-sculpted ravines of Inner Mongolia into a bleak boomtown of nearly 300,000 people. Day and night, long and dusty trains haul out coal to electric power plants and factories in the east, fueling China's explosive growth.
Coal is big, and getting bigger. As oil and natural gas prices soar, the world is relying ever more on the cheap, black-burning mainstay of the Industrial Revolution. Mining companies are racing into Africa. Workers are laying miles of new railroad track to haul coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.
And nowhere is coal bigger than in China.
But the explosion of coal comes amid rising alarm over its dire consequences for workers and the environment. An average of 13 Chinese miners die every day in explosions, floods, fires and cave-ins. Toxic clouds of mercury and other chemicals from mining are poisoning the air and water far beyond China's borders and polluting the food chain.
So far, attempts to clean up coal have largely not worked. Technology to reduce or cut out carbon dioxide emissions is expensive and years away from widespread commercial use.
"Not very many people are talking about what do we do to live with the consequences of what's happening," said James Brock, a longtime industry consultant in the Beijing office of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The polar bears are doomed — they're going to museums. At the end of this century the Arctic ice cap will be gone. That means a lot of water rising, not by inches but meters."
Those of you who use Google Earth, I recommend downloading the "Mountaintop Removal KML" from the "Multimedia" section or the "Mountian Memorial" section:
I'm with all you environmentalist wackos. Stop coal mining. Fire all the employees. Shut off the electricity. Let's get back to the stone age. Now, how exactly is that better for PEOPLE?
Merry Christmas!
Posted by bdgee on :
Good question. Too bad it cannot be explained to the driven to be obtuse and backward. Though, that is not because it isn't possible to explain.
For those of determined obtusity, the same deficiency of cognition that allows them to behave as if the world and human society were frozen into a crystallized state somewhere prior to the a time when the general population of the U.S. became majorly literate, consideration of anything not likely to be the subject to a Sunday morning sermon in the tabernacle circa 1867 amounts to abject atheism. They simply refuse to either listen to or learn about what to them are works of the Devil and cast insult at any that dare to bring it into their scan.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Lead toys from China are cheap too PM. I suppose that makes them "Good" for people?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Clean coal technology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Clean coal) Jump to: navigation, search Clean coal is the name attributed to coal chemically washed of minerals and impurities, sometimes gasified, burned and the resulting flue gases treated with steam, with the purpose of removing sulfur dioxide, and reburned so as to make the carbon dioxide in the flue gas economically recoverable. The coal industry uses the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use[1], with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.
The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups believe it is greenwash. Greenpeace[2] is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another. The 2007 Australian of the Year, paleontologist and environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that "Coal can't be clean"[3].
There are no coal-fired power stations in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, so the process is theoretical and experimental and thus a subject of feasibility or pilot studies. It is has been estimated that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial-scale clean coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) are commercially viable and widely adopted.[4]. This time frame is of concern because there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to protect the world economy according to the Stern report. Even when CO2 emissions can be caught, there is considerable debate over the necessary carbon capture and storage that must follow.
I am not a fan of nuclear energy but I think even I would choose nuclear over coal.
Clean coal is basically a concept car. Something to build one of and put in the showroom for people to stare at with no intention of every being mass produced.
Posted by bdgee on :
The only real objective is research and development with a goal of zero emissions that are polluting or global warming. Anything short is, at best, a stop gap effort.
Why spend billions of dollars researching and developing ways to lower the pollution from coal and oil burning when it is a fact that it is impossible to reach the necessary goal? Why continue to build nuclear energy plants when we know we have no even close to adequate way to ever dispose of the crap that generates? Instead, spend those billions on research to develop and install zero pollution and global warming energy production. (We need to conserve oil and coal in order to meet future needs for plastics. DON'T burn up the future!)
And do it before the Indians develop all the feasible methodologies, patent every possible process, and we have to pay them to use them. Posted by glassman on :
nuclear waste can be made into borosilicate glass that is extremely stable....
it can be done right at the nuclear power plant it's useless to any terrorist after that and easy to transport safely, no spills, even in a train wreck....
Initial treatment of waste
Vitrification
Long-term storage of radioactive waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form which will not react, nor degrade, for extended periods of time. One way to do this is through vitrification. Currently at Sellafield, England the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.
The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated furnace with fragmented glass[2]. The resulting glass is a new substance in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it solidifies. This product, as a molten fluid, is poured into stainless steel cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled, the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after being formed, is very highly resistant to water. [3] According to the ITU, it will require about 1 million years for 10% of such glass to dissolve in water.
After filling a cylinder, a seal is welded onto the cylinder. The cylinder is then washed. After being inspected for external contamination, the steel cylinder is stored, usually in an underground repository. In this form, the waste products are expected to be immobilized for a very long period of time (many thousands of years).
The glass inside a cylinder is usually a black glossy substance. All this work (in the United Kingdom) is done using hot cell systems. The sugar is added to control the ruthenium chemistry and to stop the formation of the volatile RuO4 containing radio ruthenium. In the west, the glass is normally a borosilicate glass (similar to Pyrex {NB Pyrex is a trade name}), while in the former Soviet bloc it is normal to use a phosphate glass. The amount of fission products in the glass must be limited because some (palladium, the other Pt group metals, and tellurium) tend to form metallic phases which separate from the glass. In Germany a vitrification plant is in use; this is treating the waste from a small demonstration reprocessing plant which has since been closed down.
quote:Coal Coal contains a small amount of radioactive uranium, barium and thorium, around or slightly more than the average concentration of those elements in the Earth's crust[5][6]. They become more concentrated in the fly ash because they do not burn well [6]. However, the radioactivity of fly ash is still very low. It is about the same as black shale and is less than phosphate rocks, but is more of a concern because a small amount of the fly ash ends up in the atmosphere where it can be inhaled.[7]
I invite you to go back to the beginning of this thread and read through some of my posts and look at some of the pictures on the links I provided.
I believe if you do, you would agree that regardless of how we get energy, coal should be the absolute last consideration and moutiantop mining should be banned all together. It is my opinion that even if we are to use coal as an "emergency and temporary means" to generate electricity, the only method that should be used to obtain it is underground mining.
I am by no means a leftist (ask anyone here, particularly Bdgee), or a "environmentalist wacko", and I am not for "going back to the stone age" as you put it, but if you had seen what I have, you would know, just as I do, that using Coal as an energy source is simply not worth the environmental destruction it creates.
Posted by bdgee on :
Keeeee-rekt!
Indeed, NR is no "environmentalist wacko", because he is a far right-wing RNC talking points puppet wacko.
And he is 100% right on the subject of production of energy via coal!
Ain't it amazing and strange what actually seeing the results of unrestrained corporate greed can have on the scope of the mind of a far right-wing RNC talking points puppet wacko.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
bdgee,
I'm all for producing clean energy, provided it doesn't cost much more than our current energy. Many people on the left that are supposedly "compassionate" are more intent on environmental issues than on taking care of people. Heating costs are already so high that a lot of people are suffering. I see it all the time with my tenants.
In addition, when there are "clean" technologies, the wacko left often won't support it. Nuclear energy is one example. Wind power is an even better example. It's fine to put wind power in the desert, but not so popular when it's off the east coast near the Kennedy compound. If that's not the height of hipocricy I don't know what is!
Then, even if wind energy would be the cleanest source available, too many birds are being killed by the propeller blades and the wacko left complains about that.
I doubt if there is any energy source that the left would be content with. In fact, I don't think this is about clean energy at all. I think it's really about global socialism and the redistribution of wealth. That's the true goal of the wacko left!
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
provided it doesn't cost much more than our current energy.
Propman. there is a philosophy behind economics that you are overlooking. there is an old saying
"Pennywise and pound foolish"
the "costs" you wish to cut are in fact 1000% more expensive than doing it right the first time..
and?
it really comes down, not to how much it costs, but to WHO is actually paying...
and?
redistribution of wealth is what capitalism is really all about... YOU want the flow charts to move in your direction, and you don't want to have to think too hard about how to manipulate the flow...
Posted by bdgee on :
"I doubt if there is any energy source that the left would be content with. In fact, I don't think this is about clean energy at all. I think it's really about global socialism and the redistribution of wealth. That's the true goal of the wacko left!"
Your "doubt" is a lot of ignorance personified, banked with a pile of misinformation, name calling, and lies plucked out of narrow minded quasi-quotations from the Limbaugh radio hate rants.
Try getting some factual data instead of that rightwing intentional mis-information.
"I'm all for producing clean energy"
No, you are interested in fostering continued efforts to grant control of the nation to corporations, i.e., FASCISM.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
No, you are interested in fostering continued efforts to grant control of the nation to corporations, i.e., FASCISM.
bdgee,
You should at least TRY to understand terms before you banter them about. FASCISM is defined as: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. ".
Moreover, I am not in favor of granting control of the nation to corporations. That's just silly. I am in favor of everyone being allowed to compete in an open and fair marketplace. I am also in favor of a MUCH smaller government; lower taxes; and fewer entitlements and subsidies.
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
propman? you are defining the very concept of the Corporation.
Corporations are by definition covered under federal contract laws to be entities unto themselves.
when you "join" a corporation? you are giving up your constitutional rights under contract with your "employer".... you have to give up most of your "inalienable rights" in order to enter into your corporate employment agreement... i've seen plenty of them. they dictate what you can say, and who you can assciate with while under contract and sometimes even in th future after your relationship is severed..
it cracks me up when people vilify trial lawyers, they are the very last constitutionally provided defense for the common peasant... the peasants are beggin' to throw away their rights? all the time... they can't get rid 'em fast enough...
it clearly states in the constituion that Sates have no right to abrogate contracts. only the Feds have that right. that is why Corporations lobby the Feds, and the States lobby the corporations....
Posted by bdgee on :
Property man, there is no restriction on fascism that it have a dictator, just as there is no requirement that a socialist system be under a dictator. The U.S.S.R. was not socialistic because Stalin was a dictator. Hitler was a dictator of a nation that was purely capitalistic and was fascistic, but that is not what made that Nation be fascist. Where do you come up wiuth that absurd notion that fascism requires a dictator?.
The great champion of fascism, Mussolini, defines "fascism" as "corporatism" and described the method of converting a nation, of whatever form, to a fascism to be the melding of the government and the corporations and the favoring of corporations in the courts. i.e,, forcing dependence of what you like to speak of as a "free market economy".
It isn't a free and FAIR market place if the very rich don't have to contribute to the society and the government in the ratio of their benefits from it, and that includes all the benefits, not just those you want to consider through very simple minded evaluations of "benefit".
Moreover, you claim to be in favor of a smaller government without any definition of what government may be. Many of us wish for a government small all enough that it isn't empowered to manipulate or even investigate our personal and social lives, a consideration which you clearly speak loudly against.
Don't give me your bigoted views and claim they are fair. A simple observation of the terms you use to describe anyone not among the wealthy, white, and acceptable christian religions shows how absolutely unfair you would prefer our government to be.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Where do you come up wiuth that absurd notion that fascism requires a dictator?.
That is the very definition of fascism - right out of the dictionary.
It isn't a free and FAIR market place if the very rich don't have to contribute to the society and the government in the ratio of their benefits from it, and that includes all the benefits, not just those you want to consider through very simple minded evaluations of "benefit".
More nonsense. The fact is that the top 1 percent of households, are pay 27.6 percent of federal taxes. It looks to me like the richest Americans need a tax break!
Don't give me your bigoted views and claim they are fair. A simple observation of the terms you use to describe anyone not among the wealthy, white, and acceptable christian religions shows how absolutely unfair you would prefer our government to be.
Even more ridiculous leftist nonsense!
it cracks me up when people vilify trial lawyers, they are the very last constitutionally provided defense for the common peasant...
Quite the contrary. Trial lawyers, and especially the low-life contingency lawyers, are nothing more than greedy predators that get paid to legally extort and steal money from the productive in our society.
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
prop man says: More nonsense. The fact is that the top 1 percent of households, are pay 27.6 percent of federal taxes. It looks to me like the richest Americans need a tax break!
of all federal taxes?
you sure about that? they pay 27.6% of ALL federal taxes? how about 27.6% of the INCOME taxes?
there's plenty of other federal taxes like the telecom charges and gasoline taxes and then there's social security, which is a TAX and is spent as if it was...
furthermore? the more you have? the more you have to LOSE
the Govt is there to protect that from happening, so in fact, they should be paying according to the amount of wealth they are able to keep... which is considerable
% of US Population % of Wealth Owned ========================================================== Top 1% 38.1% Top 96-99% 21.3% Top 90-95% 11.5% Top 80-89% 12.5% Top 60-79% 11.9% General 40-59% 4.5% Bottom 40% 0.2%
that's from 1998, i bet you that the top1% has more now now than it had then....
it's not inequitable when you look at it that way is it?
Posted by glassman on :
to add to that? when you take all taxes paid as a percentage of income? the bottom 60% pays a much much higher overall rate....
Posted by bdgee on :
Way less than half the Federal Government "income" comes from income taxes. More then any other source, Federal "income" comes from payroll tax, a source that gets very little from those above the average income and almost zero from the truly wealthy and business.
MOST of the "income" of the governments of the U.S. comes from those with below average income. Moreover, the percentage of income paid by those under the average income is very much higher than the percentage of income the wealthy pay. Any claims to the contrary are based on biased simple minded abuses of proper accounting by those too ignorant or too lazy to gather the facts......or they are simply lies.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
you sure about that? they pay 27.6% of ALL federal taxes? how about 27.6% of the INCOME taxes?
I should have been more accurate. The fact is that the top 1 percent of households, pay 27.6 percent of federal taxes and a whopping 38.8 percent of income taxes. You can look it up yourself.
Top 1% 38.1% Top 96-99% 21.3% Top 90-95% 11.5% Top 80-89% 12.5% Top 60-79% 11.9% General 40-59% 4.5% Bottom 40% 0.2%
it's not inequitable when you look at it that way is it?
That is totally equitable. We are taxed on income, not wealth.
...they should be paying according to the amount of wealth they are able to keep... which is considerable
If you penalize people for having wealth, you will destroy the economy and the country. Wealth is what produces the income and jobs.
Why is it that the socialists don't like to compete in the free market and would rather receive handouts from those that are willing to be successful?
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
because if they don't support a government to protect them? they will be eaten by the wolves.
remember? 1% is only 3 million people...
they take much greater benefits from the govt than people who are totally on welfare. much greater benefits indeed.
Posted by glassman on :
you wanna go to a private police force? and private armies?
you sure as heck don't want private roads... the economy really would shut down...
don't kid yourself into beleiving poor people would suddenly become wealthy more productive people if they had nothing at all.. they would become vicious animals 150 million plus of them in our country....
yeah,sure, i'm a socialist? LOL... i am a realist.
the funny part about your blathering over left wing wackjobs is that most of them are very comfortable financially, and can only afford to be left wing because of that...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
they take much greater benefits from the govt than people who are on welfare.
What benefits? Getting to pay 38.8% of income taxes?
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: they take much greater benefits from the govt than people who are on welfare.
What benefits? Getting to pay 38.8% of income taxes?
Mike
do you wanna go to a private police force? and private armies?
you sure as heck don't want private roads... the economy really would shut down...
the government is already overspent by about 35 grand too much for every US citizen, and there's a whole pile of crap that needs fixing right away.
Posted by glassman on :
i encourage you to go to Africa and take a good hard look at what happens when the governments fail their general population..
both the colonial governments & the "new" locally grown governments have had terrible problems trying to create a decent way of life for their people....
way of life has little to do with PROFIT.. and yes, i am a capitalist who has learned that lesson by hanging out with miserable rich people.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
So roads, armies, and the police benefit the rich more than the poor? I didn't know that. In my experience, the poor put a MUCH higher demand on the police than the rich. Armies keep us all safe. The poor certainly aren't any easier on roads than the rich. In fact, I'm quite certain that they are responsible for a disproportionate number of accidents (and therefore use of resources).
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
poor people have little to lose. their defense is not really that critical.
and if the police weren't spending all of their time keeping the poor in line (so to speak) they wouldn't be fighting amongst one another... they'd be taking from the rich, and, well, keeping it..
this is ancient history stuff.. goes all the way back to classical Greek teachings.
as for the roads? the wealth of this nation is carried on the roads.. you can exchange all the data you want, but if you don't get toilet paper and food and other products delivered? there is no profit to be made at a centralised location, it stays at home...
you must have missed Econ 370
Posted by Propertymanager on :
and if the police weren't spending all of their time keeping the poor in line (so to speak) they wouldn't be fighting amongst one another... they'd be taking from the rich, and, well, keeping it..
So, are you saying the poor are a bunch of criminals and thieves? That's not very nice or very liberal. They're just victims.
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
i said i am a realist.
i listened carefully and attentively to my grandparents personal stories of the depression.... people were shot over chickens, and guess who did the shooting? (hint, i wasn't born until long after the depression)
Posted by bdgee on :
glass...,
You are casting pearls before swine. Your tenacity and teachings are admirable, but you must realize that a hog chooses to only see how much he can eat today and has no idea of or interest in understanding from where tomorrow's fodder may come.....he'll happily eat the seed corn too.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
bdgee,
Another nonsensical post when you don't have anything intelligent to say!
Posted by bdgee on :
You aren't capable of handling intelligent sayings, property manager, as you have repeatedly proved with such insults and idiocy as that. I guess you prefer the part of the swine.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
You aren't capable of handling intelligent sayings, property manager,
I guess we'll never know. You certainly haven't posted an intelligent point yet. However, you do excel with 3rd grade insults.
Mike
Posted by bdgee on :
No one excels in being insulting more than you, propertyguy. It's all you do. You hold the cham-peen's belt.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
No one excels in being insulting more than you, propertyguy. It's all you do.
Quite the contrary. I have posted facts and statistics in many of my posts. And I don't call YOU names. In addition, I have had many calm and reasoned exchanges with Glassman and others, even though we certainly don't agree politically. I find it very telling that you are the only one on this forum that can't communicate without personally attacking other posters.
You, on the other hand have posted 8,518 posts that are primarily filled with nonsense and 3rd grade insults and gibberish. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is treated to personal insults and bullying. You clearly are not able to carry on an intelligent conversation. You are so filled with hate for the bush administration that you can't act rationally. I don't know what you're going to do after the election when President Bush is no longer in office. I guess you can still hate him, but that's gotta get old. Worse yet, what will you do if Hillary or another socialist is elected? Who will you hate then?
I'm not blaming you. All this childish behavior is all you have left when you don't have the facts on your side. I'm sure that you're a VICTIM (popular with leftists) and you feel that excuses your behavior.
Mike
Posted by bdgee on :
Those aren't facts, they are the hateful bigotry of a narrow with and limited ability or willingness to either learn or investigate to locate truth.
If you could learn to stop the incessant hate and insulting that serves as what you clearly believe is thought, maybe you can develop the ability to carry on a reasoned exchanges.
'Til then, you have no ability to be other than a simply minded intellectual AND emotionally immature trouble making jerk.
However, there is no indication you want to be reasonable or truthful or even considered to be. You clearly prefer being a childish jerk.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
The fact is that the top 1 percent of households, pay 27.6 percent of federal taxes and a whopping 38.8 percent of income taxes.
Those are FACTS. Facts are not "incessant hate and insulting".
Try a rational discussion. You might like it!
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
I'm sure that you're a VICTIM (popular with leftists) and you feel that excuses your behavior.
LOL... i'm sure that YOU are the very center of the universe too.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Glassman,
No, unlike bdgee, I am NOT a victim. I am responsible for my own actions and decisions. I also refuse to stoop to his level and use childish name calling and bullying when I don't agree with someone. I will try to make well-thought out arguments for my opinions, using well-documented facts when possible.
For bdgee to call government tax data "incessant hate and insulting" or "hateful bigotry" is simply nonsense.
If he was right, he would be able to make intelligent arguments based on available facts like the rest of us, instead of all the incessant nonsense.
Mike
Posted by glassman on :
my analogy of you being the center of the universe is simply one way to describe your stated views that you have no responsibility to look out for your fellow human...
you said earlier that taxing wealth is stupid. you seemed to fail to see my point that the accumulation of wealth is not really about having wealth for wealth's sake, it represents the ability to make decisions about how the future will be experienced by everybody.
as a glass artist? i can make the most complicated and technically difficult "products" in my craft, but they are nothing more than a waste of my time and energy if nobody likes them. on the other hand? i can make the same piece (that everybody likes) over and over again like Lalique and Galle did, but it's a waste of resources since i am not as efficient at utilizing the worlds energy supply as a large factory is... where is the happy medium? if you spend all your time looking out for just yourself? you will end up stealing from others, and we do have a corporate culture that does just that. we see it over and over again. they have to be regulated fairly. if you spend all your time looking out for other people? you will end up burned out and broke, you have to find a balance somewhere... both the "left" and the "right" are correct in many of their basic philosophies. it's just that we need them to return to working together in order to maximise efficiency AND progress...
Posted by bdgee on :
"The fact is that the top 1 percent of households, pay 27.6 percent of federal taxes and a whopping 38.8 percent of income taxes."
Those are FACTS. Facts are not "incessant hate and insulting"."
No, that claim is false, as those figures do NOT include things like the taxes paid by everyone that puts gasoline in his car and has no tax exemption. Moreover, those figures are not of "households", but of enormous fortunes (and the top 1% do not actually pay the percentages of the Federal revenue you claim they do, though they do get more than those percentages of the benefits from the Federal budget.
THE FACT IS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME PAID BY THE WEALTHY IS WAY WAY BELOW THAT PAID BY THE NON-WEALTHY.
Then more lies and insults from you, Propertyguy. I said YOU offer "incessant hate and insulting", not the Government or anyonbe else.
You need to get facts straight. Income tax and payroll tax do not constitute the total sources of Federal revenue and to post claims that that is the case, thereby ignoring the huge portions of the incomes of the poor that go to those other sources is false and intentionally misleading (unless you are so ignorant you actually believe those figures....remember, it was out federal government that supplied the false information to us that led to invading Iraq. We have had for 7 years "Administration" that didn't object to dealing in "incessant hate and insulting").
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Kudos to Obama. A refreshing step in the right direction when it comes to coal.
Environmental regulations to curtail mountaintop mining
quote:The Obama administration on Thursday imposed strict new environmental guidelines that are expected to sharply curtail "mountaintop" coal mining, a controversial practice that has enriched Appalachia's economy while rearranging its topography.
The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency ended months of bureaucratic limbo on the issue. It was hailed by environmentalists but condemned by coal industry officials, who said it would render a technique that generates about 10 percent of U.S. coal largely impractical.
At "mountaintop removal" mines, which are unique to Appalachian states, miners blast the peaks off mountains to reach coal seams inside and then pile vast quantities of rubble in surrounding valleys. Under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, hundreds of such sites received federal permits.
Lots of superfund sites, and a lot of small towns in the area are having federal dollars relocate them to other cities to destroy the towns because they are so contaminated. Kids born in some of these areas score 10 on a 1-10 scale of lead poisoning within their first year of life.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Good deal. So many things happening. I don't even agree with em all but you gotta admit this guy has done more in his first year than most presidents do in 2 terms.!
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: You guys should look up the tri-state mining district.
Lots of superfund sites, and a lot of small towns in the area are having federal dollars relocate them to other cities to destroy the towns because they are so contaminated. Kids born in some of these areas score 10 on a 1-10 scale of lead poisoning within their first year of life.
CCM,
I haven't read about the Tri-State area before, but what a disaster. The pollutants from coal that get into the waters out here in PA are bad, but seem like nothing compared to the Tar Creek Superfund. In the Tri-State area they are aparently moving whole towns. Out here, people still live with polluted creeks in their back yards and I've even met a few people, who claim to have played in these same creeks as children, with no apparent side effects.
...(I feel like there is a PA redneck joke in here somewhere)...
The effects of the pollution at the Tar Creek Superfund are obvious. It's another great example of how NOT to get what we need from the Earth. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
NR.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Poisonous gases bring search for missing West Virginia miners to a standstill
quote:Reporting from Montcoal, W.V. - As the sun rose over coal country here Tuesday and the magnitude of a mine explosion a day earlier became clear, emergency officials and anxious family members were forced to wait for up to 12 hours for any potential rescue of four missing miners.
State officials announced just before dawn that 25 people had been killed by a methane explosion Monday afternoon at the Upper Big Branch mine. It was the worst mining disaster in the U.S. since 1984.
Emergency rescue efforts were halted early Tuesday because of a dangerous buildup of methane and carbon dioxide about a mile and half from the entrance to the sprawling mine, owned by Massey Energy Co.
I dunno how many of you are following this story but, IMO, this is yet another reason we should move away from coal. It's just too dangerous and creates too much pollution to be considered an answer to our energy problems, even when it is mined underground.
I hope they manage to rescue the guys still trapped in the mine, and my heart goes out to all the family and friends involved in this horrible accident. I dunno if it is related or not, but springtime is unusual for coal mine explosions, they typically occur in winter. There was a 3.4 earthquake in WV, (also very unusual), two days ago that was only about 100 miles north-east of the mine. I wonder if there is a connection... Perhaps the quake compressed the coal layers in the area and forced methane gas into the mine.
Looks like the professionals have already ruled out any connection between the Earthquake and the mine blast.
Seismic Events Recorded Not Far From Mine Disaster Site
quote:An earthquake registering magnitude 3.4 occurred early Sunday morning about 100 miles northeast of Montcoal, W. Va., the location of the Upper Big Branch Mine, a massive coal mining operation where an explosion killed and trapped miners more than a mile below the surface on Monday.
An earthquake of that magnitude is strong enough to dislodge pockets of methane gas, though the distance from the mine suggests that it would not have affected the explosion, Julie Dutton, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey, told FoxNews.com.
"There's the definite possibility that that's what could have happened, but not from this earthquake," Dutton said. "This one was too far away and days separated. That makes a big difference."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
