posted
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.
posted
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:
posted
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?
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
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.
IP: Logged |
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!
posted
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...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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%
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
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).
posted
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
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
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.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
