[Ludi]

totally devastating to the environment, yet unavoidable because of NIMBYism on nuclear energy. So tragic to be held hostage by the environmentalist wackos like this.

It's all the environmentalists' fault!!!

Ooooo! Those rotten enviro-loons!

[Ludi]

Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.

Why do you hate America?

[Serial_Worrier]

Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.

Why do you hate America?

Because of mountaintop removal and nuclear power plants.

"I have to shoot heroin! They won't give me Oxycontin!"

Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

[Ludi]

Idiot

That's the best argument I've seen all day. Top notch debate technique there!

[dinopello]

Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

I propose we have negative economic growth!

That's a good one. It's not stopping growth!

We could grow in an imaginary plane. sqrt(-1) * growth = igrowth.

[mos6507]

I propose we have negative economic growth!

We have negative economic growth right now. How do you like it so far? Keeps oil cheap at least.

[carrottop]

i moved here about 11 years ago they were just starting to do mountain top removeal i sat on my porch and watched them cut huge trees & take two bulldozers shove up the trees & burn them . didnt take them to a saw mill just burnt them ! i watched helplessly as this little stream that goes by my house which was an aquatic wonder land die there is not anything in it now & never will be .i worked in the mines under ground & you can mine just as much coal but it costs more & is more dangerous ! and you dont have to remove 500 feet of mountain .

[Pretorian]

Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

Why does it have to grow? You worry about your 401k or something?

[carrottop]

start with i am not an idiot and i dont have a 401 k but you do miss the point &for that i am sorry for you !

[pstarr]

Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.

Why do you hate America?

Because of mountaintop removal and nuclear power plants.

"I have to shoot heroin! They won't give me Oxycontin!"

Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Unless we humans can come up with a lifestyle/economics that is not predicated on the continued use and abuse of our limited resources than we will continue to dig our environmental and spiritual graves.

[pstarr]

Serial_Worrier you need to do something about your image. IT HAS GROWN TO LARGE FOR MY PUNY MONITOR AND IS THREATENING TO MELT THE SCREENNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

[and also]

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance

[pstarr]

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance

Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.

[and also]

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance

Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.

pessimistic fatalism is SO last year.
Cheer up!! Yes, these are issues, but would you have rather lived in any other century?

[pstarr]

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance

Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.

pessimistic fatalism is SO last year.
Cheer up!! Yes, these are issues, but would you have rather lived in any other century?

I don't do trends anymore. They are soooooo last century

As for centuries, the previous one was great for lots of folks (including me) for much of the time (ditto). Others did not fair so well.

But the current century will be hell for everyone involved. Or at least those not lucky enough to have lived a long life and died a natural death early on into it. I'll do okay (though I'm not too deluded to actually believe in my own exceptionalism) because I have prepared for the worst. And enjoy doing it.

[DrBang]

Clean coal is a real engineering objective. The goal is to capture emissions as the coal is being burnt. Carbon, sulphur and sodium is captured and stored in a non gaseous form. It can then be stockpiled. The end result is aerosol matter emissions is only a few % of what they are now. the environmental impact statement of such a plant is different in several areas to the current broad brush design of a coal wash plant. Like so many things it comes down to how you define the fine print!

Mining companies worked out how to do it in the early 1990's. It costs money to their bottom line though. Their basic strategy is to lobby governments to hold up legal environmental restraints imposed. Then they will be offered tax breaks by the governments of the day. More money is made for longer. Remember, mining contains some brilliant examples of corporations behaving badly.

This is a stopgap solution to a big problem. The same fundamental issues are still in place. Digging giant holes in the ground to extract non renewable resources will never be sustainable or environmentally neutral.

Kind Regards

Dr Bang

[Vogelzang]

Excellent news. I'm all for CTL. Vote Republican!

[Carlhole]

Coal-bed mercury must have come from plants in the Carboniferous Period, right?
Do present-day plants sequester mercury?

There must have been an abundance of mercury in soil and water during the Carboniferous for the plants to sequester, right?

So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?

[smallpoxgirl]

So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?

Probably. But this was the most advanced creature around to eat them:



Mammals and birds hadn't been invented yet. So yeah. Like many things, it's not actually a problem for the earth. It's just a problem for us.

[Carlhole]

So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?

Probably. But this was the most advanced creature around to eat them:



Mammals and birds hadn't been invented yet. So yeah. Like many things, it's not actually a problem for the earth. It's just a problem for us.

Oh...

...

Smallpoxgirl, are there any contemporary authors that write stylistically as masterfully as, say, Henry James or Joseph Conrad?