War on coal: phoney or real?
Climate campaigners reserve a special scorn for coal-fired power generation. Coal has replaced nuclear as the form of energy that environmentalists most love to hate.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Age.
#1 Nov 19, 2013
There is lots about coal to dislike, but hate and war are overboard. Just about everything that is on the 'losing edge' seems to complain that they are being 'warred on'.
Coal has serious ecological impacts for mining as 'mountain top removal' shows. While they won in the courts, it didn't stop the reality from causing a public rejection.
And mine deaths are higher than just about any other industry.
Then you have the subsidies to 'save jobs' which never does (more coal is mined by mining machines lowering employment while safety systems go begging).
Add to that the toxic ash (containing more nuclear waste than nuclear power is allowed to emit..
and lastly the low efficiency high CO2 emission coal power plant that is an eyesore and a blight.
With qualities like this, who needs an 'enemy'..
Oh, and lastly, coal has resisted ANY call to improve efficiency, lower pollution or anything else, feeling that it is still 'King Coal'. Slow to learn I guess..
#2 Nov 19, 2013
Lung cancers concentrate in coal burning states & downwind from the 1000+ foot coal burning chimneys.
#3 Nov 19, 2013
As usual, you never let facts get in the way of a good meme. Dangerous? Um, yeah, but you're better off being a miner than a recyclables collector. Or cop. Or pilot.
Furthermore, the coal industry resists ignorant government regulation from idiot regulators who know little about the coal industry, and know mostly how to advance the so called progressive agenda. You'll find they acknowledge that coal has its problems, but the benefits far outweigh it's negatives. Of course, Socialists will always concentrate on the negatives. It's who they are. Surly, P&Ming, sulking, it's just the way they are. Look outside of Mother Jones and HuffPo and find some reality.
Unfortunately, even they are forced to address the faux threat of CO2 and the idiocy of anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange
And as far as ecological impacts? Um, yeah sure. Compared to the sprawling blight of acres and acres and acres of "wind farms" producing little of use, well I'll take the "mountaintop removal" any time.
Since: Nov 13
#4 Nov 20, 2013
The real problem after its mined is the plants that burn it are not upgrading fast enough to make their emissions cleaner. The other alternative is nuclear power which brings its own terrors with it.
Add your comments below
|What will eclipse mean for California power sup...||1 hr||jeffhre||11|
|TVA customers expected to see savings in June s...||19 hr||Savings||32|
|Nevada reinstates key solar energy policy||Jun 19||ThomasA||10|
|Extra-windy March boosts wind, solar power's sh...||Jun 17||Solarman||1|
|Solar plant to provide 80 percent of Ohio schoo...||Jun 17||Solarman||1|
|Wind, Solar Power could overpower political win...||Jun 15||Solarman||1|
|The U.S. hit a wind and solar power milestone i...||Jun 15||Solarman||1|
Find what you want!
Search Alternative Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC