OH, MD, WVA and other coal producing states

[troy malone]

wonder why it took so long to get this out.. fine coal plants to generate funds to invest in wind and solar power..

Obama said in an interview in January..



“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Obama said, “That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in wind, solar, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I have said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.”



http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/palin-goes-after-obama-on-coal-comments/

 

[Les]

We need to go nuke...

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Obamalamadingdong will not allow nuke energy, until all safety aspects can be "assured":

"I don't think there is anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up ... and irradiate us ... and kill us!"

Yeah.... There has been (1) core damage incident (Three-Mile Island) in the US and that was in 1979. There have been (2) other "significant" incidents that include a fire and a dry-out event, neither of which resulted in radiation leakage.



There are no deaths directly associated with any nuclear power plant radioactive material in the US (at least publically available that I can find).



That means you are infinately more likely to die reading this message than be killed by a radiation related cause from a nuclear reactor.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Live in PA, a state with vast untapped coal reserves, all I can say is "dig, baby dig, then burn baby, burn."



With scrubbers they've already figured out how to burn coal and reduce emmissions to acceptable levels.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

Obamalamadingdong will not allow nuke energy, until all safety aspects can be "assured":

Odd, since the U.S. Navy has been operating safely on nuclear power for six decades. And they're subject to the same regulations and standards set for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Energy that govern the civilian nuke power industry. So the "safety aspects" are already in place.



It's just that every time the idea comes up, the environmental wackos immediately dredge up stories of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, whipping the ignorant populace into a "not in my back yard" frenzy.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Odd, since the U.S. Navy has been operating safely on nuclear power for six decades. And they're subject to the same regulations and standards set for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Energy that govern the civilian nuke power industry. So the "safety aspects" are already in place.

If anyone with a clue would sit down and read about the design and manufacturing of the reactors built in the USSR, compared to the ones designed and built today, either in the military or new designs, you would understand how safe the new designs are.



The metal used today compared to that used in Chernobyl is like night and day. The quality control methods used today are light years ahead of that that was used in Chernobyl.



There is no comparison. You just can't use Chernobyl as a bad example against Nuclear Energy.





Tom

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

When the three mile incident happened I was working at Gruman Aircraft on the Apollo program. I remember listening to the news describing how a SINGLE valve got stuck in the wrong position. I was amazed that the Apollo program used at a minimum quad redundancy in addition to alternative flow paths and a nuclear power could have a single point failure. Obviously the designs in nuclear power plants are more robust with I assume redundancy issues in mind. Technology has come a long way in four decades to make nuclear energy extremely safe.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

MikeC,



The Apollo program burned a bunch of astronauts to a crisp if memory serves, with Apollo 1.



In my experience the more sophisticated the technology the more likely something simple, something unexpected will throw a monkey wrench into the works and cause significant problems.



That's not to say that we can't and haven't made nuclear power acceptably safe. I think we have. But there will always be risk, the question is how much and is that acceptable.



TJR

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

TRJ, yes that is true when NASA was using a pure oxygen environment. The three astronauts were Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Gus Grissom. A thing that wasn't done before. They later changed out the environment to a drastically lower O2 content. Since that mistake they had successfully launched many Apollo missions without any loss of life. Nuclear has been around for a long while. It is not break through technology. It is safe as testified by the world wide safe use.

 

[A K]

Live in PA, a state with vast untapped coal reserves, all I can say is "dig, baby dig, then burn baby, burn."

Northeastern PA STILL has the most anthracite in the world. I'd love to see it come back as a huge coal producer.



While I am all for the environment, I'm not for handicapping ourselves in the name of the environment. Burn it till we can do better. But, don't sit on our hands in the name of the environment, while at the same time crying because of energy woes.