OpEdNews - Page 3 of Article: Can We Dig It? Should We Dig It?

Before we let you expand the coal supply to America's power plants what's you plan for carbon sequestration? And, assuming you have one, is it a real plan with real confirmable science behind it?

Yes / No / Don't Ask-Don't Tell

And if we let you dig more coal in more places, how would that help America's transition to clean, renewable sources of power, like wind and solar? Wouldn't cheap coal knock those emerging technologies back to the days when they could not compete economically with cheap coal? Or is that precisely the goal?

Yes / No / Don't Ask-Don't Tell

Finally what about the impacts of mining on the areas mined? While the law requires you guys plant grass to cover the scar left by surface mining, some might long for the now-gone mountains. I mean it's one thing for a lumber company to cut trees, they grow back. But once a mountain is gone, it's gone for good.

And underground mining comes with it's own impacts that, while of out of sight are not out of mind for we dwellers. Just ask the residents of rural Pennsylvania.

"To determine whether public facilities were impacted by underground mining during this period, DEP surveyed municipalities, water and sewer authorities and the Department of Transportation. There were, for example, about 285 miles of roads undermined in the study area ... Of the 188 organizations surveyed, 10 reported damage during the five-year study period. These reports mostly concerned damage to roads." (Full)

So, what about all that? Are you claiming in your Thoreau-like ads that you have plans to mitigate the physical impacts to the local environment from your mining activities? Or are you simply going to continue just barely toeing the the line, denying there's any problems and not paying the true costs left behind from each ton of coal you pull out of the ground?

Yes / No / Don't Ask-Don't Tell

Okay, onto our eager -- and hungry -- nuclear power industry.

Hi there sparky. Long time no see. Where you been?

Oh yeah, I remember. A couple of hundred square miles of Russia still glow in the dark. Bummer.

But, thanks to the energy crunch, nuclear is back. They're out of hiding and have dusted off their old, "cheap, clean and safe energy" slogan. Only now it's not so cheap and we know it's not safe and it's only clean if you don't consider radiation as "dirty."

I'm not one of those tree-hugger types whose blood drains from my head at the very mention of nuclear energy. I understand that there are risks involved in any technology. And if someone tried to introduce the gasoline-powered vehicle today regulators would react something like this:

"Let me get this straight. You fill this thing up with 15 gallons of explosive fluid, that you carry around under the backseat, that feeds an internal combustion engine less than five feet from the tank filled with explosive liquid. Get out of here!"

My point being that some dangers are manageable, but only if they are managed, not ignored. When it comes to nuclear power we are still being asked to shine on some real whoppers. Not the least among these dangers is what the hell to do with all the nuclear waste these things spin off over their lifetimes.

Even as the revitalized nuclear power industry queues up for permits to build new plants, it still has no solution on the near horizon for the growing (and glowing) mounting mountain of deadly radioactive waste the industry has produced over the past 60 years. All that stuff -- every pound of it -- is stacked up in barrels at nuclear sites around the nation waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it -- for the next 10,000 years -- and then some.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5