Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 42

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  Spadecaller

  Feb. 24, 2008, 6:20 a.m.

  Both sad and infuriating to see our earth trashed by these parasitic mercenaries that our government fosters.

  14 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    rwrnae

    Feb. 24, 2008, 2:15 p.m.

    Then build nuke plants you ninny. They are the only other viable source of the huge amounts of power it takes to run this country, much cleaner and safer than coal or gas, yet every time one is proposed you frightened old women throw up your hands and protest.

    9 RepliesReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      Spadecaller

      Feb. 24, 2008, 2:34 p.m.

      "you ninny" ... "Frightened old women"

      We just learned two things about you: your rude and a misogynist.

      While there are other forms of energy that are safe, big business has been silencing them and buying up their patents for years. I would, however, only be willing to exchange ideas with a more civil person.

      I defer to Mark Twain's advice:

      "Never argue with an idiot; others may not be able to tell the difference."

      3 RepliesReply | Report!

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        chevydog

        Feb. 24, 2008, 6:09 p.m.

        Spade -- Remember that patents are only for 17 years, realistically about 15 after all is said and done. And the basic idea has to be published. Most large companies monitor those that might affect their business and have people who try to duplicate the patent claims with what is disclosed. If it can't be done, the patent is generally ignored as a laboratory curiousity (many of these) or considered worthless.

        We've all heard stories over the years about the famous 100 mpg carburator, whose patents were supposedly bought up. Even now, with the industry all but dead, nobody's found a trace of it. Seems to me that all these supposed hoarded patents are urban myths.

        Reply | Report!
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        GHOSTWHOWALKS

        Feb. 24, 2008, 9:49 p.m.

        You and ole Mark Twain got that right.

        Reply | Report!
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        rwrnae

        Feb. 25, 2008, 2:17 p.m.

        "While there are other forms of energy that are safe, big business has been silencing them and buying up their patents for years."

        I get it, you're a conspiracy nut. 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was assasinated by the right wing, etc. I work in the energy business. The various players would cut one another's throats for anything that gave them an advantage over their competitors, there IS no conspiracy, just a bunch of nuts looking at the world through rose colored glasses, dreaming of all our power coming from windmills, solar panels, magic crystals, etc. The truth is these"other forms" of energy are not ready for prime time. If you want the lights to continue to go on when you throw the switch, coal or nuclear are the only viable options. Nuclear is much cleaner but just try getting one built, in this country anyway.

        Reply | Report!
    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      AnteUp

      Feb. 24, 2008, 3:47 p.m.

      rwrnae ~

      "Safer"?? Oh sure, like when Bechtel was choosing to avoid

      their contract obligations at, what was it - Palo Verde?,

      and they didn't radiograph the welds?? Small price to pay if there were a mishap - eh?

      Speaking of a price to pay? How can anyone consider nuclear

      as efficient when they have NEVER - and I do mean NEVER solved

      the problem of what to do with the WASTE. If and when they

      ever do find a solution - how can you know that the cost would not be prohibative? And it is totally illogical to take the

      cost to handle the waste out of the calculation - Isn't it?

      4 RepliesReply | Report!

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        miklkit

        Feb. 24, 2008, 5:44 p.m.

        I'm not sure, but I think it was Isaac Asimov who came up with my favorite solution to nuclear waste.

        You go out in the desert and find a canyon with a lot of sand close by. You build a glass plant there. Then you build a rail line to bring in the waste. You then mix the waste with the glass that is made from the sand at a low level. You then start filling that canyon with glass. Glass is like rock; it lasts millions of years. So you don't have to worry about containers leaking their contents into the ground water. The current solutions involving metal containers encased in concrete are just plain stupid.

        Reply | Report!
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        tkyrchncs

        Feb. 24, 2008, 9:16 p.m.

        The waste materials of coal are unimaginable to most people. The areas where this coal is mined by shaft mining are bad enough, but where mountain-leveling techniques are used it's like the moon-lifeless. The leachate from the mining destroys miles of streams and huge amounts of ground water. The terrain is permanently altered, entire ecosystems destroyed, and most will not recover in 10,000 yrs. Then there is the air pollution from burning the stuff. There are mountains of research on this, and aside from the direct effects on all life that encounters it, there is the global warming issue. Then there is the residue of combustion, tons of ash just as poisonous as the coal itself. When I was a child we used it to cinder paths and roads where we wished to suppress all plant growth for a long time. How could any number of tons of slightly radioactive waste equal this intense local and gradual global devastation?

        Reply | Report!
      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        

        rwrnae

        Feb. 25, 2008, 2:28 p.m.

        "NEVER solved

        the problem of what to do with the WASTE"

        Could that be because those who are opposed to building nuclear under any circumstances block every waste disposal alternative suggested? One that has considerable merit is putting the stuff in the deep ocean trenches in the subduction zones where it will eventually be sucked back into the earth's core to disappear for hundreds of millions of years. But no, there's "life" down there (tube worms, blind fish, etc.) So keep dreaming about your utopia of everyone driving little electric cars, powered by solar panels. Meanwhile the rest of the world is building nukes, with considerably less regulation than the US. And we keep burning coal, oil and gas.

        1 ReplyReply | Report!

        • 
          Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

          

          AnteUp

          Feb. 27, 2008, 12:56 p.m.

          rwrnae ~

          deep ocean trenches in the subduction zones?

          Out of sight out of mind - eh? Is that really good enough

          for you? Am I correct that the plates of the earth's crust

          are still in motion?

          Oh and yeah ~ liberals have been SO effective blocking all

          the waste disposal alternatives..........How much has been

          spent on Yucca Mountain? Geez - too bad for the taxpayers

          that they WEREN'T more effective at blocking it!

          RE: the rest of the world is building nukes, with considerably less regulation than the US....Well, Dubya's

          made sure that we are getting a piece of the action - selling technology, etc. -which is prohibited by the NPT

          to nations who are not signatories - like India and Israel!

          There are NO inspections for their nukes - and both of them

          have far more than a nuclear POWER program - they have

          WEAPONS. But why worry - right?

          Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    libsRfunny

    Feb. 24, 2008, 2:42 p.m.

    "Both sad and infuriating to see our earth trashed by these parasitic mercenaries that our government fosters."

    Maybe if liberals would stop blocking oil exploration and drilling in ANWR, Great Lakes and other areas, we wouldn't need as much coal or be as reliant upon foreign oil.

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      AnteUp

      Feb. 24, 2008, 3:24 p.m.

      libsRfunny ~

      C'mon, they already KNOW that there isn't enough oil

      there to make an appreciable difference - what they want

      is the go-ahead to drill. Experts have said ANWR would

      - at best - provide something like under 5% of our needs!

      Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    ETproductions

    Feb. 25, 2008, 12:59 a.m.

    Spadecaller wrote: "Both sad and infuriating to see our earth trashed by these parasitic mercenaries that our government fosters."

    As much as I hate seeing all the damage fossil fuel use causes to the environment, the only realistic alternative we have available right now is nuclear. If we replaced fossil fuel with every other technology taken together and ran them all at their maximum possible output, we'd cut energy production so deeply that most of the population of the earth would have to die.

    We need to take action ASAP to fund energy research and production. The cost of doing so will NOT be a drag on the economy. It will produce tons of high paying professional and construction jobs. It will fuel our sagging economy. And not doing it will bring us up on a dangerous tipping point where global warming becomes an unstoppable runaway train.

    Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    ecotourusa

    Feb. 25, 2008, 1:16 p.m.

    I wonder if a wind farm "On top" of those mountains would be better...

    Looking at the mines, then, I wonder When will the earth quakes start?

    (It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!)

    Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  texangelwings

  Feb. 24, 2008, 8:50 a.m.

  This destruction of our country is so wrong! I feel sorry for the families who live, work and have grownup in these mountain areas, it must be devastating to watch.

  Thanks Mark!

  2 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    AnteUp

    Feb. 24, 2008, 3:39 p.m.

    texangelwings ~

    Precicely! Plus with the destruction of the trees and

    topsoil the residents of these areas must have a lot of

    personal safety and private property concerns such as

    flooding, mudslides, water pollution. But if something goes

    wrong, I'm sure they can get satisfaction in a court of law

    suing the coal corps.............??

    It's the same all over - the corporations bring JOBS to

    the area and they are unapologetic that if you need, and

    take the jobs offered............don't ask for safety -

    don't ask for quality of life.........just shut up and WORK.

    Don't cause problems - and if your friends do speak up? YOU

    better make it real clear to them that you will lose your

    job if they don't pipe down. Tyrants!

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      tkyrchncs

      Feb. 24, 2008, 9:21 p.m.

      This was true in the past, but with mountain leveling, they have taken away jobs AND one of the most beautiful and biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth. My Grandfather and most of the men in his family for many generations before him were coal miners.

      Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  dexlovex2

  Feb. 24, 2008, 9:07 a.m.

  "Mining companies didn't have to return the land to the exact same condition if they could prove it would be put to "higher or better uses. This gave the mining industry a way out. The practice, though, has exploded since George W. Bush entered the White House. Given the post-9/11 emphasis on energy security, and coal companies' close ties to Washington, they've been given even more leeway than before."

  2 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    AnteUp

    Feb. 24, 2008, 5 p.m.

    dexlovex2 ~

    Bush didn't even wait until 9/11 to "give it up" to the

    energy corporations. Check this out:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/01/60min...

    FTA - the very last line: The Labor Department's inspector

    general is also looking into whether or not MSHA officials

    broke the law in awarding government contracts.

    That would be our Department of Labor? Where Elaine Chao is

    the Secretary of Labor AND also the wife of Sen. Mitch

    McConnell? I'm sure they investigated - aren't you?

    Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    tkyrchncs

    Feb. 24, 2008, 9:33 p.m.

    Speaking to you as a biologist, I tell you firmly that it is not possible, even with years of diligent work and piles of money, to restore the land. One of the original components, coal, is taken away and destroyed. Many native minerals are washed out of the remaining rock that leaves it missing from its original location and washed at toxic levels downstream. The topsoil is gone. The seed populations of living things are gone. And this all in an ancient ecosystem where species thought to be extinct are found on a fairly regular basis. It would be magic, or Divine intervention, or some other method not within the realm of our abilities, if these mountains reached a semblance of their original state in a few thousand years. They will NEVER be "restored".

    Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  chevydog

  Feb. 24, 2008, 12:48 p.m.

  Growing up on the fringe of coal country in PA, I have a pretty good idea what unhindered laissez faire can do. If we are to utilize our coal resources, hopefully we can do better than that.

  The flip side is that mining is the only thing that can bring any money into some of these places. The country is often beautiful, but tourism is a minor factor. Logging has largely disappeared, and hunting as an economic force never was.

  1 ReplyReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    tkyrchncs

    Feb. 24, 2008, 9:34 p.m.

    As the article indicates, this type of mining COSTS jobs AND makes the area uninhabitable.

    Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  HomeGMan

  Feb. 24, 2008, 3:11 p.m.

  Good story. There are extended costs to most of the traditional means of producing energy that are seldom considered. People who never venture out of their little world know relatively little about the environmental costs. All they know is that if there isn't enough electricity to power every light in their home and 300,000 others that "something" needs to be done to meet demand.

  Maybe if demand decreased.. oh wait, am I suggesting lifestyle changes? In that case, trash it all. Nothing but hicks living there anyway, right? And those mountaintops just limit the afternoon sun in the back yard by the pool anyway....

  3 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    chevydog

    Feb. 24, 2008, 3:40 p.m.

    I share some of your frustration, having spent a goodly portion of my career in energy management/conservation. But while conservation is necesssary (it's the least expensive energy supply we have), it doesn't have the capacity to be the total answer.

    There's a lot of coal out there; and IMHO nuclear power isn't the devil it's sometimes made out to be. But I think we have to remember that anything we do--even "good" things--extracts its price. If we end up using coal extensively (I think we'll have to), we ought to be insisting on not wrecking the universe to do it. But that doesn't necessarily mean no impact.

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      HomeGMan

      Feb. 25, 2008, 10:21 a.m.

      Agree. I think we have gone from a period of gluttony where there wasn't a price that is too high to a position of understanding more about what first thought of as prudent being the first step in adverse effects.

      Considering the amount of electricity we consume in the US that is produced with coal, I don't see the elimination of coal mining anytime soon - if at all. While we work towards solutions of less pollution in our air, I think we also need to be cognizant of the environmental impact of our actions. Those actions include the demands that we as a society put on the environment through our use as well as the demands placed on it by the means we use to extract coal. I understand that the publicity is biased, but long-term damage to our environment could be lessened IMO.

      Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    HomeGMan

    Feb. 25, 2008, 10:26 a.m.

    klr60... In that you blocked me from replying to your PM.. sorry you misinterpreted my second paragraph as my personal opinion i/o sarcasm. If you only knew....

    Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  1-2-Oscar

  Feb. 24, 2008, 5:42 p.m.

  The National Governor's Conference, which is currently meeting, includes coal as one of the "alternative energy sources" they are going to recommend for national priority. A minority object, but it appears that Gov. Rendell and his buddies from coal-producing states will prevail.

  2 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    chevydog

    Feb. 24, 2008, 6:17 p.m.

    Rendell would probably be derelict of duty if he didn't push coal. It drove a significant portion of PA's economy at one time. Some places have recovered from coal's demise in the 1950's, though still some have not.

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      1-2-Oscar

      Feb. 24, 2008, 8:22 p.m.

      Would you also argue that a professional hitman is not guilty of murder because "he was just doing his duty?"

      Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  VonDau

  Feb. 24, 2008, 8:19 p.m.

  Brainless, whining, tree-hugging, global-warming (what-a-frick'n-hoax), Al Gore lov'n, red-doper diaper baby socialist liberals, ... just never cease to AMAZE ME!

  Put a rag in yer' pie-hole. You idiots bitched, whined and moaned about Nuclear Energy plants to the point that it's economically unfeasible to build them (frick'n flower children). Did the thought ever cross your brain (oops, sorry, I forgot - you don't have one of them), WE HAVE TO HAVE ENERGY FROM SOME SOURCE(?)

  Think about (namely, the "disappearing mountains) that you Einsteins next time your Nader-class mentor(s) call on you to protest a proposed nuclear plant development.

  Now, go get your Starbuck's latte, smoke an "organic" joint, and protest the war some more.

  Frick'n oxygen-robbers.

  4 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    tkyrchncs

    Feb. 24, 2008, 9:40 p.m.

    My what a tirade. Come to SW Virginia to visit and I'll take you hunting. You could get a feeling of the cost of your luxuries, in terms of your countrymen and your country.

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      GHOSTWHOWALKS

      Feb. 24, 2008, 9:59 p.m.

      You're talking to the choir TKYVHNCS. Remember the old sayings, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", and " None are so blind as those who will not see."

      Reply | Report!
  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    AnteUp

    Feb. 25, 2008, 10:30 a.m.

    VonDau ~

    Talk about never ceasing to amaze! You guys love to frame it

    that way........as if those concerned with the health of our

    environment would rather save a rare fly from extinction

    even if it meant the end of life as we know it!

    Big oil, gas and coal didn't like the incentives that were

    offered once upon a time for SOLAR and WIND - did they?

    You talk pretty tough, guy - almost like someone who would

    respect good old Yankee ingenuity and independence but

    you're willing to FOLLOW the advise of those with the

    BIGGEST vested interest in keeping us DEPENDANT...the energy

    conglomerates.

    Ask the miners - not well known for being wussy - if these

    corporations care. Our tax dollars have consistantly been

    wasted keeping us under their thumb rather than looking for

    SMART alternatives. Got SCIENCE??

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      VonDau

      Feb. 25, 2008, 11:42 a.m.

      AnteUp -

      You said/scribed,

      "...you're willing to FOLLOW the advise of those with the BIGGEST vested interest in keeping us DEPENDANT...the energy conglomerates."

      I call AND RAISE you AnteUp;

      Specifically, just HOW do I FOLLOW the advise of those w/the BIGGEST vested interest BY RECOMMENDING (pollution free/OPEC free) NUCLEAR NRG?

      (Jeopardy theme song plays in background)

      Hmmmm, hmmmm, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm hmmm, dat-da-dat-dat-dat-dat-dah.

      Thought so. You have absolutely NO (credible) answer. Only typical liberal drivel.

      Allow me to be among the first to congratulate you on being a champion of the obvious; OF COURSE THE COAL MINE CORPORATIONS DON'T CARE! Excuse me, but did I say, OR IMPLY somewhere in my text that they do/did/will?

      Bonehead - It isn't just the COAL CORP's that are doin' us. Study the labels of what your eating these days - Cargill and ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland) are turning us into zombies!

      Let's clean-up our NRG house - then move on to these issues!

      Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  donnall

  Feb. 24, 2008, 10:13 p.m.

  thats terrorble a horror for nature and people who love nature so sad to think our island may get worse with all the people wanting in here cause their countries are ******

  they fck theres up then move here and ****** ours up our govtment should do full checks on backgrounds and personalities otherwise we could end upn with no mountains no jobs no nothing so dam sad

  Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  paulotto2007

  Feb. 24, 2008, 11:08 p.m.

  I read once - sorry, I can't remember where - that we export most of our coal. With China's economic growth... along with the growth of other emerging economies, combined with Peak Oil... I'm afraid that our coal will continue to be in high demand.

  Political correctness in our "mixed economy" is shared by both parties, conservatives, and liberals.

  Republicans subsidize dirty energy or bad corn ethanol ideas... and put up huge tariffs on cleaner energy like Brazilian sugarcane ethanol... all in the name of the "free market" which really isn't free market practice at all.

  But Democrats in office vote for a lot of this stuff too and WVa's state government has been controlled by Dems for a long time.

  I disagree with VonDau's tactics... but I do agree that liberals are going to have open up their minds a bit on energy... things like wind & geothermal, yes... but also things like wood chips and probably nuclear too.

  Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  Locky12

  Feb. 25, 2008, 12:08 a.m.

  Hey Aidenag! What's more important?

  Cutting our dependence on foreign oil?

  or

  Some pristine postcard photos?

  2 RepliesReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    tkyrchncs

    Feb. 25, 2008, 3:38 p.m.

    The pictures, of course. One day we will have to be independent of oil because it will all be gone.

    1 ReplyReply | Report!

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      

      Locky12

      Feb. 25, 2008, 7:09 p.m.

      Yeah. Unfortunately that one day isn't today, is it?

      Reply | Report!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  

  MoonShiner

  Feb. 25, 2008, 3:49 a.m.

  Most of you have heard or read about the Applachian Mountain Range. One area is called Windrock Mountain. It is a great place for Windmills and that is what TVA has done. Great for green energy, BUT, they have allowed ATV's to roam all over the mountain. They have destroyrd cemeteries, old home places, Indian mounds and sites, created erosion, destroying well water that the locals depend on. The mountain around 1900, was home to 100 plus. It was as beautiful as the Great Smoky Mountains. Not any more. I could cry every time I see the destruction. Needless, senseless ravaging of a mountain that was full of history. TVA should have protected this area. The property is in the hands of Coal Creek Land and Mining. You must purchase a $50.00 pass to ride on the mountain. Someone is making Millions, destroying a beautiful mountain that can never be repaired or replaced. It will forever be locked in the minds of the people who lived, worked, and died there! Very sad indeed! Mountain Laurel

  1 ReplyReply | Report!

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    

    HomeGMan

    Feb. 25, 2008, 4:52 p.m.

    Thanks for the info.

    Reply | Report!