Skip to main content

Black Is the New Green


We don't read USA Today as much as we might - too colorful, ink doesn't adhere to our hands - but a story on coal and Peabody Energy was full of interesting content and can be found on the web here. This popped out at us:
"There's a perception out there that coal is dirty, and we have to change that," he [Chairman and CEO Gregory Boyce] adds, noting that coal plants already have cut emissions of some pollutants and boosted efficiency to slash CO2 discharges. "Black is the new green."
Now, we know what you're thinking, but read the whole article first, then think again and - er, share in comments, won't you?

Picture of Anthracite. Pretty, isn't it?

Comments

gunter said…
"Black is the new green" makes about as much sense as "inherently safe nuclear power."
Kirk Sorensen said…
Wrong again Gunter.

Nuclear power doesn't use our atmosphere as its waste pool, and your work to undermine nuclear power is indirectly responsible for keeping coal power front and center for the last 30 years.

I'm hoping you won't "keep up the (bad) work". But you probably will.
Brian Mays said…
Ah, I understand, Mr. Gunter.

It makes about as much sense as describing NIRS as an accurate "information resource service" about anything nuclear.

And yet, once again, NIRS defends coal. At least Mr. Gunter and NIRS are consistent when it comes to this issue.

Please tell me, Mr. Gunter, who funds NIRS, and who pays your salary?
gunter said…
Kirk and Brian,

You guys really are delusional just like "black is the new green."

Isn't it the boards of directors of the thermoelectric industry (coal and nuclear, primarily)that are directly responsible for keeping coal front and center?

The antinuclear movement doesn't chair Dominion, Duke, DTE, etc, etc, etc, that manage and burn coal and fission uranium.

You aren't suggesting that companies like Dominion have a plan to phase out new and old coal plants with new reactor construction? To the contrary, they plan to remove more mountain tops AND mine more uranium.

Anyways, I thought you folks had concluded that the oil companies are paying my salary? Now you're saying Peabody Coal sends me checks, too?

:)LOL...get a grip or lighten up...
Kirk Sorensen said…
Now you're saying Peabody Coal sends me checks, too?

Wow, I guess you just work for free then. Even more baffling.

(Don't) keep up the (bad) work, Gunter.
Brian Mays said…
Delusional, Mr. Gunter?

I'm just asking a question. You could clear up any "delusions" immediately by simply answering my question in a straightforward, honest manner.

The front page of your organization's own website states that "NIRS relies on contributions from people who use and/or appreciate our services for 1/3 of our annual budget." (link) (Google cache)

So my question is the following: Where does the other 2/3 of your budget come from? Who is giving you that money?

Everybody knows that the NEI is an industry trade association. Everybody knows who funds it (i.e., companies in the nuclear industry). There are no secrets; it's all transparent and obvious. (Note: I am not and never have been an employee of the NEI.)

I have tried to find a record of your sources of funding, but have failed. Perhaps you can point me to where this is published?

If your organization has not released this information, then the natural question that follows is what do you have to hide?

Unless your organization and your parent organizations, such as WISE, are willing to be as transparent as the NEI, why should anyone not assume that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind everything that you write here? Why should anyone take you seriously?

Feel free to answer any of my questions, Mr. Gunter. Thank you.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…