Tuesday, August 26, 2008

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?

6 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.