Skip to main content

From the Annals of Bad Arguments

By

ky-mtraboveriver_southwings1-300x225 Anyone can make a bad argument at any time. But when you take some of the most negative elements of your case and try to spin them into a positive, the results can be – er, more negative.

So, here’s Joe Lucas of Americans for Clean Coal Electricity:

"I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space."

Love to go on that tour, Mr. Lucas.

h/t ThinkProgress

Cleared mountaintops in Kentucky. We’ll let the coal people take care of themselves, but the article in The Guardian containing the quote is quite interesting – do go over there for the whole thing.

There was chatter a couple of years ago to plant windmills on cleared mountaintops in West Virginia, be we think NIMBY issues killed that one.

Comments

D Kosloff said…
Mountain top mining is actually the best aspect of using coal to make electricity.
August 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Brian Mays said…
Heh ... those pesky mountains. They do get in the way, don't they?

I notice that the next paragraph in the article points out that "there are more jobs at Wal-Mart than on the coal face."

Ah ha! I guess we know now why they need so much flat space.
August 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
DW said…
Destroying the incredible natural beauty of W. Virginia AND the communities build along the hallows and hills is the *best* aspect of mountain topping? Sick.
August 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Joffan said…
I wonder, how do you put a windmill on a mountaintop that isn't there any more?
August 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Joffan said…
Ha... David, I read Kosloff's remark the other way round... as meaning, "all other aspects of coal-fired generation are even worse". Which is a stretch, perhaps, but the atmosphere is for everyone.
August 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM
D Kosloff said…
So, David, what do you think is better about killing people with coal and using it to destroy the environment? How many of your friends and relatives have worked in coal mines?
August 6, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more