I doubt if Obama has actually stood on the ground in W.Va.

[ensho]

where the mountains have been removed.

I was there 30 to 40 yrs. ago and it was like being suddenly transported into a sci/fi novel.

driving through the beautiful mountains. go around a bend and SHOCK at the enfolding scene.

just dirt and ponds and lakes of a pea green color liquid. no life of any kind, anywhere.

I don't know what it all looks like now but I'm sure if Obama actually stood amongst it all, he would change his mind.

pictures or videos can't compare to actually standing there.

has he been invited? if not, wouldn't that be a good move?

or do the coal Barons have him by the neck?

[atreides1]

1. I Don't think it would matter to him

Remember he's a pragmatist who believes in moving forward and doesn't want to get bogged down.

[imdjh]

2. What do you want him to do?

First- accept that the coal will be mined somewhere in the US and that it is needed, because it will and it is. Even if we start switching over to an existing or suddenly discovered technology we're going to need a lot of coal for many years to come. Where do you want that coal to come from? How do you want it to be mined?

I"ve never been a miner or even been in a mine. But I suspect that I would prefer to work above ground than below ground. Obviously there is some advantage to this kind of mining.

This also can't be framed simply in a "coal baron" context. Coal is employment to hundreds of thousands of people from the mining to the energy production to the industries which rely on that production, including those that clean up after it.

[MadHound]

4. Gee, a crash course program for implementing green renewable energy would be a start

Of course such a decentralized energy program would put the coal barons out of business, but the workers could actually be retrained to work in the green energy sector. The coal barons would be SOL however.

And actually, if we went on a crash program, which we need to do for several reasons, namely saving our planet from the irrevocable dangers of global climate change, we could accomplish the goal of being virtually 100% renewable within a decade.

As far as mining above ground being safer, that's debatable at best. Sure, you don't have miners being trapped underground, but on the other hand you're exposing a much larger population to the dead toxin and pollution that goes along with grinding down a mountain, extracting the coal and dumping the waste.

Not to mention you're taking out frikkin' mountains for cripe's sake! Vast natural monuments, gone, forever. A whole ecosystem destroyed. Streams lost, animals lost, plants lost. Hello, McFly!

Keep this up and the Appalachian Mts. will shortly become the Appalachian Plains.

[imdjh]

7. Who owns the mountain?

[MadHound]

8. Does it matter when the mountain is gone?

A sad statement on society when we're willing to condone leveling an entire mountain range for the profit of a few.

[imdjh]

21. I just went and looked at the photos. My first thought was Peru

Not as a policy statement- just as chat, my first thought was that if we found these sites on top of a range in Peru our response would be, "What an advanced civilization they must have been."


http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/

[mopinko]

10. you just admitted that a crash course would take a decade.

i would be interested to see someone do a complete review of the whole coal life cycle, cost in human lives of miners, the ecosystem, the alternatives, and figure out exactly what the cost it. i presume this type of mining is safer. no cave-ins. no black lung. fewer workers, period, as it is done more with heavy equipment.
i do believe they are mining coal that is closer to the surface out in the dakotas. i think they are doing it cheaper and are out competing w.va.

at any rate, we can't just pull the plug on all coal generated power at this time, so somebody has to do it.

[Statistical]

11. completely decentralized will not work but we need to move that way

There will always be a need for a grid.

Take solar for example. If you put solar on your roof and it's annual output = your annual consumption you need to NET energy from the grid. Your electric bill is essentially 0.

You still need the grid though.

In the peak summer months you produce almost DOUBLE the energy you need and the excess goes to the grid (meter spins backwards).
In the winter you panels produce less than a THIRD of what you need and you draw power from the grid.
If you balance it out you net "balance" is 0kwh.

Without a grid and a large source of power to ramp up when sun output declines you would need a LARGER solar array.

You can take your house completely off the grid but it requires that the panels produce 100% of power needed even on the weakest winter days. Essentially you need a system 3x as large. In the summer you will waste nearly 80% of panels potential power just to have panels produce 100% of need in winter.

Solar costs about $6.00 per watt installed right now. Break even if 12-20 years depending on power rates and solar isolation (amount of full hours per day annually).

If you build a system 3x as big the cost per "effective" watt is now around $15-$18. Break even jump to 35-60 years.

Another way to look at it is:
For $x you can:
take 1 house completely off the grid
OR
make 3 houses have a net consumption of 0

which is better bang for the buck?

[imdjh]

14. My God, someone with facts. Fetch me my smelling salts, I'm fixing to faint.

Do you also know the lifespan of the solar panels you are talking about? I've never seen that figure. Break even at 20 years doesn't mean much if they need to be replaced before you get into a positive benefit.

[Statistical]

15. Most panels are warrantied at 80% output after 20 years.

So generally you want to keep break even under 20 years.

The panels will keep working for very long time (maybe 1000 years) but they will slowly lose efficiency.

Most (not all) warranties state that if the measured output in less than 80% at any point in first 20 years they will be replaced.

[MadHound]

17. Or you do a combination of wind and solar

Windbelts are wonderful technologies that are coming into play right now, they generate power at wind speeds as low as 4mph. Great for those low sun days.

Thin film photovoltaics are going to be online in two years, much more flexible, cheaper and more efficient than what we currently have. And right now, we currently have a lot. The average household uses 31 kWh/day, a 19m2 solar array(fairly standard size) generates 78-131 kWh/day. The excess can go off into a deep cycle battery pack that, depending on the house, can keep things running for 24-72 hours.

There are also a lot of energy efficient retrofits we can employ to save energy and money. Earth-air tubes, providing AC for the energy price of a fan for twenty five years($6000.00 cost to install) There are myriads of solutions if we would simply start employing them.

You're right, we will need a grid, a smart one at that. What I meant by decentralized is decentralized generating. We will still need a grid to move power around, but we don't need centralized coal or nuke fired plants anymore. But that's where corporate America makes it's money, so they will indeed fight tooth and nail to retain them, we've seen that over the past thirty years.

Oh, one other thing, cost for solar/watt has gone down, it's about a third of the figure you quoted. Just thought I'd let you know.

[Statistical]

25. Well I agree with everything you said except

I still think we will over next 30-40 years need large plants (less plants, smaller plants) but still plants as we make this transition.

You think we can do it with 0% from traditional large scale production. I think we can do it with 20% from traditional large scale production. Right now we are doing it with 98% traditional large scale production.

If I am right and we will need 20% and it will be a slow decline from 98% to 20% I would rather due it with nuclear than oil, coal, or nat gas.

As far as solar. Show me a system completely installed for $2per watt. They don't exist. Not that I have seen.

Panels alone are $3-$4 per watt add inverters, wiring, mounting, install costs (plus batteries, power point charger for off grid system) and you are not anywhere near $2 per watt.

[bvar22]

27. Conservation would be the most logical and most effective first step.

Have you seen the "night time" photos of the US taken from a satellite?
The amount of electricity (energy) squandered in this nation is GIGANTIC.

I lived on a Solar Powered Houseboat for 3 years.
Living with Solar Power is an effective way to change ones habits about power consumption. Because of the need to "budget" consumption, frivolous uses of electricity are eliminated (or you wind up sitting in the dark).


If everyone reduced their frivolous uses of electricity to the level required for living on Solar Power, there would be no need for Solar Power.
(Hint: It is supposed to be dark at night.)

I currently don't live on the Solar Powered Houseboat, but the habits and awareness I learned have stuck with me. Conservation and Passive energy saving systems are now our focus.

Solar Powered Clothes Dryer

[Sequoia]

9. Advantage?!!! Destorying whole mountains is an ADVANTAGE!!!??

Good lord, you must be mad. The only advantage is money for the corporations who are doing it. Cheaper for them then to go underground. Streams destroyed, fish, trees, birds and all the critters that come with it. Yes those cute little squirrles and racoons too. But hey, who cares if you live in the city with pavement and concrete, just kill all nature and blacken your lungs.

[imdjh]

12. How and where do you want the coal to be mined? It's a simple question.

[Sequoia]

18. Your backyard of course !

Mountain top removal is lazy and wasteful as hell. Going underground just cuts into the profits and all those safety issues are such a bother I guess. There's plenty of coal underground in that area and even other states on the eastern side. If you haven't seen the areas where the mountain top removals were or even a before or after photo then just Goggle some photos of it.

[imdjh]

23. So you want them to shaft mine it. OK.

[Statistical]

3. If you want to stop coal support nuclear.

The nuclear boggie man has simply driven the expansion of the absolute worst possible energy choice.

Hell even natural gas burns a magnitude cleaner than coal ever will be.

Clean coal is like having 4 turds floating in a glass of drinking water, scooping one out and calling it clean. Drink up, its 25% cleaner!

[MadHound]

13. Sorry, but nuclear isn't the answer either

Not until you figure out what to do with the waste, eliminate human error, oh, and get those nuke plants privately insured instead of having them subsidized with our tax money.

There is plenty of potential power in solar and wind to power our entire country and then some. But what it means is an end to the centralized power system which put a few corporations in charge. Instead, every single building will be generating its own power and selling the excess that they produce. The corporations lose lots of money, we the people come out ahead, *gasp* can't have that happening.

[Statistical]

16. Rather than repeat it all see post #11.

There are substantial costs not just financial to going gridless.

[Javaman]

31. please then inform us as to the cost to build and maintain nuclear

reactors on the scale that we require to run power this nation?

[redqueen]

5. It's not his mind we need to change... it's the EPA's testing procedures.

He directed them to re-test, they did and still think this is fine.

We can pressure Obama to pressure the EPA... but he is already on record on MTR.

[ensho]

6. so we keep on bothering Obama and the EPA loudly

and constantly talking to the Sen. and House.


climate change is NOT waiting.

tick tick

[Odin2005]

19. This is what happens when NIMBYists get in the way of nuclear power.

France gets most of it's energy from nuclear. Based on NIMBYist scaremongering they should all be glowing in the dark. :eyes: When James Lovelock of all people supports nuclear and think the NIMBYists are a bunch of morons that is pretty damning.

[MadHound]

20. And for the past decade France has been doing what with it's waste?

Oh, yeah, dumping it in the ocean, some off the coast of Somolia even. Now that's real healthy.

Not to mention those times when drought strikes Europe and France can't run it's nukes due to not enough cooling water, what then? Oh, yeah, death and catastrophe.

Unlike France, the US has enough clean, green, renewable resources to power our entire country without resorting to nuclear or coal. But of course that means switching to a decentralized power generating model, something Corporate America is going to fight tooth and nail.

Congratulations on carrying Corporate America's water for them.

[ensho]

22. Fl's. nuke plant on the Gulf almost had to shut down last summer due

to the Gulf water being too hot.

bet this summer it will be even hotter.

some say they could make the intake pipes go further out and deeper into the gulf looking for cool water.

how long would that take?

[imdjh]

24. We're actually running cooler this year. Air temp and water temp are down compared to last year.

[ensho]

26. just wait, its only 6/3

nt

[imdjh]

28. Use your power company website

If you go to Progress Energy you can see a comparison of this month to this month last year.

I didn't mean that this last three days has been cool. I meant that May 2009 was significantly cooler than May 2008. April 2009 was also cooler than 2008.

The comparison is avg high, avg low, and avg temp.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. I'm very, very upset by this.

I wonder if Obama has seen the Sundance documentary "Burning the Future." It's a heartbreaker.

[kenny blankenship]

30. All he expects from W. Va is cheap coal & cheap filler to stuff body bags.