Burning the Future: Coal in America

[Blue_In_AK]

Did anyone else watch this film on Sundance last night? http://www.burningthefuture.com/show.asp?content_id=14089

It was so disturbing to me, especially seeing all those "clean coal" ads with Obama touting its virtues.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I saw those

and to say I am disappointed is an understatement.
However, he did take this stance before he was elected.
I opposed it then, too.
Now since he is elected...it is part of the package of what we elected.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. This film really got me upset

and I see at that website that eight more community activists were arrested yesterday. This is serious business, and I don't hear anyone talking about it.

8 more arrests at Coal River Mountain
2/3/2009



Eight more arrests following second wave of citizen protest at toxic coal sludge lake and mountaintop removal site.
Massey Energy blasting would endanger community, destroy permanent renewable energy potential.

PETTUS, W.Va. � This morning five activists, who had chained themselves to a bulldozer and an excavator, and one videographer were arrested for trespassing at a mountaintop removal site. By afternoon, dozens of local residents, friends and supporters from throughout Appalachia converged at the mine's gate. Eight more citizens were arrested in the afternoon action.

The latest wave of protesters, trained in and committed to non-violence, delivered a letter to mine company officials. The letter, ultimately intended for Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, insists that Massey cease the mountaintop removal operation on Coal River Mountain. (A copy of the letter is posted at
http://climategroundzero.com/gate_letter.pdf).

Blasting for part of the operation could begin at any time, very close to a nine-billion-gallon toxic coal waste sludge dam called the Brushy Fork Impoundment. Blasting would occur above underground mines close to the dam and the lake of toxic coal waste it impounds.

Instead of mountaintop removal, residents and their supporters are advocating for a wind farm on the site as a safe alternative for cleaner energy and long-term jobs (www.coalriverwind.org <http://www.coalriverwind.org/> ).

"I fear for my friends and all the people living below this coal sludge dam," said Gary Anderson, who lives on the mountain near the site. "Blasting beside the dam, over underground mines, could decimate the valley for miles. The 'experts' said that the Buffalo Creek sludge dam was safe, but it failed. They said that the TVA sludge dam was safe, but it failed. Massey is setting up an even greater catastrophe here."

In 1972, a sludge dam operated by Pittston Coal Company failed and killed 125 people in Buffalo Creek, W.Va.

In 2000, a sludge dam operated by Massey Energy in Martin County, Ky., released approximately 300 million gallons of coal waste that broke through into underground mines. The EPA called that the worst environmental disaster in the Southeast.

Then, in December 2008, a coal ash sludge impoundment operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) failed near Harriman, Tenn. That disaster released over one billion gallons of toxic sludge that destroyed three homes, damaged twelve more and covered 300 acres.

The Brushy Fork coal sludge impoundment currently contains seven billion gallons and has a nine-billion-gallon capacity.

Residents have lost faith in their state government and taken their plea nationally.
Climate expert James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, "President Obama, please look at Coal River Mountain. Your strongest supporters are counting on you to stop this madness."

"We can't sit by while Massey jeopardizes the lives and homes of thousands of people," said Vernon Haltom of Naoma, W.Va. "Governor Manchin and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection have proven that they are unwilling to protect the citizens. What do they expect us to do? Will they wait until we're in body bags to take this threat seriously?"

A 2008 report by the federal Office of Surface Mining revealed serious deficiencies in the WVDEP�s regulation of coal waste dams (www.wvgazette.com/News/200901110512?page=1&build=cache <http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200901110512?page=1&build=cache> ).

In November, WVDEP approved a permit revision allowing Massey to begin the mountaintop removal operation. Despite citizens' objections, DEP denied public participation in its decision process.

Anderson added, "We need to stop the madness and stop Massey from blowing up our beautiful mountain. We need to go with the better energy option, and that's a wind farm, which is perfect for Coal River Mountain. We could have a green energy future for the country, starting right here."

Arrested in the morning action were Rory McImoil, Matt Noerpel, James McGuiness
Mike Roselle, Glen Collins and videographer Chad Stevens.

Arrested in the afternoon action were Lorelie Scarbro, Larry Gibson, Charles Nelson, Missy Petty, Mary Wildfire, Vernon Haltom, Allen Johson and Heather Sprouse

For updates, photos and video footage, go to http://climategroundzero.org <http://climategroundzero.org/> .

posted by: Somebody @ 2:32pm

Do people not care because these are just some poor hillbillies living in the mountains? (And I can say that because I was born a poor hillbilly.) This just makes me sick.

[StreetKnowledge]

3. Better idea here

Those coal companies that are resulting in toxic groundwater are violating federal law. The EPA should be headed out there to say "look, can you not tell me there is a way to do this without destroying the environment and breaking the law?" If they say no, shut 'em down right then and there.

Besides that, burning coal for power is idiotic. A better idea would be setting one of those big goals. Here, it's "Here is the new power production laws. After 2025, we will not legally allow fossil fuels to be burned to generate electricity. Period, no exceptions. We will do whatever we can to help you achieve this goal, but we will not accept any compromises. Get to it."

The result would be power utilities hurriedly focusing efforts on hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, wind turbines and in some cases, solar cells, geothermal energy and tidal generators. Offer up loans at minimal (maybe 0.5%) interest in order to spur this along, but require a laid out plan of what you are using this money for.

In the next decade and a half, the result will be a major, major investment by the government and energy firms. But the other result is a mountain of construction, engineering and industrial jobs, most of which pay very well. A big load of steel needed to build all of these, which requires coal mining (The West and the Appalachians will be happy), iron ore mining (Minnesota benefits) and all places that produce steel.

At the end of the project, the power companies have big debts but minimal fuel costs, thus in the longer term they get to have newer infrastructure and fewer operating costs. Result: bigger profits.

Knock-on effect: Much less coal mining for power. We don't want to lose those jobs either, right? So we go the energy independence route - the subsidized building of plants to take that coal and turn it into oil.

That technology has existed for decades, first applied on a commercial scale by South African producer Sasol shortly after WWII. Half of South Africa's oil is produced this way, and it employs over 20,000 people. Now, imagine that making up America's 7 million barrels a day of imported oil. The processes, powered via the nuclear power plants, wind turbines and hydroelectric dams mentioned earlier, make for American energy independence. And real independence - the United States FAR outnumbers the rest of the world in coal reserves. And even if we must import it, Canada, Australia, most of Europe and even Japan has exportable coal reserves.

Obama can set this in motion. Set a goal - all of this will be reality by 2030. After December 31, 2029, we will tax any profit by an American oil company that does not produce its oil this way at a rate of 95% of each dollar profit. (Imagine the fits that will give ExxonMobil. ;) ) America will provide all of the necessary legal assistance possible and we will offer minimal interest loans for this to be done, but if the companies want to stay in business past 2030, get cracking.

Would the GOP scream and bitch and complain? Most would, yes. But those with brains will quickly see "s***, this is a good idea."

Create jobs, a better future for America, and build a better infrastructure, without bankrupting Washington.

And what downside is their to this, again?



:D

[Blue_In_AK]

4. These people's wells were being contaminated

to the point where the water was running black out of their taps, people are breaking out in terrible rashes, children are having kidney failure. It was a really heartbreaking film.

Surely there's a better way to mine coal than mountaintop removal. According to the film, mountaintop coal mining employs far fewer people than traditional coal mining did.

Your ideas are good ones -- I'd just like to see the coal part eliminated altogether, at least in areas where people's lives are so adversely affected.

[drm604]

5. The downside is the last part of your plan.

The downside is the continued mining of coal, and the burning of the oil created from it. This would continue the environmental destruction caused by coal mining and the release of CO2 caused by the burning of the oil.

The rest of your plan sounds great.

[amborin]

6. terrible...and green initiatives in general are now threatened

by the economic crisis

scary