• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The World’s Largest Coal Mining Company Is Closing 37 Sites

joG said:
Of course investment goes, where the taxpayer subsidises it or givernment forces prices to consumers up. That is natural.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Media_Truth said:
The experts say that you actually end up with more tonnage of nuclear waste than you start with...

Reprocessing and Nuclear Waste | Union of Concerned Scientists

This statement is contradicted by recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which show that repro¬cessing greatly increases the total volume of radioactive waste, compared to direct disposal of spent fuel.[ii]

And since when do you, a climate-change denier, care about emissions?
Click to expand...

Our nuclear waste rules need to be rewritten, to include only actual nuclear waste, rather than anything
that ever crossed the gate at a nuclear plant.
beyond that reprocessing, as in the type that Jimmy Carter stopped, was not efficient,
but did reduce the net radioactivity of the waste.
The process I am talking about is not reprocessing, but using the waste as fuel.
WAMSR (Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor) - eGeneration
I have not denied that the climate changes, or that Humans have contributed to that change,
I happen to think, based on the data that the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is at the low end of the IPCC range.
That said, I am not worried about CO2 emissions, but rather our real problem, which is energy.
Nuclear will need to play a large role in our energy demands, until the renewable s are ready to fill the void.
We simply do not have enough fossil fuels, to allow the entire worlds population to live at first world standards.
Our goal should not be to lower anyone's living standards, but to come up with a solution to raise everyone who wants to be raised.
 
longview said:
Our nuclear waste rules need to be rewritten, to include only actual nuclear waste, rather than anything
that ever crossed the gate at a nuclear plant.
beyond that reprocessing, as in the type that Jimmy Carter stopped, was not efficient,
but did reduce the net radioactivity of the waste.
The process I am talking about is not reprocessing, but using the waste as fuel.
WAMSR (Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor) - eGeneration
I have not denied that the climate changes, or that Humans have contributed to that change,
I happen to think, based on the data that the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is at the low end of the IPCC range.
That said, I am not worried about CO2 emissions, but rather our real problem, which is energy.
Nuclear will need to play a large role in our energy demands, until the renewable s are ready to fill the void.
We simply do not have enough fossil fuels, to allow the entire worlds population to live at first world standards.
Our goal should not be to lower anyone's living standards, but to come up with a solution to raise everyone who wants to be raised.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the results rewrite the rules and guidelines. In other words, redefine the science. Molten Salt is an old technology, that was unsafe and unfeasible. That's why it was abandoned. But I guess you would like this overbudgeted industry, that is notorious for huge cost overruns, often 2-3 times original estimates, to be granted some more Federal money to further research this DEAD technology. When waste storage is factored in, Nuclear is the most expensive energy on the planet. When the support of the NRC is factored in, the costs are even higher.
And that doesn't factor in the waste management expense for future generations.
 
Media_Truth said:
If you don't like the results rewrite the rules and guidelines. In other words, redefine the science. Molten Salt is an old technology, that was unsafe and unfeasible. That's why it was abandoned. But I guess you would like this overbudgeted industry, that is notorious for huge cost overruns, often 2-3 times original estimates, to be granted some more Federal money to further research this DEAD technology. When waste storage is factored in, Nuclear is the most expensive energy on the planet. When the support of the NRC is factored in, the costs are even higher.
And that doesn't factor in the waste management expense for future generations.
Click to expand...
Molten salt reactors were not used because they did not produce waste that could be refined into weapons grade material.
If Nuclear is high cost, those costs have to do with excessive regulations.
Perhaps it is time to stop building custom designs, and build to a standard design.
 
holbritter said:
There are 40,000 coal miners today. If we are going to do away with coal 100%, they need to support and train all those people for new fields of work, not just add them to the welfare rolls.
Click to expand...

While I feel for those 40,000 people, that number of jobs is like a weekly fluctuation in the US job market. Even adding every last one of them to "the welfare rolls" isn't exactly a devastating scenario. I don't think they need a special program just for coal miners. There are ways already to get training for new jobs. These guys aren't entirely unskilled.
 
holbritter said:
There are 40,000 coal miners today. If we are going to do away with coal 100%, they need to support and train all those people for new fields of work, not just add them to the welfare rolls.
Click to expand...

Being in Kentucky, Coal is a sensitive topic. Many people in the (sparsely populated) Eastern Kentucky region know little else than mining. As those jobs have decreased, it has hit an already poor area very hard. Some efforts are underway to retrain them to computer programmers or manufacturers, but the area doesn't have the infrastructure to support either industry.

I'm 100% for alternative energies, but money alone isn't going to solve the problem with the coal mining industry. It's not just the 40,000 jobs today, but the impact on generations to come. Yes, they should move to find work, but then family pride and history come into play. It's a hard situation.
 
longview said:
Molten salt reactors were not used because they did not produce waste that could be refined into weapons grade material.
If Nuclear is high cost, those costs have to do with excessive regulations.
Perhaps it is time to stop building custom designs, and build to a standard design.
Click to expand...

In your byline, you list yourself as Conservative. So you want to leave wastes that future generations have to manage for hundreds of thousands of years, without receiving any benefit? That's liberal to the Nth degree, in my book.
 
Media_Truth said:
In your byline, you list yourself as Conservative. So you want to leave wastes that future generations have to manage for hundreds of thousands of years, without receiving any benefit? That's liberal to the Nth degree, in my book.
Click to expand...
I am a fiscal conservative, I think our Government should make efficient us of the peoples money.
Using what is now considered a waste product to generate electricity, sounds to me more like a good idea than a political choice.
 
longview said:
I am a fiscal conservative, I think our Government should make efficient us of the peoples money.
Using what is now considered a waste product to generate electricity, sounds to me more like a good idea than a political choice.
Click to expand...

I've responded to Molten Salt Reactors before, and this is the link that I used. It's rather easy to cite pie-in-the-sky, untested technology as the solution to Future Energy, but in this case, it has been tried, right here in the US in the 1960s, and it still isn't "cleaned up".

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default.../nuclear_power/thorium-reactors-statement.pdf

Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature
liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors.
However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the
retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively
resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they
involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and
to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of
the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of
the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that
Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up.
 
Media_Truth said:
I've responded to Molten Salt Reactors before, and this is the link that I used. It's rather easy to cite pie-in-the-sky, untested technology as the solution to Future Energy, but in this case, it has been tried, right here in the US in the 1960s, and it still isn't "cleaned up".

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default.../nuclear_power/thorium-reactors-statement.pdf

Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature
liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors.
However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the
retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively
resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they
involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and
to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of
the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of
the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that
Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up.
Click to expand...

If the choice is between nuclear power and coal, I would go with nuclear,
We at least have a chance a building a better Nuclear reactor, Coal will always have issues.
Beside it seems that not everyone is placing all their faith in the Idaho National Laboratory report.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...e-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/
 
longview said:
If the choice is between nuclear power and coal, I would go with nuclear,
We at least have a chance a building a better Nuclear reactor, Coal will always have issues.
Beside it seems that not everyone is placing all their faith in the Idaho National Laboratory report.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...e-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/
Click to expand...

China, huh? Yeah, they can probably more readily work around the red tape. I seem to recall a movie called the China Syndrome, about a nuclear power plant. Maybe they will create a movie titled the America Syndrome. They've certainly had their problems with large Engineering feats. The Banqiao Dam failure killed 171,000 people, and displaced 11 million. And there have been many other historical Engineering blunders. You banking on the Communist regime?
 
Media_Truth said:
China, huh? Yeah, they can probably more readily work around the red tape. I seem to recall a movie called the China Syndrome, about a nuclear power plant. Maybe they will create a movie titled the America Syndrome. They've certainly had their problems with large Engineering feats. The Banqiao Dam failure killed 171,000 people, and displaced 11 million. And there have been many other historical Engineering blunders. You banking on the Communist regime?
Click to expand...
Actually it is research that has been ongoing at MIT and other places,
The Chinese seem to be the first to attempt to build a production size reactor.
 
[h=2]Japan: Fifty solar PV companies already gone in 2017 as subsidies end. Coal soaring.[/h]
[h=3]What’s the word for competitive-but-needs-a-subsidy? Broke…[/h]One hundred solar PV companies are forecast to collapse in Japan this year alone.
Up to 100 solar PV firms in Japan could face bankruptcy this year, with more than double the number of firms going bust in the first half of this year than the same period in 2016.
According to corporate credit research company Teikoku Databank, which surveys companies across various industries and has produced its third report on solar PV company bankruptcies, 50 companies in Japan’s solar sector have already gone out of business in the first six months of 2017.
While the market overall has rapidly expanded from the launch of the feed-in tariff (FiT) in July 2012, Teikoku Databank acknowledged that there has been a slowdown in deployment in the past couple of years as the government successively made cuts of 10% or more on an annual basis to the premium prices paid for solar energy fed into the grid.
Bankruptcies have doubled in the industry since last year.
[h=4]Meanwhile Japan plans to build at least 45 HELE Coal Plants.[/h]Check out the map of “coal in versus coal out” in Japan. For a dying technology things are not looking too shabby.
Thanks to the EndCoal Tracker
​
Current operating coal fired plants in Japan, 2017.
Current operating coal fired plants in Japan, 2017.
​
Coal seems to be doing just fine.
h/t Marvin.
PS: The EndCoal Tracker is published by “CoalSwarm“. Where the global EndSolarSubsidies Tracker? All that fossil fuel funding, and no activist group to track the parasites?
 
Wasn't I just talking about modern technology in another thread...

About how China still planning to build old technology is bad, as the alarmists give China the thumbs up for building less than planned...

Didn't I chastise people for not scoffing at China because they are still planning old technology coal instead of new...

These alarmists are amazingly indoctrinated and ignorant.
 
Didn't know where to post this:



Modern machines chewing up the earth!

Check out 12:15 pulling a tree out by it's roots & shaking the dirt off (-:
 
Coal
[h=1]Coal is #1… again.[/h]Guest post by David Middleton Politics and Energy Coal Is Number One STEPHEN MOORE July 28, 2017, 12:05 am Before Donald Trump came along, it was left for dead. Quick: what was the number one source of electricity production in the U.S. during the first half of 2017? If you answered renewable energy, you are…
 

[h=1]In a first, U.S. ships coal to Ukraine[/h]U.S. aims to counter Russian influence with natural resources, though Ukraine’s roadmap for the energy emphasizes nuclear power. From UPI. By Daniel J. Graeber | Aug. 22, 2017 at 5:46 AM Aug. 22 (UPI) — Coal shipped from the United States could help address energy security issues in Ukraine, the nation’s energy secretary…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom