$nbsp;

Tired of the anti-coal agenda

 
LOADING
Dec 26, 2008 - 04:05:19 CST
By CARROLL SATHER
Bismarck
I for one, am getting tired of seeing and hearing the anti-coal commercials in the media. Al Gore and his ilk are spending $100 million to spread their agenda around. It seems that they truly want to get rid of coal-fired electric generation plants. With the power plants providing more than 50 percent of electric power in the U.S., I wonder where they think this affordable power is going to come from. Not to leave out all the employment the industry provides. I think the electric generation plant owners have made real progress and spent many millions of dollars to scrub the emissions.

However, the Al Gore agenda goes way further. There is big money to be made in “carbon,” and they are laying the tracks for another train wreck for the populace of the world. They will make big money until this happens. Some of the catch words and phrases that some have heard, some have not, are, global warming, climate change, carbon footprint, carbon tax, carbon emission trading, green chemistry, carbon credits, emission reduction units, millennium reduction goals, cap and trade, cap and share and carbon offsets. Any of these can be easily looked up for clearer definition.

The trading of carbon credits is already happening. This, IMHO, is about the same as the scam the Wall Street and banking crooks have pulled on us with the “credit derivatives,” “equity default swaps,” and “equity default put.” With the SEC looking the other way, of course.

According to Wikipedia, the European Union Emission Trading System Scheme has been going on for some years. In 2005, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme traded 362 million tons of carbon credits for a sum on 7.2 billion Euros, and a large number of futures.

This all goes way deeper and is more involved, and we are all being slowly ensnared in this scheme. If they get their way, we will all pay and get back virtually nothing. Power, greed and money gets its way over all of us. We are living through this right now with the housing/banking/Wall Street debacle, the national elections, government bailouts of all kinds and the Fed out of control.

I wish I could figure out an easy way to make money like that, maybe like selling somebody one of the billions of stars out there to put your name on. Oops, someone is already doing that.
News > Opinion
   Printer friendly version
Tired of the anti-coal agenda
Comments

mom-of-teens wrote on Jan 4, 2009 4:26 PM:

" Here again, I hardly think that any terrorist attack under Clinton compares to 9-11; 9-11 happened on Bush's watch; but he was too busy taking vacations to see this as a real threat. Bin Laden is still at large 8 years later; that's a slap in the face to those who lost their lives on that day and those who lost loved ones! Once again, Bush SUPPORTED the subprime mortgage mess and Congress backed him! Nothing you or Dew can say will make me change my mind about him, he will go down in history in my opinion as the ABSOLUTE worst president this country has ever seen!! "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:59 PM:

" Dear Mrs Here again. I am not familiar with the term "condense" related to the production of hydro power. Please explain how you allow a water turbine to "condense". Never heard of such a thing, but would like to know. Is it a slang term? "

Here again wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:17 PM:

" MOT:I am not disagreeing with you that there are issues with the Bush presidency, but, once again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Bush and others warned against this mortgage mess, which started during the Carter Admin. The R's tried to stop the mess, but they were not filibuster proof and the D's used the filibuster to stop them. The B. Caucus kept it going. Look at the voting records of politicians - do not listen to what they think you want to hear. (Did they give BO all that money because he was going to vote AGAINST them?)Also Americans were targeted but not HIT recently...big difference. You also do not seem to understand that embassies and military bases ARE American Soveriegn soil until the US vacates them or is forced off. What Dew is saying is those other attacks WERE on US soil and he is correct. "

Here Again wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Ezra: Bright one are you not? I am am also a "mom of teens" how can I be a mister? None the less, you are correct in talking about the natural flow of the river prior to the construction of the dams. Bismarck once flooded from about Buffalo Wild Wings on south. Take out the dam.....let her go. Mandan was a mess too. I am a good 200 feet higher, but there are many who read these pages who would lose everything. I learned as a child not to build or buy below the 100 year flood line...35 years ago we were "just high enough" - 3 feet(?) in a town far from here. So now the dam is here and we go from no dam discharge to full load? With that thought process out there no need to wonder why our society has problems...... "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 7:52 PM:

" Dear Pick a problem, the concept seems to be difficult for you. I will try again. On days where there is a surplus of wind energy, you cut back the release from the dam to equal the output from the wind. Water backs up behind the dam and is stored as potential energy. You turn the potential energy into AC or DC when ever you want. You have stored AC energy. If you were producing AC energy with a gas fired turbine, and you turned it off when wind power was available, and left the gas in the ground, you have successfully stored energy. The coal industry would like to promote the idea that wind energy cannot be stored. If you want to create this impression, you can, however it serves a deceitful purpose. If you wanted to be technical the battery in your car is not storing DC. Until you turn the switch it is potential energy tied up in a chemical process. The only practical reason to play this game is to give the public a false impression that intelligent use of energy is not practical. "

pick a problem wrote on Jan 2, 2009 7:07 PM:

" Ezra. Energy and electricity are not interchangable terms. Yes potential energy can be stored, but I wasn't talking about potential energy, I was talking about electrical current. Potential energy is not the same thing as electrical current. Once you have generated current you cannot store alternate current (AC) which is what the entire world runs on. (your little batteries are DC, not AC) So you see that is where the problem lies with the less reliable sources of energy once the current is generated it is either used or lost. Why do you think the power companies offer "off-peak power pricing?"

Wind energy requires a back-up. Wind, coal, hydroelectic are all AC sources. Now that we are on the same page with the science, and if you don't believe me, ask any physics teacher or engineer, they will explain it to you.

So clean coal is our best method of a back-up until we can find a source of energy that doesn't pollute. We can build wind towers, I am all for it. But we require a back-up, the wind is NOT reliable and we CAN'T store alternate current (AC) for when the wind isn't blowing or blowing too hard. Again I suggest you do the research, science doesn't have a party affiliation. We couldn't store AC power when Clinton was in office or Bush or even Obama. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:38 PM:

" To here again, Bush supported the subprime mortgage thing and Congress backed him. As far as Obama taking campaign contributions, that has nothing to do with the mortgage mess we are in. For eight years we have had a Repbulican president and for six years we have had a Republican Congress! They squandered our surplus and supported deregulation.............They are the ones responsible for this mess we are in! Dewdrop, as I recall they was recently a terrorist attack that targeted Americans on Bush's watch; besides 9-11. Where was that again?? If you are counting ALL terrorist attacks and not just the ones on U.S. soil, that one should count too! "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Dear Mr. Here Again. Back in the old days when there were no dams on the Missouri, flow rates changed a lot more dramatically than they do now. How did that work for the fish and erosion? Wasn't the natural cycle of the Missouri to change level dramatically? Erosion was much more dramatic before the dam. Look at any stream that floods, and you will see massive erosion. Wildlife that occupies wild rivers adapts to changing conditions, that is the nature of the universe. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:33 AM:

" After the exposure of the deceit during the Bush years it is going to be very hard to sell Americans on bogus ideas like clean coal. If nothing else Bush has taught us not to trust the ruling elite. Americans have become skeptical and the adds of the coal industry are going to have to be a lot more clever. We may be slow learners, but at least the last election showed the majority of Americans do learn. North Dakota will be slow to face reality, but reality is like the future, you cannot stop it from happening. Bush tried to tell us intellectuals were not to be trusted we should put our faith in people like him who make decisions from the gut. It will be people who make decisions with their brain not their gut that get us out of the mess he created. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:52 AM:

" A variety of sources list energy consumption per capital by country including Wikipedia. Far and away the United States is one of the biggest wasters. Other well developed countries with better social systems get by with from a third less to a half less energy that what is used by our country. A glance at the chart should make it very evident what we could achieve by simply using our energy rationally. As a moral issue, how do we justify using energy for such silly purposes as excessive lighting, huge heavy cars and a host of other idiocies while people in other parts of the world don't have the energy to grow crops? "

JC wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:40 AM:

" SAM: I did a little research on THorium as a fuel, it has some attractive features,(a bright shiney metal until exposed to oxides) just joking. It looks like it is still experimental, which is fine, Russia and India have had success with it. The main vein or supply in the USA is in Idaho, they'll probably throw a fit about digging in their back yard, but we can't please everyone. Then after we've used the Seed Fuel U (3 years) and the Blanket Fuel Th (up to 14 years), then comes disposal. We can send that to Utah I guess and let our great,great,great grand-children worry about it. A couple hundred years from now people will look back and wonder just how dumb their fore-fathers really were. Here's a list both Pro and Con on Thorium: The main attractive features are:
- the possibility of utilising a very abundant resource which has hitherto been of so little interest that it has never been quantified properly,
- the production of power with few long-lived transuranic elements in the waste,
- reduced radioactive wastes generally.
The problems include:

the high cost of fuel fabrication, due partly to the high radioactivity of U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 (69 year half life but whose daughter products such as thallium-208 are strong gamma emitters with very short half lives);
the similar problems in recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present;
some weapons proliferation risk of U-233 (if it could be separated on its own); and
the technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing solid fuels. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Bewildered, I can go along with calling the stored water potential energy. What I was trying to explain to the dinger was that the energy is in fact stored, and can be easily converted to AC. Sometimes it is hard to see the forest because the trees get in the way. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:30 AM:

" Dear bewildered, if you look at these post carefully you will find that I freely admitted I was not totally aware how the load of the dam is managed, and in fact asked someone to let me know. The whole issue is load management. As you probably know not nearly the amount of load management is done, that could be done. Beyond the dam there is a lot of potential with the use of computers to manage loads unlike we were able to in the past. Most appliances could be timed to run at optimum times. The incentive for load management is directly related to cost. low cost equals little incentive. The simple truth is we mismanage, misuse , and waste a great deal of energy. Rather than burn a lot more coal I am proposing we conserve energy and get to the same place. However, a different set of people make money by conserving, and that is why the special interest are not warm to the idea. "

Bewildered wrote on Jan 2, 2009 7:49 AM:

" First of all, water stored behind a damn isn't kinetic energy, its potential energy. The water has the potential to fall. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. Second of all, the Garrison dam does discharge more when the energy demand is higher, they have done that for years. It has nothing to do with the wind. Third point, the Garrison Dam can't deliver nearly enough power to supply what we need. Why do you think all the coal plants were built up here, starting in the early 1960's? The biggest problem I see, the the people blind acceptance of fact, as soon as it spews out of somebodies mouth. Energy is a complex issue, there isn't a single fix all around. Everything we propose has a potential cost or benefit, depending on what your point of view is. "

Here again wrote on Jan 2, 2009 6:56 AM:

" Ezra; Can you say "They already do that"? When the wind is blowing they back off the turbines at Garrison allowing at least one to "condense" and it is their "spinning reserve". They will use the wind and then pick load back up at Garrison when the wind dies. What would happen to the river (and wildlife) if they just stopped flow while the wind was blowing? If you haven't noticed increasing and decreasing the river flow a few feet each day to follow electrical load wrecks havoc with the river banks and creates serious erosion issues. That is why you see areas with heavy rip-rapping between Bismarck and the dam. Attractive, huh? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:50 PM:

" Dear pick a problem did they teach any science in your school system. There is something called kinetic energy. Water stored behind a dam is kinetic energy. When the water behind the dam goes through the turbines it can be turned into AC power. Yup, that means you can store AC power. You could even make it into DC power if you wanted. Science is neat if you understand it. When you are backing up water behind a dam you are effectively storing power. What don't you understand about this? "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:40 PM:

" MOT.... do some homework....

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993

Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel.

The USS Cole, also under the Clinton watch!

Don't you know any history? "

Here again wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:05 PM:

" To Mom of Teens: (as am I) you had better do your research. In a nutshell, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did what they did due to being coerced into "helping" people into homes they could not afford. (There is video footage on the internet of the head of Freddie Mac speaking of working with the Black Caucus when Obama was introduced.) Carter started it, Clinton and the Democrats promoted it . Obama was one of the top 3 recipients of campaign contributions from this group prior to the election before they went down. Several Republicans (including both George W and McCain) warned of this several times - starting years ago. I am not happy with what George W. has done, but you do a little more research here...... "

Pick a Problem wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:03 PM:

" Ezra...I love the idea of the Garrison Damn storing energy. But you see Alernate current (AC) CAN'T be stored....by anyone. Not even in France! If you could manage to store alternate current you would be the richest man on the planet. So back to the drawing board! Do some research on AC vs. DC current if you don't believe me.

This is why it is a problem for the wind turbines when the wind doesn't blow and AGAIN when the wind blows too hard. The wind turbines only work during the optimal wind range and there are many days in ND that the wind is TOO high for the turbines (I think that is like 28 mph)...by the way...those are also some of the coldest days here in good ol' ND. Your going to have to do more than turn off the TV's at Best Buy if you don't want coal to burn and you want to live on wind turbines.

Oh I noticed on the other top 10 comments, about the scenic view of ND, you seem to be against building things that destroy our view....one might think you were contradicting yourself. You want the Garrison Damn in this post and on the other top comment post you don't want to destroy our view, the Garrison Damn destroyed most of the natural beauty of the river in this state and are wind turbines are pretty? You can't have things both ways....and most importantly you can't store alternate current! "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Ezra... The USA has always been different than other countries.... that is why so many people want to come here! You keep talking about 'waste'. How do you heat your home? I have had a GSHP for my house and shop for close to 10 years now. Can you match that? I know there are some people that have put up their own wind towers to produce their own power. Have you done that? We taught our kids to turn off a light if they were going to leave a room for more than 10 minutes. There are a lot of people that conserve in many ways. I guess most of us should justt urn off our computers..... that would save a lot also!

There may be waste in Las Vegas but, it sure puts a lot of people to work! There is a lot of waste in other areas. Do we need all these large sports stadiums that are going up all over that do not get paid for by the teams or the people that go to see the games! The tax payer ends up footing that and the cost of all the power that is needed .... well, you get my drift....

I am all for nuclear energy, always have been but, there are people that are afraid of it... real or unreal the fears are there. How about all the people that are fightinig the wind towers in this area? What is the fear of the wind towers? That they are goingt on fall on them?

There is not just one answer to the enegy problem.... we need them all! And it is time that we got to it, to do it all! For now, I think coal is good because we need time to get the nuclear plants up and going, that does not happen overnight. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:35 PM:

" Dewdrop, please provide examples of being attacked on U.S. soil under Clinton!! The one I recall happened on Bush's watch, not Clintons! As far as America not being ruined; you are somewhat right. America is NOT ruined; however our ECONOMY is thanks to Bush and his idiot administration! Lucky for us, Obama will move into the Whitehouse THIS WEEKEND and Bush can go back to Texas and let someone intelligent clean up his mess! As far as the whole mortgage thing; Bush got the ball rolling on the mortgage bubble and deregulation and Congress backed him, which was Republican of course, so don't blame the Democrats for that mess. Keep spewing your nonsense if you want to but most everyone is getting tired of it. Sorry you are taking the Mccain loss so HARD, but it's high time to get over it and move on! The Bush/Cheney rein of terror is over and there is nothing you can do about it! "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:20 PM:

" PD......
No, my business is still going ..... because Obama is not in office yet! He seems to be doing an about face on the idea of taxing the RICH, which does not include me except, for the fact that my business is in that group that he SAID he would raise the taxes on! So, are you going to be unhappy if he does not up the tax on the people that are making jobs for you?
The 'change' I was talking about was the people that Obama has picked to be in his cabinet..... there are more than just a few Democrats that are not real happy with him keeping some of them right where they were at under Bush!
Time will tell..... Are you all just afraid we will attack Obama just like y'all attacked Bush all these years?
I do pray that Obama keeps us safe..... Don't you?

I did have to take off from reading most of these posts for a few weeks, my business was doing overtime work.... but, that is the way it goes, some days good, some days not.... I have to get as much done now before Obama does decide to raise the taxes!
And Christmas Day was for family, not for posting on these boards! "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:15 PM:

" dante, "out of the blue"? My, oh, my.... silly you, forgot what you posted? Bush will not be in office much longer, when are you going to let go of that hate? I certainly do hope that Obama keeps us safe! I certainly hope that he can do what he promised all the people that he was going to CHANGE .... LOL..... so far the only 'change' I have seen in his picks is Hilda Solis, that one is going to be a real winner... She is so darn left, Obama's head is going to twist off! But she is the kinds of people I had expected Obama to pick.
I do think that Rahm Emanual is going to hurt him also! But, we will have to be patient and see..... "

Ezra wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:32 AM:

" Dearest DMS. You are right that any energy from all the TVs turned on in an electronics store does contribute to the heat in the building, but what about efficiency? Have you ever seen a heater that looked like a television? It strikes me that if televisions were economical heaters someone would be marketing them as such. If the store was properly insulated, you probably could heat it with televisions. However, efficiency is not a big goal when energy cost are low. If your theory is true, then it would certainly make sense to turn off the televisions in the warm months, unless of course televisions also act as air conditioners. Perhaps they do because I was in Best Buy last summer and all the Television were on, it was fairly cool in there. These modern televisions are miracles. I am technically inept so I don't understand these things. Explain to me how you cool with televisions. Got it, you put a CD with pictures of Ice. What was I thinking. "

dante wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:31 AM:

" DEW, you just cant let it go, can you? you continue to harp on this out of the blue. if we were talking about kittens and puppies, you would somehow bring your sour grapes into the subject. please stop your pathetic whining and live in the present, and please show some hope and confidence in the future. "every body have fun tonight, everybody WANG-CHUNG tonight!".... and..Happy New Year to those that would allow that to possibly happen. come on... "

Ezra wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Anyone who wants to see how civilized countries deal with nuclear power might want to read this article from today's NYT: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/utilities-offer-green-nuclear-plans-to-customers/?hp Of course most of us know this is a communist newspaper and cannot be trusted. However, Germany, and some other scandinavian countries are offering "Green" power from guess what? Yup, nuclear, but remember nuclear power cannot be produced in the States because the coal lobby atoms interfere with the IQ atoms, and the atomic atoms cannot collide until the pockets of the coal interest are full. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Dante, liked your analogy I can't wait to pitch the Bush undergarments. In this energy discussion Mr. DMS mentioned times when there is no wind. A simple solution to the no wind problem is to produce power with hydro, which is a good source of power. If dams like Garrision did no put out a lot of power when there was a good wind supply, the lake and the dam would act as a battery storing energy. However, from what I can see there is little coordination. If some one has info on this I would like to be educated. Almost every industrialized country in the world uses less energy per capita than we do, so the whole notion that you cannot have a quality life without wasting electricity is absurd. No country uses the unnecessary lighting we do, and no other country would tolerate an abomination like Las Vagas. Putting a city in the most hostile climate to produce absolutely nothing is a classic American way of saying , we have no environmental ethics whatsoever. To rob farmland of water so people can get robbed by slot machines is entirely insane. One more example of the Hummer mind set. The world is here just for me. "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:57 AM:

" dante.... your hate is still showing! Bush kept us safe for the last 7 years! How many times were we attacked under Clinton? America is not ruined! America helped to establish a free Iraq! It may not be what you wanted but, if you think you know more, why didn't you run for President? So, you can stop you complaining now, Obama will make things all better!
The mess that the Democrats in congress created by not listening to what McCain was telling them about Fannie and Freddie is expanding day by day! Will the people vote out the 'smart' people that did it? Of course not.... because we want 'change'..... and then put in the very people that benefited from it.... Who were the top people that got money from Fannie and Freddie? President-Elect was one of the top three! Oh, but, that does not matter does it?

I certainly do wonder what Obama will do about the conflict in the Gaza Strip! Will it be 'above his pay grade' like everything else is? How safe will Obama keep us? Biden said he will be tested.... that was about the only smart thing that Biden said ... EVER! "

Online Editor wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:41 AM:

" To DMS in SD: Before the pack attacks you, please review the comments. I believe Ezra is pro-nuclear power. "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Happy New Year to you, Ezra!
Happy New year to all! "

DMS in SD wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:21 AM:

" It saddens me to read how liberals like Ezra are so enveloped in hate and so total absorbed by the climate change hoax they fail to see the obvious. They are so technically inept that they do not realize the when all the TVs are on in the stores, they are in fact contributing to heating the store when its 10 below out side, and are therefore wasting no energy. But what really gets irritates me is their hypocrisy. They want to ban all hydrocarbons and despise nuclear. Cant built any more dams, it might hurt the environment! They want only solar and wind power and some other "miracle energy", which is as yet undefined. We are waiting for you to show us how it is done, and to put your efforts and your money where your mouth is. You criticize Hummers, but I bet you drive a SUV. We are waiting for you to show us how the world will be without hydrocarbons and nuclear energy and how you will heat your home when the sun is down and there is no wind. We are waiting for you to show us how our food will be grown, processed, and transported to market, and eventually your home. Let us see you park that nasty gas-burning car and peddle that bike to work in January. Let us see you leave the lights off in your store or business. If you hate coal that much, and live in ND, SD MT, WY, CO, MN, etc., you better turn off that computer! Do your part! Dont use that nasty coal-fired electricity! But you wont, will you? If you are unwilling to practice what you preach, then shut up and get out of our way and we will continue to carry your weight, just as we have always done. "

dante wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:51 AM:

" DEW, the policies of bush and his henchmen RUINED America, even worse than we can expect from any politician from ANY political party. it was and still is so openly pathetic, like watching people playing darts or poker on TV, it's that BAD!!!! BUSH and the rest didnt even try to hide it, they just thought we were all stupid, and that it was business as usual. sadly, some fell for it, some still do..... its over, its OVER.... regardless of who the next charlatans may be or not be, its time to wash or throw away the soiled underwear.... "

Ezra wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:26 AM:

" Dear Dewdrop, good luck, if you still have one cylinder working I would consider a new spark plug. "

Personal discretion wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Dewdrop - Shut your business down yet? Your posts on here are humerous if nothing else...no, nothing has changed since Obama was elected, but then, he won't be sworn in as President for a few weeks yet. "

Bewildered wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:40 AM:

" Nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear!!! I too am an engineer and used to work in Nuclear power. I agree, its relatively clean and produces reliable energy. I don't know if we will see any new, from the ground up Nuclear plants in the US in the next 10 years. It has nothing to do with the technology, or fuel availability. The hold up is the permitting process and mainly public opinion. You can go on and on, and say how other countries are doing it, and have done it. Japan's record is not spotless. Has Nuclear power ever killed anyone? Get your facts straight before spouting off. 1. A sodium leak and fire at the Monju reactor in December 1995 has left the reactor shut down to date. The government is planning to restart the reactor in 2008.

2. In 2003, 17 TEPCO plants were forced to shut down after falsifying safety records.

3. An uncontrolled reaction at Tokaimura in May 2004 killed two workers and caused radiation levels in the area to jump to more than 10 thousand times normal levels.

4. In August 2004, an accident at the Mihama reactor killed five workers


4. In August 2004, an accident at the Mihama reactor killed five workers "

JC wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:13 PM:

" SAM, CFI; do you agree slow, gentle corrections may be the most effective? Makes a smoother flight? "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:47 PM:

" EZRA: Obama won because the liberal media gave Obama 'good' coverage and McCain 'not so good' coverage! You can spin it all you want, the people do know that, in fact the NYT admitted it! It also helped that 99% of the Black population voted for Obama because he was going to save the people from themselves! They were convinced that they would not have to pay their mortgages and ther car payments. I heard a recording of one gal that spoke to her bank about her late payments on her house (Don Imus played it) and she said she did not have to make her paymets anymore because "We got Obama!"
The theme of the elecion was change but, I don't think THE DEMOCRATS are going to like the 'change' that Obama is going to bring them because, so far, I have seen NO CHANGE!
ND is slow to change? Well, when there is not reason to change, what for do it? Do you know what kind of 'change' Castro brought to Cuba? Do you know what kind of 'change' Hitler brought to Germany? Those two men were both voted in on the idea of 'change'!
I do support nuclear energy but, there are an awful lot of people that are going to say, not in my backyard! Just like the Kennedy's did to the wind towers in 'their backyard'!

BTW.... when you can get old 'get rich quick off carbon credits-Algore' to begin to use less energy, a lot of the rest of us will too! "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Sam, apparently you are not aware that the United States has a different set of physical laws than Europe and Japan. Nuclear energy works in those countries because the atoms are closer together there. In the United States Coal is the only way to go because we have plenty of it, and we will figure out some way to burn it. So please realize that the laws of physics that allow high speed trains to run in Europe do not work here. The gravity is very different in the United States. Trains here are impeded by free gravity cannot reach the speeds they do in Europe. That is why small cars will not work here, They do not have the power to overcome the higher gravity here. The higher gravity also has the effect of compressing our IQ, the net result is we are very susceptible to advertising campaigns. If you tell us you can make clean coal, we know it must be true or they
would not put it on TV. Intelligent use of energy is a socialist idea, and they don't understand the principles of greed, and unlimited consumption that have made
us great. Socialism is just communism spelled with some different letters. "

Sam wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:38 PM:

" JC: Unfortunately that's only part of the carbon-14 story. It's also created in coal from natural radioactive decay from elements (e.g., U or Th) in surrounding rock. Hence it's measurable. As a CFI-I, I know that a "little right rudder" could also make the spin worse. "

JC wrote on Dec 31, 2008 5:51 PM:

" Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. If Carbon 14 is a trace element and it has decayed in the coal, it is coming from some other source in smoke stack emissions. There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, e.g. making up as much as 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,73040 years. It decays into nitrogen-14 through beta-decay. That coal (Carbon 14) has been through many half life cycles before being brought to a power plant for use as fuel. I think you're steering us off course or as Ezra would say "SPINNING". Apply a little right rudder "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Good work Sam, please don't confuse the issue by using knowledge and facts. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Coop, remember when filters on cigarettes was the answer, didn't last long did it? "

Sam wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:39 PM:

" As a nuclear engineer and as someone who also worked in nuclear plants for several decades, I'm pro on the subject. Not because it used to pay the bills, but because it is clean and safe. We can solve the waste issues once we get beyond the emotional and litigous rhetoric. Fusion is a better way due to greatly reduced waste and needs increased research funding. A coal plant actually introduces much greater radiation into the enviroment than a nuclear plant because of naturally occurring radioactive carbon-14 as part of the emissions. Radiation from the nuclear plant is regulated, but not from the coal burning plant - go figure. Always an emotional subject unfortunately with the facts and physics usually discounted. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Dear coop, coal and cigaretts are a lot alike. You can burn them both. Both will kill you. Both take awhile to kill you. Both make some people money, Both create jobs and income. However, we have made great strides protecting the innocent from ciggaretts, unfortunately coal is a different matter. The rational that we should do something stupid because a lot of people make money form it, is a little hard for me to understand. The tobacco lobby used that line for a long time, but it doesn't seem to work for them anymore. Remember the car companies kept telling us, we are just giving you what you want. You might want cheap electricity, but perhaps a little conservation would be better. Do we really need electric can openers? What would happen if all those yard lights were turned off, or perhaps connected to motion detectors. No other country in the world wastes electricity like we do. Look at the simple minded waste of electricity in Las Vagas. "

coop wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:04 PM:

" Actually alot of the coal is owned by people who own mineral rights, farm families that go back generations and held mostly in trust for future generations. Little is owned by the companies or corporations. United States government also holds some rights and profits. "

Did you know wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I cannot remember where, but somewhere in the southern part of the country a Nuke plant was recently licensed and is well into the permitting process. I know of an individual who was being considered for an operator's position at the facility. The technology has come a long way. Just remember that a suitable replacement for coal that is affordable IS NOT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. Recently wholesale: coal $15/MW, Wind $24/MW Gas $45/ MW (and remember gas is to backup wind when it does not blow). As a rancher with tractors to start and waterers to run for livestock my electric bill in the winter is nearing my mortgage on my home quarter. (At least snow moving diesel is down.) This will be my last winter as I am too small to qualify for any subsidies. All but a few head will be gone by this time next year....... "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Dear CS, I used to work for Conoco. At that time Cononco sold, coal, uranium, gas, and oi. Then they realized they could get the most for what they had if they sold everything in order. Sell the crap first, (coal), Then sell the uranium. They realized if nuclear came into its own too early it would hurt the price of coal and oil. So along with the other energy companies they happily let the nuclear fear spread. Now, they we are forced to use it, their decision looks pretty good, but it would still be nice to get rid of a lot of the crap at the highest price. People like you made it easy to play into their hand. If you check you will see a lot of coal is owned by guess who, your buddies the oil companies. "

cs wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:40 AM:

" obviously being such a big supporter of obama ezra, you quote the theme change, changing nd from red to blue, saying these things that north dakota is obstanate to change. I did watch campaing speeches from obama and biden both on the umwa website as listed below by another commentator. Interesting, they are both push for spending dollars to make coal a cleaner burning energy for the united states. Was it because big coal forced them to do it or are they just buying votes, and decieving us? is that not obama and biden both putting lipstick on coal?

i believe you are decieving your self, and being unamerican spouting nonsense because france can do it, we should be doing it. keep bringing up the down fall of the auto industry and the cause is their lack of change. the only lack of change is the fact that they kept spending more money to keep the executives richer and suppling the majority of americans with the vehicles they wanted. The oil indusrty changed americans by shortening the production of oil, raising our prices at the pump. did big coal have anything to do with either of these? big oil are the true villians in the downfall of america, rich getting richer and the poor trying to stay afloat. only now some companies are paying for their greed. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Obama won because the Republican illusion totally disintegrated. You might note the people in North Dakota never gave up on the illusion. For the same reason the coal propaganda will fail. At some point things that don't work collapse of their own weight as you pile more and more lies on them. North Dakotans are slow to move to the future. The last election proved that, but fortunately the county as a whole learns a little faster, and will not tolerate the red state mindset forever. You might note also the theme of the election was change. Putting lipstick on coal is not change. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Genral Motors has been dragged kicking and screaming into reality. It looks like the coal people will need the same treatment. When ever change is necessitated by reality there is always a bunch of people that tell us the future will never come.
The energy crises of the seventies taught us nothing, and here we go again. This whole discussion reminds me so much of the last stand of the cigarette companiess. In the end they had to admit their product just didn't work, but they did not give up without paying lobbyist, and propagandizing a bunch of dupes, but ya gotta do what ya gatta do. "

dante wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:22 AM:

" DEW, EXCUUUUUSE MEEEE!!!!!........and werent you one of the Bush advisors on intelligence and the iraq war? it shows. it must be VERY difficult containing all of your PERCIEVED knowledge of everything in one small skull.... and HAPPY NEW YEAR everyboby! "

JC wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Ezra, it just dawned on me why you're so pro-nuclear. Canada is the #1 source for Uranium; Canada was also the #1 long-term vacation spot of choice for Democrats in the 60's and 70's. Have you got property up there? "

Azhrei wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:37 AM:

" Ezra,

I am a conservative who was born and raised in the economic turmoil of the 70's, in a coal county in ND. Your posts here breed comments of jealousy...the difference of the haves and have nots. There are a few things you have failed to discuss in your multitude of verbal diatribe you have posted here, and I will attempt to bring them to light. #1 is the fact that Coal Country is in the process of installing wind industry in Oliver and Mercer counties. This has cost most of the "Coal companies" (the companies responsible for installing the generators" billions of dollars. The 35 MGW expected to be generated in the Oliver county field has yet to attain an average generation point, which requires the use of back-up energy to meet demand. the Back-up endergy ended up costing area coops 32 million dollars more than what would have cost for coal energy.

#2 France has nuvlear generation plants all over its company, but has no pplace to accurately store the waste....in 10 years, they will be cutting back on all their nucllear energy because they can't sell the waste, or dump it in the Atlantic like they are presently doing. The Nuclear Proliferation Act has forced this economic disclosure....youshould check into it.

France is also the only place you talk to with a "positive image"....why don't you go there if the US is such a bad and environmentally challenging place to live.

#1 "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:29 AM:

" EZRA: I do believe you missed your calling, why are you not in the Obama cabinet? Surely a man of your extreme knowledge should have been called upon by that him! "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:24 AM:

" dante, I did not say they drive SLOW! But, i did not see anything over there as bad as in the states! You have never seen anyone hit with a vehicle in the US? hmmmmm If the driver 'bumped' the person, he could not have been going very fast if all they did was glare at each other.... seems like you missed my point again!
I saw people get 'bumped' also but, I have never seen a person get 'bumped on the streets over here and get up and walk away or drive away on their bike! They were all taken away by an ambulance! "

cs wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:24 AM:

" I didn't read the document you recommended. I did more research with a couple of other Frech and European Nuclear Web sites, US Department of Energy and some US Nuclear ENergy web sites. Why read an 80 page document when the Q&A's and other information is available. I find answering my questions from more than one source getting a better perspective. "

dante wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:43 PM:

" DEW- they drive slow and sensibly in europe? REALLY? ever had a taxi ride in bratislava or prague? dont sit in the front seat! sit in back and close your eyes. these guys dont stop for pedestrians OR workers. one driver bumped a pedestrian while i was in with him---they gave each other dirty looks and continued on. i was totally freaked....another reason they drive small cars there... when you hit somebody, they have a better chance of not being killed... "

JC wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:03 PM:

" According to Encyclopedia of Earth: Uranium occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million, and in much lower concentrations in seawater. I can see the cost effectiveness in this picture. In 2007 the USA produced 1654 tons of Uranium, 41,279 tons were produced worldwide. Do the math, that's 4%, if the good old USA stands up and says "We're going to save the world from carbon fuels by switching to nuclear power." do you really think that the rest of the world is going to help us save them by giving us a really good price on Uranium. I think the world price would probably go up. I don't have enough time to read the entire document Ezra "skimmed" to get his spin started. Face it Ezra, you Democrats wouldn't be any happier with a Uranium mine in your back yard than you are with Coal mines. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Dear CS, did you read the entire International Nuclear Energy Report? It was over eighty pages and complicated reading. If you did god bless you, if you didn't read about the pot calling the kettle black. Come to think of it did you read any of it? "

cs wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Most small town people know that the world does exist past their driveway. Reading comments (all of them) sounds like some people write comments without making sure the information they state is true, skim pages to only find some little thing that might justify what they are saying. Big coal has not kept nuclear energy out of ND. Big Nuclear energy hasn't wanted to explore the possiblities in ND. Most people are educated enough to know that the US has many nuclear energy plants all over. They coexist with the coal industry in some parts. The biggest issue is to expand the energy industry making it more renewable. What works in France may work here if the Eurpean companies want to come here and expand their interests and work with the US nuclear energy plants. Comparing going to the moon, and nuclear energy in ND does not make much sense. What exaclty is that point? "

Personal discretion wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Ezra - Great comments...nice to know there are other people out there who don't think the world begins and ends at the end of their driveway in smalltown ND. So many seem to believe "if I can't see it, it must not exist". "

Ezra wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Wow Coop, the United States can send a man to the moon, but we are incapable of making nuclear energy work, and France is. This is truly mind boggling. "

coop wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:24 AM:

" It works for France because they have other processing plants in Europe that help them make it work. That's why it works for them. Our country doesn't have the money to begin doing the same thing as France. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Dear JC, The International Atomic Energy Agency has a very detailed study on line regarding energy supplies for atomic energy. The study is very detailed and many pages long. I skimmed it and did not read it in detail, but what I could garner there are many scenarios that make the prediction difficult. From what I read it appears we are in good shape until at least 2050. The rest depends on many factors. As you may well know sea water contains uranium. The cost of recover is the issue. The Japanese think they may able to do it cost effectively. Lignite, ironically also contains uranium, but you have to burn it to get it. It is costly to produce this way. Now, keep in mind we are getting most of our oil from elsewhere. If you read the study you will see there are so many possibilities, and scenarios, it is difficult for anyone to make an accurate assessment. Using the nuclear fuel currently tied up in weapons will have a major impact. Keep in mind how much of our uranium effort has been wasted making bombs for the last fifty years. The study notes the importance of "get going". North Dakota also would benefit from Uranium mining. Of course this brings us to the root problem the coal barons wouldn't make money from it. "

JC wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Next time we'll get into: Chernobyl myth or legend!!! I've heard they cuddle the same, but 'glow in the dark' grandkids give me the willies! "

JC wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Ezra; I'm surprized to see your opinions on a non-religious subject. You once again spout 'facts as you see them', you quote figures on mine fatalities and you lead readers to believe they're all coal related. Another thing to consider, is where does the majority of the uranium come from? We've only got a limited amount of U-235 and Pu-239, after that we MINE and REFINE. Oh that's right the majority of the Uranium production comes from Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. Let's send more money out of country. " In the last couple of years it has been asserted that uranium supplies are critically limited and that it will become increasingly difficult and expensive to recover due to decreasing ore grades, and will thus require undue amounts of energy to mine, largely negating any low-carbon advantage over fossil fuels. This notion is based on a misunderstanding of mineral resources generally, and on academic abstractions rather than published data." www.world-nuclear.org "

Ezra wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Coop, go to France, tell the French that what they are doing doesn't really work, tell them they are not getting 80 percent of their power from nuclear energy. The atoms in France are different from the atoms here. Also you might find it interesting that most of then nuclear power produced in the the United States is being produced from burning former bombs from Russia. If the U.S burnt it's own bombs we would need no mining for many, many years. Remember the good book said turn your swords into plow shares? The modern version is burn the nuclear material in the thousands of weapons sitting around useless. "

Bewildered wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:07 AM:

" The Freedom mine has some of the highest paid workers and safest working conditions anywhere. What benefit would a union provide in that situation? Nuclear sure, I say go for it. The problem is, the public would be so whipped up into a frenzy over the first mention of a plant being built anywhere near them. If you look at the facts, and ignore the rhetoric, Nuclear makes a lot of sense. Of course if you look at the facts, and ignore the rhetoric about Coal it makes sense as well. Wind energy, sure, its great when the wind blows, without the tax credits, it wouldn't be remotely feasible. The whole point, is we are dependent on energy. Like it or not. "

coop wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:51 AM:

" Another issue with nuclear energy is that the USA imports a majority of the Uranium needed to produce the energy. So we start up more nuc plants, import even more Uranium to run these plants. Transporting more of this across the nation and increasing the potental of a very large enviromental emergency. Or we start opening more Uranium mines in the US. Mining Uranium was brought up back in July in southwestern ND and public outcry was huge.
The effort is being made that chemicals like chlorine and other dangerous chemicals are being limited on site of plants and mines, Most of these mines (DWM) have gone chemical free, using nonhazard products. Nuclear waste-one pop can full for every person, times how many people in the USA that you think should have this type of energy equals how much waste per year? The problem of storing the waste is becomming an issue, Where to put it? It lasts for 1000 years. Figure that out maybe your dream will come true. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:19 PM:

" Sorry, Coop, I checked the figures, you are right, I was going by long term running average, the industry has made good progress in recent years, with the exception of a few mine disasters. However, I did also try to find if anyone was killed producing nuclear power in the United States. Could not find one accident that resulted in death. Seems to be a lot safer, plus of course there is no pollution other than the waste. As said before the waste from supplying one person with electricity for a lifetime from nuclear would only fill one pop can. Did your notice where they had a serious problem in Tennesee from a little coal waste that spilled. Also recall 83 people killed in W.Va. in the Buffalo creek mining dam break. Would defy you to go to West Virginia, Kentucky, or Ohio and tell me there is an was no damage from mining coal. The creek at the bottom of the street were I grew up in an eastern coal mining area just turned red from acid mine drainage. We used to fish and play in that creek. Its gone now. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:05 PM:

" Dear Bewildered, list the mines in North Dakota, put beside each one, which is unionized. On an employee bases I would say less than thirty percent of surface mine employees in ND are unionized. Speak with some of the employees at the "Freedom Mine", ask them what would happen to their job if they spoke out public ally about a subject in a way that did not suit management. Have you ever done it? I have talked to many and can tell you they know they will be fired if they express an opinion not in line with the company theme. "

Matt wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Carbon credits, cap and trade, carbon tax, carbon emission trading, cap and share and carbon offsets, carbon footprints, etc.. Doesn't the possible impact of any of these things and and what it means register with anybody or is everybody just stuck on hammering big greedy coal companies? The interwoven web of what all these things combined will, I think come down to is far worse than the negative effects of burning coal for energy. "

Bewildered wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:33 PM:

" Bad working conditions in the mines?? Where does that come from? The mines are one of the safest places to work in the entire state. Unions? Every plant that I know of, is Unionized. Coal power not viable?? Who says? Coal provides the cheapest electricity available. Even if Carbon capture is figured into the equation. Wind?? sure why not, except the wind is not viable for baseload generation. Its hard to time large electrical loads around the wind blowing. Our entire economy is based on electricity. No matter what Obama said during his campaign, he won't jeopardize that. "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:10 PM:

" Ezra, you complaining about ND people living in the stone age.... I guess if that were so, we would not have 'global warming' ..... and we are knee deep in it right now! "

coop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:59 PM:

" Another point of your misinformation about coal:"over 100 fatalities"?????

This comes from and email re. fatal mine alert recieved three days ago:
Fatalites in 2008: underground 15 ,surface 14, for a total of 29. 12 out of that 29 have been independant contractors. Last year at this time there was 34. "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:28 PM:

" EZRA: Have you been to other countries? I have. There are more people in Europe than there are in the USA per acre of land. They do not have all the wide open spaces we have here. Eight years ago they were driving their little cars around the cities! But, I will tell you one thing.... the people over there are not jerks like the drivers over here are! There do not drive 20 miles over the speed limit and do not run the stop lights like they do here! I would drive a little car in Spain but, not over here!
You can do as you want..... You can drive what you want. Statistics in 5-6 years will prove that the little cars are death traps! "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:55 PM:

" Dear Mrs Coop. I am a union supporter. However, you might notice that Mercer county went from almost 100% union coal to about 20%. The unions did the work, but North American Coal has been a very successful union buster. Ask anyone who works for North American Coal about their ability to speak freely. Speak up and you are gone. Among other things Unions bring is freedom. Calling a none union mine the "Freedom Mine", where you are fired if you speak out is a travesty. The people working at these non-union mines owe a great debt to those who fought the good fight tor workers rights. The saddest thing of all is that the people making the good wages forgot that the democrats and the unions brought them the wages. "

coop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:33 PM:

" Ezra: What do you mean about no unions with the coal industry? Don't speak unless you know. Dakota Westmoreland in Beulah is a unionized mine. The other mines provide safe working enviroments good health care, and other benifits that the unions push for. Along with contractors that work at facilities run rub "big coal" are unionized. Ex. Labor, Pipefitter, Boilermaker, Electrical, Iron Workers, and Operators Unions. If the workers were pushed into terrible working conditions by "big coal" we would see the strikes and walk-outs of the past. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Dewdrop....Do you swallow whole every talking point that comes down the right wing pike? Are you absent a gag reflex? Time does not stand still. We as a nation are progressively changing. Please put away your stereo view finder, your betamax and your top hat and spats. Now get in the sub compact! "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Dewdrop, North Dakota is doing well because it is one of the most heavily subsidized states in the Union. Take away the subsidies, and we would be a welfare state without a benefactor. For every dollar we sent to Washington we get one dollar and seventy eight cents back. Anyone who could not prosper under that scenario, deserves to be a Republican. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:05 PM:

" Dewdrop, the coal industry in North Dakota did a pretty good job of getting rid of the unions, but they are still in trouble. A you sure it was the unions? Look up the word logic. Just like GM they are producing a product that is not viable. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:03 PM:

" Dewdrop, most of the people in Europe drive small cars, how come most of them aren't dead? No trucks in Europe I suppose. Do you use your brain, or did you rent one? "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:02 PM:

" EC.... It was NOT just North Dakotans that did not believe all the garbage that came out of Obama's mouth! We will see what Obama does for us! Or to us! Time will tell if he is a good president! I, for one think he is not going to do what he promised all of you! So far he is not as liberal as he expressed himself to be, so maybe he will not be as bad as I thought. I do understand that a lot of Democrats are begining to complain he is not liberal enough with his choices so far!

North Dakota is doing well, as are most states that are run by Republican Governors! "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 29, 2008 4:37 PM:

" EZRA: Do you really think that the people will not buy the Hummers again since the price of gas is down again? I for one will not never, ever, never buy one of those little jobbies that will be squashed in 2 seconds flat if a truck runs into it! Not that I can afford a Hummer! I drive a truck for work and for pleasure, as I feel safe in it and my family means more to me, than a few gallons of gas! How many lives will be lost in the next 10 years because people buy the little things that a semi-truck will roll right across if it happens to get in the way?

Don't you think the real reason that GM is in trouble is because of the greed of the unions? "

CH wrote on Dec 29, 2008 2:28 PM:

" I am torn on this. Being a business owner I like the Jobs and income that Coal provides. However taking the long term we have something more abundant then Coal and that is wind. America and North Dakota has to realize that the green economy is coming. We can either be world leaders in it or we can bury our heads in the "coal" do things the old way and live a dirty, hot and crowed planet. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Carol Sather has a problem with the "Anti Coal" agenda spending millions to promote their viewpoint. Why doesn't Carol Object to the Coal Industry spending millions to promote their Agenda? "

Rebecca wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:04 PM:

" A) Wikipedia? You are really using Wikipedia for a source? Seriously? In a public letter?
B) Obama is for clean coal. It does exist. We just have to first get rid of the "carbon credit" bs to give the coal companies incentive to do it.
C) My dad works for the coal mine doing reclaimation, where they make the land look the same as (or better than) it was before mining began. "

Economic Conservative wrote on Dec 29, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Gotta love the typical North Dakota ignorance expressed in Dewdrop's post: "it just means there are a lot of stupid people in the USA that think Obama is going to 'change' the whole world." tell us Dew, why is it that only North Dakotans are smart? Dew, North Daokta needs someone like Obama so the federal welfare dollars that flow into the state coffiures will continue and we continue to keep our statehood. "

Bewildered wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:29 AM:

" Ezra, I'm not arguing your point. Nuclear makes sense, the reality is, it can't be permitted in the US today, maybe at some point in the future it can be. You, or I don't have much to say about the whole permitting process. Until the Federal Govt and the EPA get that part straightened out, our conversation is mute. I'm sure if a permit did get far enough along, a nuclear plant would bring out lots of groups who would oppose it (Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc.). As far as the global warming goes, the jury is still out on that one. I see where avg global temps this year are below what they were 20 years ago, explain that one? If you want to hole yourself up somewhere, and live off the grid, by all means set a good example for us all. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:18 AM:

" It is always the people benefiting from the status quo that want to lead us in the wrong direction. Right behind them are the wanna bees. People used to say "What is good for General Motors is good for the country". Look where we are now. As the leadership of General Motors told us things were just peachy, Toyota took off in another direction with hybrids. GM told us we needed Hummers. Now, General Motors is begging for bail outs. The whole short sighted propaganda mess blew up in their face. So here comes the coal industry assuring us that we dare not switch to something better. They like making money the old fashion way, duping the naive. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Dear bewildered, lets assume there is no global warming. Does it make sense to tout the virtues of waste with cheap electricity. Over a hundred coal miners are killed every year in mine accidents. Should these people be killed to light up billboards all night? Should the entire country be populated with windmills because people have to live in McMansions occupied by two people? Go for a late night drive sometime and look at all the silly light turned on for absolutely no purpose. Look at the yellow haze everyday downwind of every power plant in North Dakota, and ask yourself if a culture of greed and waste is really what we want to promote. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Dear bewildered, nuclear energy supplies 80 percent of the electricity in France, and France is currently building their second generation of nuclear plants. So it is obvious that supplying a country with nuclear power cannot be done. High speed trains run all over Europe and Japan, but for some strange reason they don't work here. There are two possibilities. One we are under a separate set of physical laws, or there are some vested interest who do not want these things to work here. The car industry very successfully made sure rapid transit did not become vialble in this country. Is it possible the coal industry would not like to see the nuclear power industry succeed here? Selfish interest have brought us to the point we are. Americans are realitively easy to fool, but how long can you convince the that the what works in Japan and Europe, is impossible here? "

Bewildered wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Nuclear at face value sounds like a wonderful idea. The reality is that we still don't have a place to store any of the waste. There are 2 major hurdles with nuclear power. The first issue is permitting, the US hasn't permitted a nuclear plant in 30 years. The public outcry for anybody living near a proposed plant would be huge. Yes, the technology is there, but who is going to gamble Billions of dollars for a plant that might never produce any electricity. The second issue, is the waste generated. Nuclear power has funded Billions of dollars for a permanent storage facility, yet no progress has been made to date. Another question for Ezra, you seem bent on charging people more for electricity. Is it fair to 'tax' everyone in the country on some unproven theory? We generate over 50% of our power from coal. To date, there is not any viable alternatives (economically, technologically, etc). The one item I get a laugh out of, is to blatantly kill coal, without any viable alternatives. Who is going to scream the loudest, when the light switch is turned on, and nothing happens? We aren't too far away from that scenario today. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Dec 28, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Dewdrop, Welcome back! I've missed your sloppy cut and paste jobs. Not that any smart person who actually read my comment couldn't figure out the FOX news 'like' editing job you did on me. Here's the whole quote....'Why is it that in almost every topic discussed on these posts, some right winger suggests we move somewhere else? The last time I looked, we just overwhelmingly won an historic election. Shouldn't we be asking you to move? Not that we would, we are after all, Americans.'....... Did you yourself know that you cut out the 9 last words? Or was that just another coincidence?

Did you also notice that I wrote this rebuttal without calling any one 'stupid?'

'Why would I not enjoy Ezra's postings filled with reason and facts? They remind me of the highly respected 'Voice of Reason'. How's that ulcer DEW? "

Ezra wrote on Dec 28, 2008 2:20 PM:

" If the coal industry, and the electric industry really wanted to do something about carbon emissions they could instigate a different pricing system. If the price of electricity went up as you used more, you could encourage households not to waste it. Each home could be given a fair allotment of kilowatts. After they exceeded the allotment they would pay a penalty for building McMansions, having needless yard lighting, and poorly insulated homes. I am not arguing that people who make good use of power pay more. When things get cheaper as you use more you encourage waste. The incredible power wasted at night on totally needless lighting is beyond belief. The use of motion detectors to turn lights on and off could save a countless amount of pollution. There is no social ethic to make wasters the pariahs they are. Currently people are embarrassed to drive hummers because they know it is a sad comment on their ethics. Electricity wasters could be shamed into doing the right thing. No one has made an attempt to put pressure on those who take pride in how much electricity they can waste. "

Matt wrote on Dec 28, 2008 2:08 PM:

" The dirty coal tub is getting agitated quite a bit here. What about the carbon credit marketing scheme? Like it or not coal is what is being used here now for heating and cooling energy. It has BTU value. What BTU value does carbon credit trading on the commodity exchange have? The writer of this letter raises important concerns about this whole carbon marketing issue. Mainly the motive for doing it. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 28, 2008 1:55 PM:

" Dear Mrs Coop, visited the web site you recommended, very good, very balanced. One thing I liked in particular was the web site said "Conservation is the first fuel". The NYT just ran an article on a German building technique for passive heating. No one, especially the coal or electric utilities are pushing this in the U.S. It could easily cut energy use by one third. The site you recommended had a much better, and realistic presentation than the Touchstone Energy site. Still no one has yet told me why nuclear power is not viable in Mercer County. Nuclear power incidently produces no carbon. "

coop wrote on Dec 28, 2008 1:34 PM:

" It's MRS. and unfortuantely you missed your point again EZRA. Had to go and knock hard working, honest people. Go to ndare.org (written about on the blogs with the trib.)and read some of their goals for ND energy and enviroment. This sounds like they have put alot of research into it. No where does it say that they want to get rid of coal. They actually talk about the Beulah Synfuels gasificaiton plant trapping the large amount of CO2 produced by coal fired energy plant and it is shipped to Canada to be put into the ground and not into the air. Guess what DGC runs on coal!!!!!!!
Opinions are like ********, everyones got one. But don't kid yourself that coal is gone. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 28, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Mr. Coop, Coal will have to be used until we phase it out. That is a given. Somewhere a nuclear plant will be built. Why not build it in Mercer county? Mercer county has an excellent water supply, it is at the heart of the current distribution network, and the people there have shown you can easily get them to believe anything. Can you begin to imagine the jobs that would be created, and then number of high paid educated people such a plant would support. Only losers would be coal companies. At some point the buggy industry had to cry uncle. Keep the current plants try to make them work, but why build one more Model T? PS Dewdrop, did someone limit the number of times you could post? "

coop wrote on Dec 28, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Oh yeah by the way, Obama was support by the United Mine Workers of America, he even made a speech in September (i think in Virginia) about cleaner coal energy. You can see this on the UMWA website. Is Obama full of it? or does he really believe that it can be done?? Coal is not ending. Why loose something so valuable to our nation, Yes, bring in the nuclear and wind energy. Same goes with oil, ND has enough to supply our nation with, why go overseas? Why not expand on the old and make it better, and also bring in the new. I know that i quoted 30 years of coal reserves in ND. but that is only part what is in Mercer County. Not the rest of the state. "

coop wrote on Dec 28, 2008 11:01 AM:

" Sorry about the mistake yes China had the olymics. I'm not against going down the another road, maybe a better one. The local plants have spent billions of dollars to improve the "carbon output" of their facilities. And it is making a difference.

Wind Energy is comming to the coal country of North Dakota and we are welcomming it. The only thing is that our nd ecomomy will be in the same shape as the rest of the nation if this is stopped. Towns like Hazen, Beulah, Zap, Golden Valley, Underwood, Washburn, Wilton, Max, Center , Stanton will be ghost towns if steps to end Coal fired energy plants are shut down. Bismarck and Mandan also are home to many who work at these facilities. Over 1000 jobs will be lost. How many people will work at wind farms or a nuclear power plant?? Not many. How many of the out of work people from these plants will leave the state? Alot. Will ND have a surplus of money to run the state? No. Technology is greatly better than in the late 70's and early 80's when these facilites were set up. Let them improve on trapping CO2. Also bring in the others. But don't shut done what already is working. These companies also make other products that sell around here and nation wide. More money for our ND ecnomy. And I think diversifying our energy production will make ND cutting edge nation wide. "

Dewdrop wrote on Dec 28, 2008 10:43 AM:

" ILL G-A-R-R wrote on Dec 26, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Why is it that in almost every topic discussed on these posts, some right winger suggests that we move somewhere else? The last time I looked, we just overwhelmingly won an historic election.

Just because Obama won does not mean that the rest of us were wrong... it just means there are a lot of stupid people in the USA that think Obama is going to 'change' the whole world.... all the people of other counties will no longer hate us, they will fall on their knees to worship Obama and the USA!
Tell me again why Japan bombed us? That had to have been Bush's fault too, Everything else is!
BTW... why is Billl GArr not complaining about EZRA posting 18 timies on this site? LOL....Bill, is it because you AGREE with his Hate Bush speech? "

Ezra wrote on Dec 28, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Dear Coop, lets start with the fact that the olympics were held in China. What a strange argument, we got all this crap, we may as well burn it. No one has yet stepped up to the plate and give a reason Norht Dakota cannot be proactive on Nuclear Power. Car companies have been dragged kicking and screaming into the future. The future is not giant SUV's. Why not get ahead of the curve in Norht Dakota? Why go through what the car commpanies are suffering? Are we incapable of changing or learning? The coal compaines don't want to admit the end is here. Like the auto industry they think a good propaganda campaign is the answer. Change is the answer. When you are going down the wrong road turn around and go somewhere else, don't just keep going until you run out of gas, but first you have to admit you are going down the wrong road. "

coop wrote on Dec 28, 2008 7:47 AM:

" Why are we not concerened about other countries carbon footprints and making them own up to it? Look at the summer olympics, Japan shut down industry and limited vehicles used weeks before the olympics to clean up the air. Guess what they went back to their old ways . Who is regulating other countries industries and coal energy production???

North Dakota has at least 30 years of coal reserves, But how long is it going to take to get the wind farms, and the nuclear power built to generate the amount of power that is produced now? And I'm not saying that it isn't wise to do that, but quit knocking coal.

The incident in Tenn. occured with an underground mine, in (I'm sure) mountainous terrain. The plants here do not store their ash product this way. It is stockpiled, and buried. This is regulated with a HEAVY HAND by the PSC. It is not stored near a water source such as a river creak or underground spring.

The monies made by this kind of energy is not only going to co-op's, and companies. The coal that is mined is taxed by counties, and mostly goes to the schools. And guess what- Morton county is included because of an agreement made years ago with Oliver county, because of Morton's county's closeness to the mine in Oliver coutny. "

Matt wrote on Dec 27, 2008 3:30 PM:

" All selling is pretty much propaganda. Even when you are trading in panic (carbon credits) commodities. Some salesmen are especially good at it. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 27, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Dear Mr. Impressed. I went to web site you cited. It was titled the beginning of the end of the coal industry. I don't get it. Why would someone be dismayed with the begininning of the end of cancer. The citations at the site are people and legislation that simply say we need to quit going down a path that will not work. The site supports my point. Why continue to put lipstick on a pig as Sara Palin would say. We need something besides a pig. People should visit the site you suggested. Only the buggy industr would be sadden by the introduction of the automobile. By the way how come nuclear power works in France but will not work here. Are the atoms different here? "

Ezra wrote on Dec 27, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Touchstone Energy is the propaganda organ of the electric utilities. Visti their site. They make a big deal out of joining " The Conversation". Just try to do it. There is no where for you to voice your opinion. What they actually want you to do is write a letter to congress. Guess what, they suggest what you say. Go see for yourself. The whole idea of a conversation where someone else tells you what to say seems absurd. Now, why could they not have a blog like this one? Answer is pretty simple, it might resemble " A Conversation". Give me a break, how stupid do they think we are? Perhaps a dictinary would be useful to Touchstone, conversation implies people get to speak. "

Impressed wrote on Dec 27, 2008 2:41 PM:

" There are groups that seek nothing less than the destruction of the coal industry. http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline2.htm

While there may be room for improvements in emmission control they fail to consider what emmissions we'll have even if our coal industry is gone.
According to the EPA total airborne mercury pollution from all coal fired power plants in the US is about 50 tons. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index.htm

Total world airborne mercury pollution from natural and man made sources is about 5000 tons. http://sknworldwide.net/library/environmental/enviroandecotopissues/airemissions/news_item.2006-04-12.9807046668

This mercury is drifting through our air just as when Mount St Helens erupted in 1980. The ash from St Helens traveled accross North Dakota in 3 days.

So we could continue to foolishly attack our coal industry,possibly shutting down 50 per cent of electric generating capacity and still have 4950 tons of mercury pollution. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 27, 2008 1:29 PM:

" To educate myself, I just visited the Touchstone Energy web site. Give credit where credit is do. They did a pretty good job of showing people how to quit wasting so much energy. I would give them an "A" on the home energy part. They had a good section on commercial energy. In many ways it was very good, but it was touchy feely on doing the hard things. There is so much waste of electricity, on billboards, electronic stores, night lighting and so on. They didn't want to offend anyone. On the clean coal, nuclear power it was another matter. All over the web site they said lets have a discussion, but there is none. Boiled down it is a touchy feely website that basically says, "Let us do the hard thinking, and you just follow our lead". A good gentle push in the direction they want you to go. If they really made a hard push for energy conservation they could do a lot of good, but that is like getting McDonalds to push healthy food. How much do the cooperatives contribute to the Touchstone Energy Propaganda campaign? Why do they need a propaganda arm? What if they just did the right thing and save the propaganda money and returned it to the members? "

My Opinion wrote on Dec 27, 2008 10:41 AM:

" For everyone who is "pro-coal" look at what just happened in Tennessee. Look at the poisons that are left over from burning coal. That in and of itself should create questions regarding the safety of using coal burning plants to generate energy. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 27, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Please note. Cooperatives are not required to reveal how much the CEO's make. This is very strange, since every publicly owned company reveals this information. If the cooperatives came clean it would be clear who is making money out of the desire to pursue what source of energy. Also the cooperatives do not reveal what they spend on propaganda. If indeed cooperatives are owned by their members, why should they have to use propaganda to convince themselves what is the right thing to do? Cooperatives have become very much like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. They are no longer what they are designed to be, and they will produce the same results if they go unchecked "

Ezra wrote on Dec 27, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Dear Comment. I understand very well what a cooperative is. Unfortunately cooperatives that used to be very democratic have been taken over by people who are very republican. If you do your homework you will also find cooperatives have inadvertently tied themselves very closely to coal. The cooperatives actually own the coal reserves and the machinery used to mine the coal. They have embarrassingly tied themselves to a sinking ship. Cooperative management is not going to easily admit the mess they got themselves in by tying themselves so heavily to coal. If coal doesn't fly, they see it as an economic disaster for their finical planning. So like the car industry they stubbornly refuse to admit or change the way they do business. If they get ahead of the curve and have a "Come to Jesus" meeting about reality there is hope they can change in time. But since Basin now owns a coal mine in Wyoming do you really think they can change the song? Don't kid yourself, if they admit what they know it would be quite embarrassing. Keep in mind the tie between the Lignite Energy council and the propaganda wing of the electric coops. "

Comment wrote on Dec 27, 2008 9:24 AM:

" I question if Ezra understands the philosophy of a cooperative. Cooperatives are the biggest users of coal in North Dakota. They are not "for profit" companies. They do not have power plants to make lots of money, because they can't make money as a cooperative. "

Cynical Independent wrote on Dec 26, 2008 11:37 PM:

" Ezra, do you understand what your saying. Move to nuclear energy. Have you been checking out conservative websites? You are going to get 80 lashes with a wet noodle by all the left leaning environmental extremists. Apparently there's hope for you yet to turn away from the dark side. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:33 PM:

" Matt, what total nonsense. The coal people are the ones making the money. How you manage to say the real money is in carbon credits not coal is amazing. What a spin. The coal people are saints doing a public service for free, and the people trying to promote the environment are the evils ones in it for the money. Does the spinning make you dizzy? "

Matt wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Getting to the point of the letter, does anybody think that those engaged in the buying and selling of carbon credits, etc. care much about what it is going to cost you to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer or where the energy for those comforts comes from? Honestly? First and foremost the easiest thing to understand about all of this energy panic is the profit motive. Seems to me that the more carbon available, (credits or whatever) the more money is to be made. Don't see any planet saving motive there. "

MamaMia wrote on Dec 26, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Ezra: You said it all. Thank you. "

Ned wrote on Dec 26, 2008 4:47 PM:

" I agree with many of the comments posted so far. We need to continue developing alternate sources of energy, and in my eyes, nuclear is the best option known but cannot be the sole energy provider. Until we can get the necessary alternate forms of energy up and running we need to continue to improve and use the resources that we have; ie coal.

Coal-fired power plants are absolutely required at this time in this country. I suggest the regional power plants shut down completely for one 12-hour period to remind people how dependent we are on this energy source. Anyone with two functioning brain cells should then be able to see why we cannot simply stop using coal tomorrow, and still see why we need to develop alternatives to this finite resource. "

Owl Gore wrote on Dec 26, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Global warming or now known as climate changes is the greatest scam in the world. Get your carbon credit while you can...the ice is melting the ice is melting.

How is that global warming go up here in ND. How many inches of global warming has been received this December?

Good luck and why won't the snake oil salesman Gore take any questions at his show and tell. What is he afraid of? "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Mr Benifits. It is a strange philosophy that if we are doing it, it must be right. I am puzzled that if I use electricity, I should disregard how it is produced. I am also puzzled why I should be demeaned if I ask for a rational use of energy produced in a manner that allows us all to live better. Seems strange that I should support the burning of dirty coal because I live in a state with an abundance of it. How would our society ever progress if we all agreed to keep the current set of industrialist in power. We moved away from many old technologies in the past, and did not seem to suffer. The whalers were not happy when natural gas came in, but some how life went on. When electricity replaced gas lights, the transition did not end the world. Why should moving to nuclear power be such a terrible thing? "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Dear Mr. Comment. The United States is losing its place as an economic engine for the simple reason that we insist on hanging on to old technology like coal. If you look at the leadership in technology in many fields other countries have the lead. North Dakota is especially good at maintaining the status quo. Our inability to break away from last centuries energy source is a prime example. While France is forging ahead with its second generation of nuclear plants we are still left in the coal dust. While every other country has high speed trains, we insist on SUV's. China and India have rapidly challanged us as economic engines. The stubborn insistence that just because we have coal we must us it is typical of our problem. "

Law wrote on Dec 26, 2008 1:54 PM:

" The amount of CO2 omissions eminating from US coal plants pales in comparison to China, India, Russia and other less developed countries that have no standards for pollution. We could stop all of our coal burning today and have a small effect on the global emissions of CO2. The new administration is not proposing nuclear energy as an alternative and wind cannot replace the amount of electricity needed to run our country. Coal needs to be in the mix "

Who benefits wrote on Dec 26, 2008 1:51 PM:

" Most of the coal fired power plants in ND are run by cooperatives. Who owns and benefits from cooperatives? Every person who uses the power benefits and owns that coal fired power plant. SO EZRA, where do you get your electricity from? Maybe you should shut your lights and computer off and find an alternative form of electricity and quit killing the earth. TURN IT OFF!! Tell Al Gore to do the same. You are part of the problem not the solution. So get off your high horse and do something about it. Turn off your christmas lights. I beg of you for the children. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Dec 26, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Why is it that in almost every topic discussed on these posts, some right winger suggests that we move somewhere else? The last time I looked, we just overwhelmingly won an historic election. Shouldn't we be asking you to move? Not that we would, we are after all, Americans. Please take that ridiculous bullet point out of your holster. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Thanks Mr. Conservative, you enjoy yourself also. Good ideas are not conservative or liberal, neither is the truth. "

ND boy wrote on Dec 26, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Nuclear power is probably the answer. Not the type of nuclear power plants we have today though.

France is almost completely nuclear in its power production. Some of its electrical needs are supplied by hydroelectric power plants in the French Alps and Pyrenees Mountains.

When the French Government announces that a new nuclear power plant needs to be built, the local citizens scramble to try to get it built in their community. Why? It increases the economy of the area.

It is has been nearly thirty years since the Three Mile Island incident. While the incident was serious no loss of life occurred. The Russian accident at Chernobyl used a different type of unsafe reactor. We have never used such a reactor in our country to produce electricity.

Since Three Mile Island, the nuclear power industry has vastly improved the safety of fission nuclear power.

However fission is not the solution; fusion is. Fusion is when you shove atoms together to make a new element. In the process heat is produced. It is what the Sun does.

In a fusion nuclear power plant water could be the fuel. Much less radioactive byproducts are produced and those that are produced cannot be used to make nuclear weapons!

Why dont we do it? We have not yet been able to produce a sustaining fusion reaction and the energy put in to create the reaction, is greater then that which is being produced.

We need a national project like the one to place Americans on the Moon during the 1960s to develop fusion power. Some of the billions wasted on the Iraqi war could have been used for this, if you want more information about fusion just Google fusion power plants. Fusion would provide us with an unlimited supply of energy to run our planet. "

Independent Conservative wrote on Dec 26, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Ezra, I thought there might come a day we would agree on something. I'd have never thought it would be nuclear energy, but I'm glad it is. Have a great weekend. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 11:04 AM:

" People who want to save the planet have a secret agenda. Just like the Red Cross, The boy scouts, and the people picking up litter along the highway. They all are secretly trying to push an agenda so they can make money. There are a lot of ways to make money from a clean environment, and a better world. These people age just out to make money. The next time you see someone picking up littler along the highway, realize they have no good motives, but are just after the aluminum cans they can sell for a penny a piece. No good deed should be seen for what it is, there is evil behind everything. This message brought to you by the coalition for a dirty environment. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Dear backyard, whose yard did we build the coal fired plants in. The mercury is falling everywhere. In a lifetime the nuclear waste produced to meet the needs of one person would fit in a pop can. You can put a lot of pop cans in Yucca Mountain. You have time to ultimately figure out what you are going to do to solve the problem. On the other hand tons of waste are created each year by a coal fired plant for each person. The CO2 is killing our planet in the short run. Logic would seem to dictate we chose the course of death that takes the longest before it finishes us off as a species. Greed knows no future and destroys very quickly. One need only look at Wall Street to see what happened when the interest of a few were put foremost. The coal industry is willing to sacrifice us all for their short run greed. The fat man never thinks the food is killing him. "

Halatbis wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Ezra, you are such a fun guy (?) North Dakota in the stone age? As other writers have asked, "why are you still in ND ?" There are so many enlightened places to go--SF, Berkeley, Portland...Hmmm? "

in your backyard wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:13 AM:

" So whose backyard are we going to build these nukes? Gore's Ezra's? How about the waste? Selling carbon credits would be another tax that the government would collect from the poor. The wealthy would have no problem paying the tax, then the government would have to hand out more to help people pay utility bills. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:11 AM:

" Did the electric generation industry learn anything from the failure of the auto industry. Nope. Toyota knew the world was changing and prepared for it, but GM, Chrysler and Ford, thought the battle could be won with words, lobbyist, and propaganda. At some point reality crashes down on us all. Steam engines were replaced with diesel. No one wasted time trying to make viable steam engines. At some point you have to admit defeat and move on. Simple physics shows that when you change anything from one state to another energy input is involved. You can change coal into a lot of things, but it takes energy to do it. As you clean coal you pump more and more energy into the process. The net energy left to produce electricity gets smaller and smaller. This is the sad reality of how the world works. With better alternatives why insist on fighting a losing battle. Unless of course you are in the coal business. "

Halatbis wrote on Dec 26, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Some good points in this letter. Yes, burning coal to generate electricity has its problems, but then, so do all the other alternate forms of energy--each has its own pluses and minuses. The ad that has run on TV the past few weeks saying there is no such thing as "clean coal" has some merit; however, that does not mean that it is impossible to have clean coal. Given a share of the federal research dollars that the federal government is promising to all other forms of energy, it is very likely that coal can be clean and plentiful--and for a lot less money than we are planning to put into bio-fuels. Bio-fuels, by the way, are likely 20 or 30 years out into the future, if we are lucky in the research and development.
There must be parallel development of energy sources--coal, bio, solar, wind, thermal and more. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:44 AM:

" This reminds me so much of how the cigarette companies could not come to grips with the fact they had been found out. Over and over you heard stories about how I had an uncle who lived to be 90 and he smoked his whole life. Finally the myth was overcome by reality, but they put up a good fight and are still selling cigarettes. Not even the Republicans think cigarettes are harmless. It only took about twenty years to win the propaganda war, but here we go again. "

ND boy wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:35 AM:

" I am getting very weary of seeing the pro-coal commercials on television, in local newspaper articles and letters like today.

Yes North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming have large deposits of lignite coal. Yes we produce electricity by burning coal in thermal electric power plants. Why, because it is easy and cheap and there is money in it for some local companies and residents.

Unfortunately, in the process we produce carbon dioxide, the principle cause of climate change, and yes climate change is occurring. Dont throw the recent cold snap back at me as proof that I am wrong; I am smarter then that.

I particularly find in distasteful that people imply that those of us who favor the stoppage of coal-fired power plants are described as being less of a North Dakotan, then those who favor the alteration of the climate.

Not to worry! The elimination of coal-fired power plants is not going to happen today, or tomorrow or this year. The transition of weaning our planet off coal will take at least a decade or more but it will happen.

It will happen because we have a new administration coming in on January 20th and this new government is going to be very savvy on how to do it and why to do it. Just keep in mind, there are more of us who can see clearly and are not burying are heads in coal dust. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:20 AM:

" North Dakota is reluctant to leave the stone age and embrace a new era. There is no reason nuclear power could not be viable in ND. However, it would pose a severe threat to those in a position to make money burning coal. So naturly they will be against it. Nuclear would be an economic boon for ND. Since ND is at the hub of the distribution center for energy it would be a good fit. The number of jobs created would be astronomical. One major problem, most of the coal fields in the state would be worthless, and a different set of people would make money. We can't let that happen. Far better we continue to put more and more energy into producing clean coal. No one learned from the ethanol debacle. From the start it was clear it consumed more energy than it produced. Now, we are being asked to make the same mistake with coal. We must make sure the right people are taken care of first. The rest of us are not really that important. By some strange miracle France has been able to supply eighty percent of its energy needs with nuclear power. Of course the laws of physics are different there, and they are just a bunch of wimps. "

Economic Conservative wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:17 AM:

" I am sure the folks in Kingston, TN would love to be able to respond to a letter like this one. Or perhaps the millions of folks who are waiting to see if the failure of this one retention pond will pollute the entire water supply for them all. Clean burning coal is a viable solution for tus all and provided for an unforgettable Christmas for the 12 families whose homes were destroyed and will have lasting effects for a long time to come. read about it for yourselves!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/?iref=mpstoryview "

Ward Cleaver wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:04 AM:

" I think Ezra would be much happier living in a third world country. Their lifestyle is exactly what he wants and he could sit back and despise the lifestyle of the US from his own little Utopia. As for me, Ill take the good old USA anytime. Bright lights and gas guzzlers and all! "

Comment wrote on Dec 26, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Ezra - please don't forget that the United States has been the economic engine of the world for some time. If we would not have been prosperous and used a lot of the energy in the world, we would not have been able to supply food, materials, etc. to needy countries, serving that humaniterian role, and helping many countries in crisis. When there is a problem somewhere in the world, what is often the first country to step up (and what country do others in the world look to when they need help?). It's the US. Also, much of the world counts on us to protect their countries - if someone else invades. Thus, that one country that uses a lot of energy, really should be spread over many more people in this world. It's not 10 percent people using 25 percent of the energy. In reality, it's a lot of people in this world using 25 percent of the energy. And probably more efficiently than many other countries use it. And yes, all the while, we could be using less here and conserving more. There's no question about that. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Love the conservative philosophy. You can fish all the whales you want there is an endless supply. You can cut down all the trees you want there is an endless supply. You can let the suburbs expand for ever land and water have no limits. Quality of life is measured by consumption. Build a big house with three garages, put a big pole barn next to it and fill it with snowmobiles, ATVs, Jet skiis and whatever toy you can think of. None of this impacts the world. The world was put here for your selfish pleasure. No one else matters, let the third world become the forth world. Don't let the facts spoil your fun. Burn baby burn, drill baby drill. We are the chosen. The sky is limitless you can dump crap into it forever. The Earth has no boundaries the amount of waste you can dump is infinite. Believe what justifies your needs, that is the only way to go. Set a good example for your kids show them the way to happiness is consumption and waste. God made the world so you could have something to spit on. Sacrifice is something made for poor people. Go to church and pray the environmentalist die of cancer. "

Ezra wrote on Dec 26, 2008 8:01 AM:

" Amazing how no one has suggested we quit wasting energy. Every parking lot in the United States lit up all night. Slot machines that could be operated by hand electrified. Every television at Sears, Best Buy, and Target on all day long. The waste goes on and on. Simple measures the have adopted for over fifty years have not been instituted here. Teenagers driving in circles for hours. A total failure to address mass transit. The real greed are the people who always want more, more, more. Look at the idiots driving around in Hummers, the McMansions. Corporate jets half empty. Yachts that. burn thousand of gallons per day. Why waste so much energy? The energy pigs are our real problem. A culture where waste is considered a status symbol. As Americans god wants us to have ten percent of the worlds people and use twenty five percent of the energy. It is our right because we are unselfish Christians "

Comment wrote on Dec 26, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Think of what they could do with those multi millions of dollars they are spending on advertising. They could do research to make alternative energy more affordable. They could invest it in wind farms, etc. This would help them get to where there want to be - and much quicker than just being negative on coal.

Also, think of the power the ads hold. The money is helping the broadcasting companies make a go of it - and could have the potential to twist what they say when they talk about energy. They might feel that if they stand up for coal, the ads might not come there way. "

HollyC wrote on Dec 26, 2008 7:39 AM:

" I TOTALLY agree with you! What we need to do is figure out a way to help the general public see what the agenda is really going to do in the final analysis. ACCCE (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) has some excellent commercials on this. They have a very good web site, as do North American Coal, Lignite Energy Council, and Basin Electric to name a few. Check them out. Hope they (and we) can keep up the good work! "

Mercer County Coalman wrote on Dec 26, 2008 7:27 AM:

" "Three Steps" - Written using coal-generated power, coal-generated light, and possibly coal-generated heat for your home. Try not ot bite the hand that feeds you! "

Deb wrote on Dec 26, 2008 6:29 AM:

" Step 1: locate head

Step 2: locate sand

Step 3: bury head in sand "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

North Dakota News

Bismarck News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY