Bismarck Tribune - News » Columnists » Jenkinson

Have they been to Stanton?

Jan 04, 2009 - 04:05:24 CST

Have you seen the ads that are blanketing TV attacking the coal industry? Produced by something called the Reality Coalition, they specifically seek to discredit the idea of "clean coal," a term much bandied about in the recent presidential election. You can watch the ad at www.action.thisisreality.org.

I think the coalition's purpose is to "teach" the American public that there is no such thing as clean coal; that no clean coal technology is really in development; and that if we want to survive, we have to shut down the coal industry.

The ad is tremendously powerful.

The ad really offends me. It should offend you, too.

North Dakota and the energy industry need to respond intelligently and forcefully.

In the 30-second video, a plant engineer stands before a coal power plant. He's young, earnest, a little geeky. He's wearing a white shirt and holding a clipboard. He's a briskly efficient professional man. He offers to take you on a tour of a "state of the art clean coal facility." But when you walk through the door of the gray corrugated steel facade, you don't in fact enter a power plant. You are instantly back outside in an industrial wasteland. The tour guide has to shout to be heard, and like a robot, he keeps repeating the phrase "clean coal technology" as if he venerated the very concept.

While he shouts out his love of coal, admitting - as if it were a minor consideration - that burning coal is "one of the leading causes of global warming," we are not looking at him, but rather at the countryside through which he is walking us. "Take a good long look!" he says, while he squats in a yellow-gray blighted landscape on which nothing will ever grow again.

The land in every direction looks like the smoothed-out surface of the moon or a bleached-out Mars, except that it is dotted with some blasted shrubs - mere barren sticks in the ashy ground - with just the slightest hint of green in the shrubs that cling closest to the ground. Message: This is the amount of life the Earth can support if you license any more coal power generation plants.

Then a black screen appears on your TV with the words, "In reality there's no such thing as clean coal."

Leaving aside its truth value, the Reality Coalition ad is an extremely well-made and effective piece of television, and I believe it is going to have an enormous national impact. When I saw it for the first time, paying that half-attention that we have developed as a way of coping with commercial television, I thought for an instant that it was an ad actually produced by the coal industry. You know, one of those "we're doing good things for you" ads you see in the ag and oil industry campaigns.

Here's the hidden message of the video, the "contribution" of this environmental coalition - with close ties to Al Gore - to the energy debate. "These coal guys are destroying the planet Earth. Don't believe what they tell you. They are out of touch with reality."

Choosing the actor who played the coal engineer was a stroke of genius. He's a good-looking guy, and he's clearly a serious believer in coal, not a PR pretty boy. The producers hired one of those hair restoration ad guys who look terrific when they are wearing a hat, and like the actor-director Ron Howard when they aren't.

Later in the ad, when he's wearing his hard hat, the engineer looks good - and young. But at the start of the ad, when he's holding his hard hat in his hand standing in front of the entrance to the future, he looks much older and much less healthy. With his prominent nose, bony forehead and sunken eyes, with his pale skin and darkened lips, he looks, in fact, cadaverous. The subliminal message here is that he is one of the living dead - and of course he is in this instance the "national representative" of the coal industry. He's offering to take you to the Land of Death.

The Reality Coalition would deny this analysis, of course, and insist that I'm "reading into" the video text in a way they never intended. You be the judge.

If there were a freedom of information act for media companies that cater to advocacy groups (from the NRA and the Christian Coalition to the Reality Coalition), we'd all be appalled and fascinated at the same time.

We need a serious national conversation about our energy future. This ad does not contribute to that conversation. It cheapens it. In fact, it prevents it. It takes reason and good sense off the table. It does not deliver its promise of "Reality." It manufactures a gothic dystopia in which the truth is deliberately distorted to short-circuit the debate we need to have about coal and our energy consumption habits.

It fundamentally derails the discussion by appealing not to our heads but to the deepest of all human urges - the urge to survive. The message of the ad belongs to the category of false logic known as "false dilemma." It offers you this choice with nothing in between: coal = death of the planet; stop burning coal = the planet gets to live.

That the ad is deliberately misleading is perfectly clear to anyone who has ever studied the data or driven through the energy crescent in North Dakota. The landscape in Coal Country is not blighted. The rolling hills of North Dakota's Coal Country are covered with grain and grass, as often as not with bold sunflowers. The natural contours of the landscape between Washburn and the Badlands are especially beautiful. The Missouri River flows with serene majesty right next to some of the power plants. Even they, if the truth be told, in some light and from some angles have a kind of industrial beauty. This is not T.S. Eliot's wasteland.

If the folks who made this ad visited North Dakota and spent a few days in the countryside that surrounds our seven coal plants, I wonder what "defense" they would craft to justify their naked piece of propaganda.

We need a thoughtful, well-informed national dialogue about the future of energy: coal, oil, natural gas, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, biofuels. We need the environmental community to be a central voice in that debate. We need the environmental community and concerned citizens to raise tough questions about effluents, mining techniques and reclamation, and regulatory compliance. I am particularly worried about air quality here in North Dakota. But how can the environmental community (or at least this coalition) be expected to be taken seriously if it refuses to debate with integrity?

We also need to have a very sober, look-into-the-mirror, discussion of the energy and environmental implications of our way of life. If we want to continue to live at this level of material opulence and conspicuous consumption, with our SUVs lined up in Wal-Mart parking lots next to trucks filled with merchandise manufactured in China, the Earth is going to take a hit. Al Gore is right about that, and he's a very valuable figure in the global environmental debate, if he will just agree to play responsibly.

(Clay Jenkinson is the director of the Dakota Institute. He also is the Theodore Roosevelt Scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State University. He lives in Bismarck. Contact Clay at Jeffysage@;aol.com.)

News > Columnists

Printer friendly version Have they been to Stanton?

Comments

Laurea B wrote on Jan 14, 2009 10:16 PM:

" Law, we can be leaders or followers. So far North Dakotans have proven to be very good followers, maybe even good lemmings. Our population is old and reluctant to change anything. Those that don't change are usually overrun by the ones that do. Survival of the fittest is about going in new directions. Evolution is about change. Evolution is about adaptation. The conservative stubborn nature of the old people in North Dakota is one of the main reasons the young leave. It was the young who put Obama in office. The young want a vibrant leader ready to go a different direction. Burning coal goes backwards by a couple hundred years. If we relied on the mentality of the typical North Dakotan we would still be in the stone age. The people of North Dakota were incapable of accepting a young vibrant black man as president, what they wanted was an old worn out soldier like themselves. Change scares old people, that's why they wanted to go with the same old song and dance of the Republicans. As our population ages so do our ideas until we break with the past we will be condemned to repeat it. "

Law wrote on Jan 14, 2009 9:58 PM:

" Treehugger no one in the whole US is proposing to build a Nuclear reactor anywhere, don't put down ND because there is no nuclear. Yes, we have coal but until someone in ND actively defeats a nuclear proposal don't single us out. I am all for nuclear to replace coal, but until we have built enough reactors to replace the power output of the coal and more, I say we keep burning coal. "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:51 PM:

" Sunny D, at this point in time almost anyone capable of rational thinking knows Sarah Palin blew the Republican campaign to shred with her simple minded mistakes. Tell me someone who thinks Sarah was an asset for McCain. If she runs four years from now the Democrats would have a hard time losing, unless they could come up with someone dumber. You can be stupid, and popular. Michael Jackson was very popular, what did that mean? Keep in mind forty percent of Americans still think Iraq attacked the World Trade Center. That means we have a hard core of forty percent stupid. "

XC wrote on Jan 14, 2009 7:50 PM:

" Law" - Thank you. What's an 'environmentalist'?

I hear and read people use the word as sort of a put-down and I've always wondered what it really meant. Seems to me that wanting fresh air to breath, clean water to drink, and unpoisoned soil to grow our food is something everyone would be for.

So, when I see the word 'environmentalist' used, I always wonder what the person is thinking of. Seems to be one of those words that has as many different definitions as the number of people who say it. "

Greener Than You wrote on Jan 14, 2009 6:53 PM:

" So Called environmentalists constantly get some obscure area designated as a wilderness area or some other designation to make mineral exploration sound or be illegal.
They have constantly done all they can to block offshore drilling, block nuclear power, and now coal.
They constantly change the argument to something like the internets carbon footprint.

So just what is the carbon footprint of our television sets that are no longer made in the USA. What is the carbon footprint of working for less as inflation drives the dollar down. What is the carbon footprint of making a bicycle in a factory in China using the same coal to make electricity then the fuel for the ship, equipment at the dock to unload the ship. And on and on..

So called environmentalists want to shut down this country and it is obviously working. They have forced us to import 70 percent of our oil and the value of our country is decreasing. What is the carbon footprint of the ships bringing the oil across the ocean.

So when this country goes belly-up where then will all the environmentalists move to. Perhaps France where most of their electricity is made by Nuclear Power. Perhaps China where most of the factories are still producing.

Did anyone notice that our automobile factories are being compared economically against the Japanese factories that produce Hondas and Toyotas in this county. Ours are older factories with many workers retired with medical benefits. The American Japanese plants are newer plants with younger employees and far fewer have worked long enough to retire.

Why do we permit people to constantly find ways to shut down American factories? Who are they really working for? Why are so many politicians and judges falling for this?

We need to begin buying only American made products. The so called Carbon Footprint of shipping products into this country is far too large. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 14, 2009 5:31 PM:

" Laura B. Are you the same Laura B. that posted about 'teenage girls' wishlists?

Laura B. wrote on Dec 3, 2007 11:45 PM:

" LOL--you mean people in Bismarck have actually HEARD of Sephora??? And here I was thinking the majority were into supporting the massive amount of KayBots (Mary Kay...BLECH. can you say over-priced AVON??) Anywho--Sephora is a candystore for women who deserve the best; AWESOME stuff. And, you regulars, don't forget your giftbag code for the freebies w/ a $50 + order!! "

LOL, no wonder we can not take you serious when you call the most popular Governor in the USA 'stupid'! Only foolish people do that! "

Albert Einstein wrote on Jan 14, 2009 1:52 PM:

" Tom Friedman wrote an excellent article about oil in the middle east. Friedman asserted that the middle eastern oil countries were able to maintain a society that was about three hundred years behind the rest of the world because oil made it possible. Friedman said oil was more of a curse than a blessing. Friedman contrasted the middle east with south east Asia where governments were forced to educate and innovate. Since the countries of south east Asia had no vast mineral resources they had to develop brain power. North Dakota is in a similiar fix. North Dakota has vast coal reserves and refuses to develop human intellectual reserves. Just like the Arab countries we are a backward society that resist innovation because we can live on energy welfare. In an advanced world we need to be capable of doing more than just burning coal. "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 14, 2009 1:08 PM:

" At one time Pittsburg was steel capital of the world. Today Pittsburg produces little if any steel, but Pittsburg is a prosperous city. Pittsburg faced the reality that it had to change its economic base. Today Detroit is faced with the same delema. North Dakota has an oppertunity to be a pioneer in energy conservation and the develope of a new generation of nuclear power plants. Unfortunately the population of North Dakota is old conservative and not prone to be inovators. Like Detroit we can drag out our old technology as long as possible and go broke in the process, or we can face the futrue head on and realize we have to go in a new direction. No one yet has described how you recover CO2 from coal. Yet everyone pretends it is economically feasable. Someone please say how it is done. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:52 AM:

" WE voted in the Ame thing, Laura? I thought Obama was CHANGE? No, ND was smart and did not vote for him but, he is 'in',and where is his CHANGE? He is putting in the same old tired Clinton era people! Where is the 'change'? In all his speeches Obama said he would give me a $3,000 tax credit for Evey employee I hired new or kept on that I had planned on letting go because of the economy. Guess what, IT WAS A HOAX! ( Just like Global Warming is a HOAX). He will not be doing that! How many other promises is he going back on? Again I ask, what CHANGE?
He did promise to break the coal industry, no wonder ND did not vote for him! "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:41 AM:

" Drill Baby Drill! Burn Baby Burn! Right now we need coal and oil, Laura, deal with it! We can start to build nuclear, ( how many years will it take to get enough people to let them even get the permits? How many years to actually build a plant?) and we can build wind towers, ( not enough transmission lines to carry the power) we still need coal and oil for many years to come! Why do some of you want to shut down ND? "

Law wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:38 AM:

" XC, sorry I saved some typing strokes Enviro=Environmentalist, I was trying to do my share and use less energy. : ) "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:12 AM:

" If it is not broken, why fix it? Its broken big time. A lot of people who did not grasp what was taught in science class think you can continuously dump into a closed system and have no effect. The Earth is a closed system it can only tolerate a certian amount of change. Carbon which was sequestered over millions of years is being released in a very short time. This creates global warming. In North Dakota you have a population that did not recognize Sarah Palin was an idiot, do you expect them to understand global warming? You can go down the path of destruction whistling, but you are still going down that path. "

XC wrote on Jan 14, 2009 6:17 AM:

" Law' posted - 'Wind is unreliable, you enviros won't let them build nuclear, and .....'

Law, what's an 'enviro'? "

JC wrote on Jan 14, 2009 1:54 AM:

" Another thought for Laura; saying big money COAL is at the root of all the energy problems in this country is about comparable to saying your local pharmacist is responsible for the drug problem in the US. "

Greener Than You wrote on Jan 14, 2009 12:18 AM:

" Naturally all of our power plants need to be as clean as possible. And that is being achieved. And all the Green Automobiles that are in showrooms and planned for the future will burn cleaner. The best concept being a future hydrogen and oxygen engine that only has steam (water) coming out the exhaust pipe. Great for places like Los Angeles. But what will they burn in their power plants to make the hydrogen and oxygen?

I have a cousin in Los Angeles who has a Prius gas-electric and is very happy. Unfortunately it gets less gas mileage than the old Honda Civic got before they made it larger and faster. So if the same burned gasoline is coming out of the tailpipe then what is the big deal.

And all the greener vehicles are made in the same old factory environment, using power from the same old factories.
There are no more rivers for more hydroelectric power. The lawsuits by so called environmentalists prevent us from making more Nuclear Power Plants. Most of our electricity is made from burning Coal, Oil, or Natural Gas. So that is what provides the power for the factories to make new cars.

If a Power Plant in Los Angeles burns natural gas to make electricity, so the cars can be electric, why not just burn the natural gas in the vehicle?

A purely electric car will never go across country without stopping to spend excessive time charging batteries. Maybe they will have stations where people can trade in their dead batteries for someone elses charged up batteries? Assuming all electric cars use the same batteries.
To replace the amount of energy stored in gasoline tanks underground they would need a warehouse full of exchange batteries at these new refueling stations.

Wind energy? How fat do you think an electric wire from here to Los Angeles would be? We will need to burn a lot of coal in order to melt all that copper for all that wire. "

Get Real wrote on Jan 14, 2009 12:04 AM:

" To Ezra - who seems to have mysteriously disappeared according to some posts- I have absolutely no problem with new technology and change. But if it's not broken, then why fix it? Coal technology has been around for many years and will be for years to come. Deal with it. As for the security guard and janitor work you referred to, I hope you are ready for that. Because all of the former coal mine and plant employees with more industry experience will be hired way before you at a nuclear plant. Get over your jealousy and realize that ND is lucky to be abundant in natural resources. "

Law wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:25 PM:

" Laura, if we don't get it from coal where in the heck are we going to get it from. Wind is unreliable, you enviros won't let them build nuclear, and if one happens to get permitted it will take how long? Why should US development be stopped when our coal doesn't contribute near as much to the CO2 levels as the rest of the world's coal generated power. "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:00 PM:

" You can go to IBM's web site and see it for yourself http://www.ibm.com/podcasts/howitworks/index.html . IBM can cut electrical consumption at peak load by fifty percent, and off peak by 15 percent merely by using intelligent meters and other aspects of what they call the intelligent grid. But you don't hear the clean coal bunch pushing this, nor do you hear Touchstone energy pushing it. American Electric Power has signed a contract with IBM not to produce more power, but to use power more intelligently. Using our brains instead of brute force seems to be a hard stratagey for North Dakota to adopt. Lets hear some of the burn baby burn and drill baby drill guys put a spin on this one. Where are the utilities in North Dakota on this? Could North Dakota be a pioneer state in energy conservation? Nope were stuck on page one we voted for the past in the last election because we like things just the way they are. Grandpa got his electricity from coal and so can we. "

Law wrote on Jan 13, 2009 3:48 PM:

" Then make a hydrogen engine and become rich. Use your riches to buy carbon credits so you can feel good about wasting energy, like Al Gore. Kimberly, tell me how much energy should we use? Is there some equation that figures out what each person in the US is entitled to? Its a free country and if I want to recycle and set my thermostat at 60 thats my choice. I do it to save money, if someone else wants to throw their paper and aluminum away and set their temp at 90, yes they are foolish, but that is their right. "

Kimberly wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:57 PM:

" Americans aren't wasteful? The country with the richest 'poor' people in the world? Yes, we are wasteful and we use much more energy than we need to. As to the hydrogen car question, it was a serious question about where the conversation on that issue has gone to, since, to me it makes the most scientific sense for powering vehicles. Hydrogen fuel would be cheap and have a very minimal impact on the environment. I learned a long time ago when I was still studying physics that the combustable engine we find in our vehicles is the least energy efficient 'machine' that is made. Consumer's complacency shouldn't be an excuse. "

Online Editor wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:25 PM:

" To Tree Hugger: In Denver? I could be mistaken, but it does seem odd. Feel free to email me if you need more explanation. jason.lueder@bismarcktribune.com "

Chad wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:09 PM:

" Doing two Google searches uses the same amount of energy as it takes to boil water for a cup of tea. According to the environmentalists, I'm destroying the planet just by using the internet.

Hey, wait a minute... didn't Al Gore invent the internet? "

Online Editor wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:04 PM:

" To Greedis Maximus and Tree Hugger: Please choose a single name and stick with it. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:00 PM:

" Laura B., If Al Gore were truly trying to save energy he would have moved into a smaller home and gotten rid of his jet! He was and is only trying to make money of people that are not smart enough to figure it all out. Heck, I have a few acres here, send me $10,000 and I will plant trees for you, that will help your carbon credits! See how odd this whole thing is with carbon credits? It is strange, one person here says I am an energy hog and others think that I have making up ways to save energy. Laura wants people to believe what she believes, not what is the truth! "

Law wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:33 PM:

" Kimberly, explain the culture of waste. Does the whole country waste? Is it just a few energy pigs? We live our lives the way we want to, Coal provides cheap affordable energy why should we stop using it? Go out and design a hydrogen car and market it, shouldn't be too hard. BTW the utility company doesn't run my life, they provide me a service which they charge me a reasonable price to do so.
When they can no longer burn coal that charge will not be so reasonable. "

Kimberly wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:56 AM:

" How about people just USE less energy altogether?? Did we ever think of that? Oh wait, Americans are in love their culture of waste. And why is nobody at all talking about hydrogen-powered vehicles anymore? No one wants an electric car that will die after 50 miles. But hybrids are soooo popular now, so lets just build them. Where does that electricity come from anyway? Oh, 'clean coal', silly me. Don't you love how the monopoly that they call ultility companies can basically run your life? "

Laura B wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:44 AM:

" Sunny D, sounds like you might have been "Born again". If you can do all those things to save power, maybe the rest of us can make an effort. If we all made a lot of small efforts it can add up to a big change. The little ac converters that are now like bugs in everyone's house eat energy even when they are not plugged into the cell phone or computer. You have to unplug them. If they are warm, they are drawing power. The technology exist today to live at the same standard of living using half the energy, but with low energy cost there is little incentive to do it. If the Coal and Power industry put as much money into conservation adds as they do propaganda adds, consumers could be convinced to save power. If the cost of power went up as you used more people would think more about waste. Waste is the problem, and clean coal is not the answer. If consumers were encouraged to help with load management miracles could happen. We are not using the technology now available to its fullest, because we find it so hard to break from the past. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:13 PM:

" To all of you that think you leave less of a carbon footprint or that you save more than others do, I have to ask you, did you recycle newspapers 30-40 years ago? Or did you just begin that since Al Gore decided to make money off people that he convinced were 'using too much energy'? Which BTW, if you 'buy' carbon credits or not, flying around in our own private jet is just not helping anything! Also,do you share the newspapers with others, or how about sharing your TV with others in your neighborhood so only one has to be on instead of maybe 4 or 5. How many TV's are on in our house with your kids around? How many computers do you have running?How many HOT showers do you take, or have you learned to rinse, soap, wash and then rinse like we did at camp? Do you keep our curtains closed in summer to keep the sun out so your air conditioner does not have to run so much? What kind of AC do you have? Do you buy bottled water? So many things one can do to save! "

Law wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Using the % of GDP to define a countries contributions to third world countries is deceptive to say the least. What is the total GDP of all of Europe? My guess would be one heckuva lot less than the USA's. Tree hugger talk total $ and then see if your precious socialist Europe is as generous as the people of the US. Our soldiers kept those countries from the domination of the Soviet Union, our country saved that continent and they hate us because we use too much energy and are too fat. Tree hugger you can have them. I myself could give a rats butt what the European socialist think of us. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:40 PM:

" Law says our country produces things so we have a right to waste a lot of energy. What do we produce? Airbus has taken half the plane market from us. The steel industry is practically non-existant in this country. Go to Wal Mart and see what the labels say. Most of the clothing, shoes, TVs, computers and electronics of every sort are made in Asia. Just what is it we produce? Indeed if we are a country of producers how is it that we owe 900 billion to China. Wasn't it because we are consumers not producers. Have you read a business magazine lately law, or is Fox your only source? If we produce things and sell them to the world why are we the most massive debtor nation on earth. We are in trouble because we consume. Name a product we produce and dominate the world market, you will find the list has shrunk to the point of embarrassment. Saying it doesn't make it so. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:32 PM:

" Sunny, Why do conservatives insist everything is all or nothing? Either you use a resource and waste all you can or you have to abstain from using it at all. I advocate using an intelligent amount of electricity. I advocate switching from coal as quickly as we can. I do not advocate turning the lights off. So many of you sound like you bought Kar Rove's dirty trick book. If you suggest sharing, you are a tree hugger, a communist, or a socialist at best. You like to make it appear that if you are against waste you are un- American. It all sounds so much like Sarah Palin sqealing about "palin around with terrorist". At some point all but the dumbest of the dumb see these things for what they are. That is why the Republicans lost the last election. All they had left was stubbornness and name calling. GM is going under because all they thought they needed to do was put some lipstick on their gas guzzling pigs. The American Auto industry was full of people just like the coal industry. They were stuck in the past incapable of major change. Amaricans have wised up and expect more than a fancy TV add to solve problems, they want real answers. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:54 PM:

" Tree Hugger, I see that Laura B. claims she has a smaller carbon footprint than anyone else on here. I don't know how she can prove that but, her being on the computer 24/7 proves that she is not quite as free of the carbon footprint as she expects one to believe, unless she is harnessing the energy she uses while walking to provide the electricity for her computer usage. I probably have less of a carbon footprint than Laura and you for that matter! I did not say we should not save, now did I? I did say we NEED OIL, WE NEED COAL, WE NEED WIND, until we can get the other energy sources that will replace the ones we are using right now. We can do not even have enough infrastructure for wind towers! I am all for saving, in fact I did state that we are the most spoiled people in the world, did I not? That is one of the reasons that people from other countries want to live here. They want our way of life! How do you and Laura heat your home? What kind of appliances do you run? How often do you eat out? How often do you drive to go to movies and to casinos and to 'just get out'? I am tired of the tree huggers pointing fingers at others that 'they don't save enough'! I have been a saver all my life. Just because you put a label on yourself as a 'tree hugger' means nothing!
I guess when a person spends all his day listening to the crap that MSNBC and NYT puts out, you would believe that the USA is not as up to date with the health issues as other countries are! I am glad I live in the USA where I can get medical attention when and where I want it! Where do people go when they need medical attention? To Canada? To France? To China? "

Law wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:28 PM:

" Tree hugger, when there is a disaster anywhere in the world, who contributes. US citizens, US government. The christian people of this country donate more money to worldwide relief than all of the European countries combined. No one donates to the US when we have a disaster but we take care of the world, even though according to you, we don't care. The European people celebrate when something bad happens to the US but are the first to cry for help when they need it. "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 3:02 PM:

" Law, if you want to really shock your system do some research on which countries contribute the most of their GDP to the third world. The United States it turns out is one of the stingist. Show me the data that supports your assertion. It is just one more urban myth. The U.S. has some of the highest health care cost and poorest results per dollar spent, but that would break your illusion. Try education. Again you will find we lag behind, just read the comments here. A lot of the things you claim may have been true in 1950, but the world has changed a little since you last read a real source of information. The stuff on Fox is not all accurate. "

Law wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:25 PM:

" Tree hugger, we use more energy because our country produces things . What do the Euros contribute to the world? The US contributes more goods and money to the poor third world countries than the rest of the world combined. Europe doesn't, Sunny D can own what he/she wants, can leave the lights on, Europe will still hate us and third world countries will still get no support from Europe and will look to the good ole USA for handouts. "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Me Too, I noticed you did not name the company or the CEO that made the remarks about the carbon credits? What is the problem? Could it beSatan? "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:49 AM:

" Sunny D, you are the epidimoy of what is wrong with the country. The whole concept that the world was made for you and you alone. You are the guy who lives in the McMansion, Drives the Hummer, and has his yard lit up all night, becuase it is your god given right to waste while the rest of the world goes without. In Europe they call us the "ugly Americans", there is a reason for that. No only are we the fattest people on the planet, but we consumer more energy per capita than any other nation, and you have the audacity to say drill baby drill instead of save baby save. To think that people like you are putting fuel in their beastly obscene toys only to deprive others in third world countries of fertilizer makes one wonder how we call this a Christian nation. Drill baby drill, into your head a little sharing. "

Law wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:41 AM:

" Laura, I hope you're not serious? You fell for Al Gore's scheme? Ha. How did you sequester carbon? By sending your money to someone who planted a tree?

I have a pasture that isn't plowed, can I buy a fleet of SUV's and feel good about saving the planet? Next time you want to buy a carbon credit, call me and I won't mow my lawn for a week and you can pay me. Deal? "

Law wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:37 AM:

" Laura, I am all for going 100% nuclear, but that will take decades to accomplish. Right now we can produce cheap electricity with coal and we should not hamstring the US economy by applying unilateral emission standards which will have a negligible effect on the global climate. Unless you can find a way to make China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and every other country abide by the same laws you will accomplish nothing. "

not me wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:24 AM:

" Laura B. The problem is in your statement right there. "you find it hard to believe" Yes, this is happening, carbon credits are a hoax with the government. It's funny people are so quick to remind us that we were lied to by the republicans in a war....but they think the republicans are the only ones telling lies. I am afriad you are being lied to by more than just President Bush. You make a 10 minute phone call and think you are all caught up on the business of a huge industry. People who have been working this industry for years know the ins and outs of the business. They have seen these things happen.

I don't know about the personal credits that you can purchase. I don't research them because I feel there are things I can do personally to help rather that ask someone else to do it for me. And I have gone to the websites and taken the little carbon footprint test and I do better than the average American beacuse I carpool, I have for years. I line dry my clothes, I rarely use my dishwasher, I don't have an oversized home to heat and cool. I have a geothermal heating system in my home. I don't drive 80 mph to get to everywhere I go and waste gas. I plant trees. I recycle. You see it's not that I am against your cause to help the environment. I just don't know that your allies are who you think they are. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:30 AM:

" Just wondering how many of you are plain tired of moving this 'global
warming' powder around? "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:24 AM:

" I happen to be one that thinks that we need all kinds of energy at this point. I don't think that we will ever be free from the need for oil or coal. If we do, it certainly will not be in the next 40 years. We are going to need time to get the nuclear plants up and running. How many years does it take to build one? We also need wind and water at this point. We need to do it all! I have been saying for years, Americans are too spoiled but, guess what, that is why so many people want to come to America! They want to live like we do! So, yes, drill baby drill and mine that coal because we do need it right now! We need to make sure ND keeps on growing and getting in the wind towers and the oil and to get clean coal. These can be done! If we can just get people to stop saying NOT IN MY BACKYARD! "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:15 AM:

" People who want to promote clean air are involved in an evil conspiracy? The Girl Scouts is really a front for people trying to make a fortune selling cookies. You guys need to work harder at inventing a scenario the coal companies can sell to the public. "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:57 AM:

" Not me, I find it difficult to believe any CEO would publicly make such a silly statement in public, or even in front of employees. Name the company that has such a CEO. "

Chad wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:30 AM:

" I support efforts to clean up our planet. BUT...

A generation down the road, when it becomes obvious that catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax, I want an apology, and I hope you guys can get a refund on your carbon credits. "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:23 PM:

" Apparently if you don;t entirely understand something the simplest solution is to call it a hoax. My approach with subjects I am not sure about is to do some research. A lot of people who do not understand the principles of science rely on experts at coffee shops and bars. Usually you can get a consensus there that works for people without the ability to do the necessary reading. "

not me wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:37 PM:

" Here is part of the hoax with the carbon credits. The power plants have to purchase carbon credits from the government. The government then in turn gives the power plants a refund back from the carbon credits so they don't need to raise the price of electricity and cause a hardship on the consituents. So the money goes in a circle, creats a few jobs in Washington and never actually does anything to improve the environement. When the CEO of a power generating firm was asked about the credits that is what he told the employees at his yearly peptalk to the employees. He did say some of the money goes to the DNR but it isn't used for research, just put into another government fund.

I don't know all about those credits that are purchased by individuals on the internet, but I would be suspect of those as well. When you purchase carbon credits, how do you know they actually do something with your money besides pocket it and drive a fancy car? Why don't you go to the Gurney's website and order some trees and plant your own? You would do as much for the environment and you KNOW something has actually been done. "

Benovolent wrote on Jan 11, 2009 8:31 PM:

" Why would Basin want to scare the people of North Dakota into proposing a Nuclear power plant? I'm sure they have looked into it. Nuclear has too much negativity and unknown regulations looking forward really scares the energy companies. Carbon offsets? The only positive thing that comes of carbon offsets, is lining the pockets of the people who sell them. Let me see.. why don't you pay me some money to offset your carbon, and I'll cultivate a crop, that I was going to cultivate anyway, if you give me the money or not. Sold! "

Greener Than You wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Actually maybe the soda pop industry should get carbon credits for the time the CO2 spends inside the soda pop can or bottle?

Never fear, in the early days people messed up and gave the Indians lake front property. Sooner or later they will put a Nuclear Power Plant on it. Then a new Las Vegas will be born. Soon they will have the biggest airport in the state. Industries will be sending in executives to meetings from other states.
The bright lights will probably prevent the rest of us from seeing and photographing the Northern Lights.
Then Indians will need to go to places like Kuwait to learn how to get servants from places like the Philippines, and the best ways to mistreat them while staying within reservation laws.

This is all a distraction. The so called environmentalists have been trying to block every industry in only this country for a long time. I tired to look up the Reality Coalition mentioned in above letter. When trying to open their home page I got all kinds of warnings on my computer and chickened out. Other liberal sites mentioning them indicate that they started out as a weight loss and diabetes group and have gotten grant money. If that is true and they are now branching out then it sorta sounds like they might be using medical grants and donations to make adds trying to block coal power plants. Anyone have any info on this?
Maybe we need a law that requires that money raised for one reason must be used for that reason.

I hear that a lot of taxpayers money is funneled back into so called environmental groups and it is then used against our industries. Just another reason so many factories have left the country. "

JC wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:27 PM:

" To: Laura Bush wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:11 AM:

" Dear JC, you shamed me into it. I just went on line and bought enough carbon credits to make my SUV the equivalent of a Toyota Prius. I get rebates on my credit card, and I used the rebate to buy the carbon credit, now I am holier than thou. " What are you babbling about? I've never mentioned vehicles or carbon credits. "

Sunny D wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:14 PM:

" I have been reading these comments sections for quite sometime but, never put my 2 cents in. Just had to this time though, I did notice that 'mom of teens' has no comments to Laura B. like she did for some for spending too much time posting on these sites. Just wondering if anyone else had noticed?

Also to Laura B. You seem to be insinuating that everyone else is not as smart as you and/or not as 'good' as you. For one thing, when you called Sarah Palin an 'airhead' did you not know that she is the Governor of a state? Since when can you claim a title like that? If you were so smart you would have a job like that instead of sitting at the computer and putting other people down. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Dear Dialogue Basin never brings up the subject of developing nuclear power in North Dakota, they never mention the subject. If one were going to have a dialogue would it not be wise to state one's position on the various options available. If you check the Basin web site you see no mention of a nuclear option. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 2:03 PM:

" You are doing a good job Me Too. Not real sure what the problem is with the carbon credits. If I sequester as much carbon as I produce is that a good or a bad thing? The whole clean coal jazz relies on putting the carbon back in the ground. Now if you are for clean coal, then you have to be for carbon sequestering, and that's what carbon credits are all about, what is the problem? You can not say the solution is for the coal industry to sequester carbon, but ordinary people should not try it. Please explain. What part of the carbon credits is a hoax? The old editors here make me support my nonsense with facts, I hope they don't do that to you. "

Mee too wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:33 PM:

" Laura B. - tit for tat. My house is at 62, I don't have AC and I have a 4 cyl. 4x4. I rarely run my dryer, have a HE washer and have one of the most energy efficient dishwashers on the market. (4 gal will do 18 dinner plates, 14 salad plates, a dozen glasses, 1'2 dozen coffee mugs, a dozen bowls, a full rack of glasses, siverware. It takes about 2 t of soap and does an excellent job. I couldn't come close to using that little water washing by hand. I pump from a well and it goes into my drain field. I am not short of exercise. I also work full time, am supporting and raising a family so I don't have the luxary of spending all that time off in the woods. I have spent time in the Boundry Waters and and near there, during all times of the year in my younger days. ...and have biked over 100 miles in a weekend camping with gear - many ears ago. Loved it too! I would never do anything so foolish as voluntarily buy carbon credits. What a scam! "

Dialogue with America wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:49 PM:

" CLAY--The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association has launched "A Dialogue with America," a campaign designed to spur Americans to start a discussion with their Congressmen by asking these questions:

Experts say that our nation's growing electricity needs will soon go well beyond what renewables, conservation and efficiency can provide. What is your plan to make sure we have the electricity we'll need in the future?
What are you doing to fully fund the research required to make emissions-free electric plants an affordable reality?
Balancing electricity needs and environmental goals will be difficult. How much is all this going to increase my electric bill and what will you do to make it affordable?

To find out more visit this website--If the RECs of the nation have started this talk where are the rest of the owners of coal-fired plants?
http://www.basinelectric.com/News_Center/News_Releases/Basin_Electric_to_begin_dialog.html "

Laura B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:11 AM:

" Dear JC, you shamed me into it. I just went on line and bought enough carbon credits to make my SUV the equivalent of a Toyota Prius. I get rebates on my credit card, and I used the rebate to buy the carbon credit, now I am holier than thou. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 10:10 AM:

" Dear JC Ezra went on vacation, and asked me to take over, how am I doing? "

Laura B wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Dear Me Too. Perhaps one might look at ones life and consider ones total carbon imprint as they now like to say. Although it is true I own a four wheel drive pick up truck, I would venture to say my carbon footprint is below average. I hike about four hundred miles per year. I bicycle, and I use very little electricity. I keep my home temp down, and I have virtually no motorized toys. In the winter I cross country ski. All things considered I am far from perfect. The reason I own the pickup is because I spend about three or four months totally off the grid each year in the desert and woods. So if you look at my total consumption of fossil fuel, you would more than likely find me at or below average. "

JC wrote on Jan 11, 2009 7:22 AM:

" Amazing that Ezra dropped totally off the radar, only to have Laura Bush take up his fight! "

Benovelent wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:32 AM:

" We can argue the whole CO2 thing forever, and we wouldn't get anywhere at all. The jury is still out. CO2 is captured at DGC as part of the sulphur removal process in the gas cleanup process. It doesn't take any extra energy to capture the CO2, it is captured as part of the base process. The only extra energy that is being used, is the energy to compress and transport the CO2. As far as the downward spiral? No, thats not the case. Dakota Gas produces enough Gas for about 700 MW of electricity and they consume about 40 MW. Or it could be 1400 MW and 80MW on a project 2x the size. There are processes on paper that would capture CO2 from a coal power plant. I am familiar with an ammonia process and an amine process. Both simply scrub the flue gas to remove the CO2 the regenerate either the amine or ammonia for re-use. They look to use about somewhere around 10% of the powerplant output for this process. This does decrease overall output, but not a major downward spiral. If a new plant would be built with this technology, the base effiency of the plant would be higher anyway, so compared to an existing plant, it wouldn't be a whole lot different. One thing about whatever technology you use, Coal, Nat Gas, Nuclear, the regulators require you to use the most cost effective method. That is why you will be seeing coal plants proposed, and the others not being proposed. Nat Gas is 2-3x more than coal, and Nuclear is a huge regulatory risk (and also 50% more). Wind it great, but it isn't as cost effective as coal, and you can't time it. Wind also costs more than base load coal. The problem is, we have growing electrical usage, where do we turn? This isn't a question for 10 years down the road, its hitting today! "

Personal discretion wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:55 AM:

" "Me too" - Remember, Laura B. has already assured us she is not perfect...but unlike the rest of us, when she is "evil or wrong" (her words, not mine) she recognizes it and trys to improve. I'll bet she's already traded that big old SUV in for a small, energy efficient car in an effort to improve. "

Me too wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:40 PM:

" Laura B. Last summer: Coal fired power - $15/MW, Wind $24 (of course that is when it is blowing) Natural Gas $45/MW. (Catch that 3 times the cost of coal?) That was when we weren't heating our houses with it. Vehicles? We had a Geo metro - 50 mpg!! No big batteries, no recharging - very dependable and not very comfortable. It did survive a wreck with a Ford LTD, a deer and a couple of turkeys and we drove it until it died so don't tell me you have a safety issue. Detroit made what people wanted to buy. And that was not it. HELLO! Did you not say you drive an SUV? Why not a Geo? I think you better lay off anyone else until you get rid of that gas hog. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 10, 2009 5:24 PM:

" Benevolent, at least you are getting closer to the truth than poor old coop did. You admit there are no coal fired plants capturing c02. This is a great step forward. However, neither you, nor anyone else has said what the technology is to capture the CO2. As you pointed out you could burn gas to produce gas, but you quickly get into a downward spiral where there is no energy left over to produce electricity. If that were the case the gas plant at Beulah would be producing electricity, not gas. The simple truth is such a scheme would be so costly and energy intensive, it would not be practical. So clean coal at this point is pie in the sky. The only reason to burn coal is to make the producers and owners of coal a return on investment. This is a classic case of doing what is good for a few at the detriment of many. Please I beg of you to briefly describe the technology for capturing CO2 and tell me where it is being used in the production of electricity. This is the whole point reality is trying to drive home, it is a delusion perpetrated by the coal industry, and Jenkinson has the audacity to blame reality for being deceitful. The emperor has no clothes "

Benovelent wrote on Jan 10, 2009 4:38 PM:

" Laura B...
Let me say this. The next step beyond making Natural Gas is making electricity. We have an incredible amount of Natural Gas burning electrical generation units. Gigawatts! Dakota Gas could generate its own electricity if it wanted to. Its cheaper to get the electricity from next door. The technology exists for a clean operating Coal generation plant. As soon as its mandated by the regulators, it'll be built. Do you know how man half finished Nuke plants are sitting around collecting mothballs thanks to the regulators? Who is paying for these? You and I and all the other people who pay electricity. Companies won't touch a Nuke plant, until all those issues are worked out. Billions of dollars down the tubes "

Laura B wrote on Jan 10, 2009 4:09 PM:

" Dear Coop, several points. First, Dakota gasification is producing natural gas, not electricity. So the by product of CO2 results from the production of natural gas. You, nor no one else has given an example of a coal fired electrical plant capturing CO2. According to T. Boone Pickens natural gas is abundant, so why make it?. Perhaps the by products make it worth while. The gas plant uses 40 megawatts of electricity from AVS. The 40 megawatts is not scrubbed for co2, so this puts a major hole in your theory. In fact your whole scenario is deceptive, and that is what you are accusing reality.org of doing. The gas plant is not burning coal as you assert, it is turning into gas. So your whole gambit does not add up. If you read this blog in its entirety you would not that the nuclear plants in this country are now being fueled with nuclear material left over from the cold war, so there is no great need for mining. The United States does have uranium supplies, and Canada also has good reserves. Currently we rely very heavily on Canada to get our oil, so why should getting our uranium from them scare you so badly. Please not the amount of diesel fuel it takes to mine coal, which we get from the Arabs. If there is a coal fired plant producing electricity and capturing CO2 please tell me exactly where it is an how they are doing it. "

coop wrote on Jan 10, 2009 3:04 PM:

" You only need to open your eyes and check out dakotagas.com and basinelectric.com, they may be from the horses mouth, but it does state that the new technology is already in place, and running. Dakota gas is a subsidary of basin, but both sites do say that they capture at least 96% of the co2 produced by burning coal, send it to canada to use in oil recover. Sulfur and others like mercury are scrubbed out of the process as well. You can see how many other products are made in the cleaner coal energy. They are still putting in more to capture more co2
The ethonol issue you state is new to me, i recall the media still stating that ethenol is still being used. ethenol.org states that they have unprecidented production of ethenol, and using other resources other than corn to make ethenol. I find that you keep digging yourself deeper, trying to find even more nasty things to compare coal to, like the auto industry. But did they (auto makers)not give consumers what they wanted? Now gas is up we start screaming that they did not want to change,and they are scrambling to produce more economical vehicles. Where does this come even close to coal?? It is economical, our electricity is pretty cheap compared to other places. We do not experience the black outs and brown outs of other places. Locally gives over 1500 people employment. How many people exactly work at one nuke plant. Maybe less then 100. But we still have a nasty issue with that mining uranium and or importing it to supporting another countries economy. WAIT , we already have that problem with importing so much oil!!! One way or another we will always have some attachment with coal. My house gets heated for free with it. Thanks to my husbands job at a coal mine. "

not me wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:59 PM:

" To Laura B.
I suggest you take a tour of the power plants and they will be able to explain the clean coal technology that is in place today. They are called scrubber units and there are many people employed here in ND to operate and monitor the emissions so they are within the regulations which have become stricter over the years. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:27 PM:

" When the coal industry purports to have clean coal technology, when there is no evidence that such a technology exist, why do they have credence? When someone questions them, the questioner is considered the evil one. Exactly how does clean coal technology work, and where is it currently employed? No one has remotely suggested how it works. Someone alluded that it was in existence, but failed to say where or how it works. Turning corn into ethanol is possible, but it certainly has not proven practical. As more and more energy is sunk into the process of producing clean energy from coal, the idea fails under its own burden of energy input. This is what doomed ethanol. Many people warned about the fallacy of going down the ethanol route, but now as the plants go broke people are forced to admit the failure. Why go through the same process with clean coal. Only one reason exist to pursue clean coal, and it is the vested interest that are lobbying for their livelihood. "

cs wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:03 PM:

" What has us talking is the blatent lies of propaganda that the reality coalition would like to have the public believe. They basically say that there is no such thing as "clean coal energy". We have seen discussion by even our president elect about this subject. He believes that clean coal is real. Some suggest, that nuclear needs to be our main source of energy from their own persepctive, but while trying to prove their point, they not only totaly miss any other comments or reasoning on why nuclear is not the major source of energy, but they give sound reasoning for coal. They comment that others are ignorant to change, but they themselves are unwilling to comprimise to any issue. Some enlightened people who do understand the need for "change" are willing to look at both sides and not lie about the entire issue like the reality coalition. "

JC wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:02 PM:

" LB; Sorry I used the word "whinning"; let me rephrase. " For those of you expressing a different point of view". Enjoy your clean, alternate heat sources. "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:48 AM:

" JCI am baffled when you enter into a discussion how the word whining comes up. Someone see the world different or seeks change, and to you that is whining. Progress never occurs when people refuse to consider new ideas and alternatives. The proposal of the article was that we look how we produce energy. Someone like you comes along and rejects any ideas that conflict with your goal. This is called narrow mindedness, which is far worse than whining. What got us to the energy mess we are now in is narrow mindedness not whining. When someone suggested indoor plumbing I am sure they were called whiners. "

JC wrote on Jan 10, 2009 8:54 AM:

" When it's -30 degrees next week, you folks that are whinning the loudest will be sitting in front of your pollution free Electric fire place, remember, the AD said it has the same warm glow of a real fire with no mess or pollution. That is sort of like picking up a turd by the clean end so you don't get your fingers dirty. You bought into that advertizing, real intelligent! I guess those of us that aren't as dedicated to saving the world will have to put on an extra layer of clothes and go out in to keep your lights and heat on!!! "

JC wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:56 PM:

" Laura B. , Just how did you get those Soviet nuke warheads to the USA without any diesel fuel, maybe the Russians delivered them in a nuke sub to the closest port of entry? Still need to get them to the processing plant, and on to the power plant once they are in a useable form. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:44 PM:

" Dear Not Me, I am with you one hundred percent on shutting down Las Vagas, it is the most obscene waste of energy imaginable. Duping simple minded people out of hard earned money in the most ecologically unsound place on Earth. You could fleece stupid people anywhere, but why do it there? Why have electronic slot machines when you could rob people with the old fashion pull type? Why not have the fleece capital somewhere that does not require massive amounts of wasted water, and air conditioning. Nothing sums up the mindset of waste better than Las Vegas. Show me a fan of Las Vegas, and I will show you a shallow minded selfish person deluded by the illusion of a free ride that destroys the environment. There is no greater shrine to stupidity. If there was a way to tax stupidity Las Vegas has perfected it. "

BRRR wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:47 PM:

" By next Wednesday they are predicting - 33 or so for Bismarck. PLEASE if any of you have any coal inspired global warming will you send it to me????? "

not me wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:11 PM:

" What about the conveyor belt that brings in coal to Basin Electric's operations in Mercer County? I suppose you have some arguement against that....noise pollution in rural ND perhaps?

Really, the bottom line is some people are against coal and they will argue any point against it. To argue that we need to save the fuel from the coal trucks for the farmers is a stretch. Maybe we should outlaw baseball, they sure waste a lot of fuel going to ballgames that have NO impact on the world. Maybe we should shut down Las Vegas and save ALL that electricity.

When you make a 10 minute phone call to someone and think you understand as much as people who have been working in the industry for years know, you are off the mark. It takes a lot to make the power grid work and you aren't going to change it and implement a new source of power overnight. Maybe you didn't find time in your phone call to ask ALL the questions about the energy industry. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:30 PM:

" Coop, tell what you don't understand about this. The uranium for the nuclear weapons in the United States has already been mined and processed. That means that if we use the thousands of nuclear weapons for fuel we do not have to do any mining. The waste from the bombs has to be dealt with, so using the bombs for fuel does not increase the net amount of waste we already have to deal with. If my calculations are correct the diesel fuel savings in North Dakota would power 16,600 cars for a year. "

coop wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:11 PM:

" You want nuclear energy here we either mine it (Uranium) in the US or import it from another country. How many bombs are left to run these plants. As much as you keep spouting comments off about more nuclear energy in the US we will still use too much diesel, by mining or importing. Cannot have it both ways. Which one is so intellegant? "

coop wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:07 PM:

" Yep, Uranium is produced how? Is it pulled out of the sky? no its mined, how did the bombs that we use in the us get here? not by a nuclear sub. I think that some fertalizers used here in ND are produced here in ND how? they are by-products of coal fired energy plants. Diesel fuel is scarce becuase the producers find it easier to decrease production, raise prices and pass it down the line. Are you looking in the same quote book as Ezra, because we have heard it all before. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:45 PM:

" Dearest Law, when diesel fuel is scarce and farmers find it hard and expensive to get should we be using it to produce lignite that could be replaced with nuclear energy? Is there such a thing as logic or the intelligent use of resources. Incidentally aren't young American soldiers being killed to procure our diesel fuel as we write/ "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:41 PM:

" OK, we have established that it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel to produce three tons of lignite coal. Since North Dakota produces about thirty million tons of coal per year, that means ten million gallons of diesel fuel are burnt to produce the coal. Most nuclear power plants in the U.S. are now burning the nuclear material from soviet bombs left over from the cold war. That means no diesel fuel is consumed in the production of nuclear power. Petroleum is used to produce most of the fertilizer in the world. Switching to nuclear would not only eliminate the pollution from the diesel fuel, but also would free it for more intellignet use. Keep in mind this is only the fuel used in ND. The amount of diesel fuel used by the mines and trains in the powder river Basin alone make up a significant amount of the diesel fuel burned in this country. Why waste it and put ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers. "

Law wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:23 PM:

" Ok Laura, if your numbers are correct I believe you are making a strong statement for keeping coal. The coal companies can use all that diesel at $3.00 a gallon, pay all those employees, build all the infrastructure needed and still provide you with cheap electricity, all while making a profit. Sounds like the most economical alternative we have. Oh, and what do you call someone who says one thing and does another. "

coop wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Well now that you are talking actual figures of what coal mines use, lets set limits on our farmer's. Just think of the amount of diesel fuel, fertilizer's and other non-renewable products that they use. Lets stop the airplane industry, don't they consume monsterous amounts of fuel? Trucking industry, any manufacturing industry also because they ship their products. How far do you want to go? Let's stop NASA from anymore space exploration. WOW think of how much fuel is used to ship the Uranium that France has to import to run their nuclear plants!!!!!! "

Laura B. wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:28 PM:

" Dear Editor, I called a lignite surface mine in North Dakota today. I was told they consume about one gallon of diesel fuel for every three tons of coal produced. The mines in North Dakota produce about 30 million tons of coal per year, so this would work out to over 830,000 gallons of diesel fuel per month. Of course this does not include the fuel used by the rail lines, and a host of other auxiliary things that happen when coal is handled. If you doubt my research, do your own. Please revise the figure in my last post to reflect this research. You might note the coal is moved from Beulah to Stanton by train, and some of the coal comes from Wyoming by train. If you add the train fuel I am sure you will hit one million gallons per month, however I will do the train fuel calculation and get back to you. "

Online Editor wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:55 PM:

" To Laura B: You need to provide support for the number of gallons of diesel fuel used. "

Greener than you wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:26 PM:

" Many arguments sound like Californias MTBE fiasco all over again. Many scientists said it would help cars burn cleaner. Others said it was a dangerous unknown solvent. It was such a thin solvent it caused the gas stations underground tanks to leak at the fittings. Independent gas station owners could not afford to fix their now leaky tanks and went out of business. Then it was discovered that the MTBE that the environmentalists were pushing was cancer causing.
But before all that happened the environmentalists were blaming 2 cycle engines for the MTBE in Lake Tahoe. They wanted to use it to outlaw jet skis.

Carbon Dioxide is a wonderful chemical in reasonable amounts. In you childs CO2 pellet gun it will turn to a liquid under pressure and give many shots as it turns back to a gas. I will make a wild guess and say that if pumped in an oil well it will also turn to a liquid and help push out the oil. Probably help fracture the oil shale if the massive pumps are used. Then when the oil gets to the surface if any carbon dioxide is present it will simply bubble out like opening a can of soda.
Somewhere in between someone makes money trading carbon credits?

But coal, when surface mined is very straightforward. What you see is what you get and it keeps the price of electricity very inexpensive.
And if that electricity is then used to make alcohol to add to gasoline it might have advantages. During prohibition some bootleggers ran their cars on moonshine whisky I have heard?

People who invested their money in stock market shares of Nuclear Power years ago did not know the environmental lobby would be filing lawsuits and using every regulatory method to delay and run the price up.
It was not a good investment because groups can raise money claiming to want to save animals then use that money to block an industry. "

not me wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Laura B you made the statemen: When there is a viable sensible alternative why ignore it?

I don't think anyone is trying to ignore any sensible alternative. Do you notice the amount of wind power going up around our state? Obviously the energy companies are working toward other methods of energy. But nuclear is not as easy as you think. Many of the people on this blog have been in the energy industry for years and they understand the ins and outs of the business. You don't just build power plants. It takes years of permitting and developing. It will take years to change all the power from coal to any other source. Wind is not reliable, you need a backup. Nuclear still generates waste, just in a different form. What is this miracle source you are speaking about? "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:04 AM:

" Coop, I wish there was such thing as clean coal, and I wish there were cigarettes you could smoke safely that did not make you smell bad. At some point you always run up against reality. Clean coal has some serious hurdles to jump over. The biggest hurdle is on the energy input side. The laws of physics cannot be abridged for the coal industry or the automobile industry. At some point the only way to get more fuel efficiency is to make the car smaller or lighter. Recovering all the undesirable things from coal exhaust takes energy. Sequestering the CO2 takes energy. Perhaps it can be done, but in the end is it the best way to do it? If you blindly insist you are going to burn coal without being honest about input cost, you end up where the ethanol people are today. Of course you can turn corn into ethanol, but it makes absolutely no sense to do it. When there is a viable sensible alternative why ignore it? Car companies do not want to see mass transit become a viable alternative, I wonder why? The coal industry is not a benevolent fraternal group out to do what is best for American. TTThttp://proof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bar-and-peace/ "

Snap wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Well! If you're gonna use a word like "unsmart" and then rant about service on a blog about coal, well . . .if the shoe fits, wear it! "

coop wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:30 AM:

" .

Laura B you still did not comment on the obama and biden speaches? I say that they are for cleaner coal energy, Yet you say that they will bankrupt the coal energy industry? Which one of us is correct? Did they said these different things to the different groups to buy their votes and make them happy, time will tell. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:24 AM:

" Dear Coop, sometimes you have to dupe some people to accomplish a greater good. Bush duped the fundamentalist by pandering to them unfortunately he got elected and we did not end up with any greater good. If it turns out the coal people got duped but everything turns out all right, maybe it will not be such a bad thing. The irony is that the coal bunch in North Dakota did not vote for Obama who was probably more pro coal than McCain. McCain on the other hand was pretty strong for nuclear power. This whole mix is strange. I used to think a lot of McCain and if he had remained true to his old self I would have considered voting for him. Once he picked the air head to run with him it was hopeless. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:32 AM:

" Coal, we have a lot of it so we should burn it. Love it or leave it, but don't fix it. Brilliant. How dare anyone critise Genral Motors, Whats good for GM is good for the country. Now shut up an join the military or you have not right to participate in our democracy. You may be sent to attack the wrong country, but that's part of learning what patriotism is. Just like coal, do what we say and don't ask questions. "

coop wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:09 AM:

" to Laura-
It's not just repulicans that have voted to keep coal, Obamba had some speaches during his campaign, he promotes technology to burn coal cleaner. So does Biden. You can view this on www.umwa.org. Were they just buying votes to get elected? Do not keep preaching that liberal minded voters are the only ones that care about the enviroment.
Also, the US may have the largest proven coal reserves, coal is mined in 100 countries, on all continents except Antarica. If we continue to consume our energy (as we are now) the world wide proven coal reserves will last over 130 years. The US is one of the largest producers of mined coal, but our technology has already improved with the capture of CO2 (That trace gas in the atmosphere of which also comes from under ocean volcanic eruption and any other volcanic activity. Could this be part of the reasoning behind the oceans warming???? Or the trace amounts in the air??? Are you going to tell mother earth to stop?) China is putting up coal burning plants at the rate of one a week. They are using the technology that we had in the 70's. The US has regulations and are improving their plants. If global warming was such a problem, why is NATO not implementing world wide regulations.
For others who do not know ; Pumping CO2 into the ground is used to help the local oil production. They are unlike the nuclear energy plants in Europe who bury nuclear waste in the ground because there is no other safe way to dispose of it. "

Career Enlisted wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:34 AM:

" Here is what bothers me about the majority of the liberal minded people on this site. You have to push your view on everybody else and if they don't agree with you they are backwards or unsmart. Here is the deal, if we choose to use and create our energy from the vast coal reserves in our state let it be. If you want to use nuclear energy by all means move to an area that has its energy produced by nuclear energy. We will not complain at all. If you want to power your residence by placing wind turbines around your property more power to you. We don't care. Why is it that you feel you are better then us and have to push your views on us. One great example is the liberal politics of California compared to our conservative philosophy here in ND. Which state is in better shape right now? I hear CA is offering IOU's instead of tax refund checks this year. I guess we are the backwards people who don't know how to survive. It goes right along with the war. I still serve the great people of this nation and believe in what I do. I find it quite ironic that the vast majority of the people who oppose what we are doing don't have the intestinal fortitude to wear a uniform. I am not a referring to everyone but I can tell you that the vast majority of the people I serve with are proud of what we do and we all have the guts to serve before we complain. "

Personal discretion wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:53 PM:

" Laura B. - For the record I voted for Obama-Biden and am proud of it...does that make me less of a pig? "

Laura B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:41 PM:

" What if beside every person's name that posted on here you saw how they voted. No doubt you would see the selfish drill baby drill bunch voted Republican. Those willing to share, and preserve the environment for the future would show up democratic. Would someone prove me wrong. "

Me too wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:45 PM:

" Sorry Laura B., but I have to side with Greener and PD. I rode my bike (read bicycle) to work one day last spring. It was a 26.5 mile round trip with 14 miles of gravel. My head wind coming home was 17 mph sustained. It was an extra 2 hours and 30 minutes of my day. I am pushing 50 yo. I was proud of myself, BUT I could work on projects that day where NO ONE had to spend any time within breathing distance. This was best for them. My looks were not the most professional that day either, but I did it....! "

Greener than you wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:32 PM:

" To Atomizer: We are so good a growing food we ship food products like wheat to other countries.
Which countries do you want us to stop sending food to?

We can grow extra food because we have the energy supplies to run factories to make and fuel tractors.

You people who think it is somehow honorable to plow with a horse or an oxen are very interesting. There would be no big cities for you city types if not for modern farmers.

The various so-called environmental organizations got people to send them a lot of money by claiming they want to save whales, owls, numerous endangered species, even pets. Then they used the money to help elect politicians that could be molded into their anti industry way of thinking.

When they went after the loggers in California claiming the spotted owl was in danger they never mentioned the various diseases in the Sierra Nevada Mountains mouse population (owl food). Bubonic Plague was not a secret. The forest rangers were putting out special traps that would not kill the mice but as they walked through a baited tube they would rub against material coated with flea powder. That way they would take the flea powder back to its nest and kill all the fleas in the nest.
It was well documented in the local newspapers. They advised people not to let pet dogs run around loose in mountain campgrounds.

No reason here for me to mention the hantavirus on the eastern side of the Sierras and advice not to sweep cabin floors because of possible airborne dust from mouse droppings.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps/

The number of out of work lumberjacks and the closed sawmills was part of the increase in the price of houses.
So we had to ship a lot of lumber into the country to build houses.

We buy Chinese products made in factories powered by coal plants with no filters. How do you feel about that? Same world? "

Laura B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:54 PM:

" Yup Personal I own a vehicle, and I am sad to say it is an SUV . I don't have a garage full of toys with gas engines. I am not perfect, and I admit I use more than is morally justified in this world. That is where I am different from you. When I am evil or wrong I can recognize it. I try to improve, I don't try to justify. If I were perfect I would be a Republican, but I am a sinner just asking for the world to improve. Contrary to you I do not believe God put the world here for my sole benefit. I believe in the concept of sharing and stewardship. Wasting resources and polluting the air is not good stewardship. If I do something, that does not make it right. On the other hand you are willing to create what ever scenario you need rather than admit we need to change things so others can share in the bounty of the Earth. I am not perfect and I freely admit it, but don't tell anyone. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:33 PM:

" What is it about the right wing mind that everything is all or nothing. Try this, use your car when you need to. When you need exercise get off your snowmobile, and ski. No one said ski to work. Go it. In the summer sail, don't use your big honkin diesel to go nowhere, get it. Walk when you hunt don't drive you ATV. It is a matter of small improvements that all add up. Use the electricity you need, but turn off the silly yard light, got it. No one is proposing all or none, just common sense. It works for you to go to the extreme but that is only necessary if you want an idea to fail, which apparently you do. Don't quit being a pig, just be less of a pig, we need pigs where else will we get bacon. "

Personal discretion wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Laura B. - I like to ride my bike or walk in the spring, summer and fall for exercise and fun, but my butt will need to sit in a motor-powered vehicle to get me the 25 miles to work and home everyday. Somehow the thought of cross-country skiing to work and back this winter is rather daunting. Now, if there were a high speed train that came through my town I would gladly jump on, but I don't know that rural ND has the population to support that. So...do you propose we shut down rural America and require people to live in the city and ban all motorized vehicles to elimate those toxic clouds? I'm curious - do you own a vehicle? "

Atomizer wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:45 PM:

" Drill baby drill, burn baby burn. What about save baby save? Why is waste such a status symbol in this country. On a per capita basis Americans use way more energy than people in other developed countries. What gives us the right to be such pigs? If the Chinese had the sense of entitlement Americans do, the climate could not tolerate the pollution. Does the fat guy have any obligation to the skinny people of the world or are we just Gods chosen wasters? Where do we get the audacity that we can keep wasting more and more with no penalty? All we can think of is what is good for North Dakota. What about the welfare of the planet, and the next generation. If you think of anyone but yourself you are a tree hugger How did we make such a virtue of selfishness? "

Greener than you wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:33 PM:

" Hello Laura B. Bicycles are nice and I have 4 at this time. I find safe places to ride in good weather. In my old motorcycle days many years ago I found that for most of the year you ride one way in the cold. Again even if working day shift you will be very cold either in the morning going to work or in the evening coming home.
As you get older you are less willing to suffer for no good reason. I have never gone boating in bad weather either.

China has massive amounts of coal and is building a new coal fire power plant each week. Our so called environmentalists only want to slow down this country, not others. Almost as if they were financed from abroad?

So do you think our next big war will be over who thinks who is causing global warming, over-fishing the ocean, or polluting the world.

Let me help you out on the basics. Right now when we build solar power panels or wind turbines every part is being built using coal, oil, nuclear or falling water as the power sources.
However, because we cannot afford to continue to import 70 percent of our oil, we will be burning a lot of coal making the future Nuclear Power Plants and all other energy producing methods.

When so called environmentalists use legal or political methods to prevent building new coal fire plants at this time they are slowing down our building of the next generation of power plants.

Have you noticed how long it takes you to dress up for your bike ride home from work. By the time you get the extra cloths, gloves, and helmet on your friends are half way home.
If you want to ride in this weather you can get the spiked tires. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Dear Mr. Greener than you. You seem to have disdain for people who walk or use bicycles. As a nation we are the most overweight in the world. We cannot move from point A to B unless our butt is seated on an ATV, SUV, snowmobile, jet ski, or some other means of artificial transportation. Breaking out of this mindset would actually make us a healthier happier group of people. If people would cross country skii, hike, bike, and walk, health care cost would come down, but people like you must be moved everywhere, and produce a toxic cloud in the process. What a sad way to go through life, and you miss so much becuase of the noise and stink of your machines. To top it off your machines destroy the trails, the fields and the entire landscape, but you are entitled. "

Laura B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:23 AM:

" Although the United States has abundant coal reserves, the rest of the world does not. This simply means nuclear power WILL have to be developed. The rest of the world has embraced mass transit and high speed trains because of necessity. Are we going to hang on to antiquated technology just because we can? Currently many of the wind turbines errected in North Dakota come from a European firm. This is the case becaue the Europeans embraced wind before we did and consequently had a technological advantage. It is incredible that just to pacify the greed of the coal lobby we would agree to develope ways to burn the worst fuel on earth, rather than build nuclear capcity right here. The nature of the conservative mind set is never to go forward unless it is absolutely forced on you. "

Greener than you wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:21 PM:

" Dof, the only thing that can blow up in a nuclear power plant is the boilers where you turn water into steam. It is basically the same in coal fire plants, or oil fire plants.
In steam ships and trains that have boiled water for many years the dangers were far more than any nuclear power plant.
Many old riverboats did have boilers explode. However most explosions were usually caused because they were sinking and the river water got into the firebox.
Many old ocean steam ship explosions were caused by some spark igniting the coal dust blowing up the coal storage area. They needed modern ventilation.
In a nuclear power plant the uranium rods are very low grade and need a lot of processing to become explosive. And the half-life of any that got blown around by any steam explosion is not thousands of years. More like fifty years if you did nothing.
You are simply using low-grade radioactive rods put near each other to boil water to turn a steam turbine, which turns the electrical generator to make electricity. Nothing new except the way you boil water.

Far fewer people have died boiling water using radioactive rods than any other way. All of our navy ships and subs are nuclear power. They are much safer than anything used before them.

Chernobyl was a very primitive design and they shut off the cooling water by mistake while trying to do a safety test that they did not understand. They blew their boilers and then others went in immediately afterward without protective gear.

History is full of firemen and civilians who died rushing into various chemical fires without protective gear. Modern polymer furniture is extremely toxic when burning and kills large numbers of people.

Even countries using primitive coal technology, if it is in a windy area it is extremely safe.
Burning anything in a stale air mountain pocket like summertime Los Angeles area is very life shortening. "

dof wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:32 PM:

" Ezra, early in your posts you quoted George Santayana, or should I say misquoted him and his statement "Those who can not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. " In the same way it looks all the world to me that your pro-nuclear power generation may also have its short comings. Perhaps 3-mile Island, or Chernobyl, might ring a bell? If you blow up a coal plant what do you have, a pile of rubble and some steaming ash... You blow up a nuclear plant and you have square miles of irradiated land, radiation poisoning, and half-lifes of the nuclear isotopes lasting for thousands of years... its not that it will happen, but it is something to think about. BTW, I work for a green energy company (geothermal power generation) and I have no problem with clean coal technology. Coal will have to be part of the energy mix for the next 50 years as it provides a dependable 24/7 base load for the wind energy every one touts as the way of the future.... "

Atomizer wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:50 PM:

" Like others have said on this blog, the similarities between the clean coal guys and the GM executives is astonishing. First, start with a promise you have an upcoming product that you are about to roll out, all you need is a few billion to get you there. Like the GM guys they cannot embrace new technology. The writing is on the wall but they suggest tearing the wall down. Good propaganda is the answer. The whole concept is we burn coal until my pension or golden parachute kicks in. In the meantime fight progress with lobbying, political donations, and false science, and promises about a technology that does not exist. Last but not least don't promote conservation, tell them what they need is Hummers. Meanwhile let the Japanese and the French build the future. The parallels are amazing. "

Greener than you wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:26 PM:

" The entire solar system is renewable, somewhere a star is exploding to become a nebula, which comes together again by gravitation and everything begins new again.
When you burn something every atom is still in existence, it just changed from a solid to a gas often with some ash left over but every atom is still there.
Everything comes from the Earth and goes back to the Earth. Every atom on Earth has existed since it was created in a massive explosion. The atoms just change places mostly from solid to gas and back, or molecule to more complex molecule. Good topsoil is more than just atoms of rock, it is molecules of living and once living organic material.
Calculate the carbon footprint of the space shuttle and our national parks. Every part in the space shuttle and its fuel needed to be manufactured or processed somewhere and energy was used.
Think of our smaller carbon footprint if we closed our national parks and some overseas WWII military bases. Hollywoods carbon footprint us huge, lets close down the movie industry.

The cleanest energy is falling water. But even that is under attack by those so called environmentalists who claim to want to save salmon.
Naturally they also want to close down fish hatcheries so they can prove salmon are in danger again.

I do not want to be poor because someone is still repeating the mantra of the Diggers. In the 1960s the runaway teens that clustered in San Francisco learned the mantra well. Still some socialist hippies out looking for converts. Only the new tool has been twisted environmentalism.

People in Europe ride bicycles to trains or busses that are built to carry the bicycles and the people. Why would we want to do that?

Hippies should go back to their failed free love communes and start over. Maybe after all the drugs and dumb logic the boys will stay around to raise the kids this time? "

replant wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:20 PM:

" Clay, I think you protest too much. Am I the only loyal reader of Mr Jenkinson's columns who suspects he used this tongue-in-cheek approach to encourage us to look harder at the reality of "clean coal"? HMMM? Congratulations on starting the dialogue on energy production in North Dakota. "When the landscape is quiet again" I hope we'll find we've been the good stewards that our great Govenor Art Link intended. "

bladerunner wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM:

" I do alot of work at our local power plants. There investing a ton of money. From drying coal at the Coal Creek Station. Installing scrubbers at Stanton. Haven't been to Center lately, United Rental told be you wouldn't beleive the amount of equipment there. Can you imagine how much money is brought into the Western half of this State? "

not me wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:33 AM:

" Ezra, nobody is saying that nuclear power can't work in ND, but there are some issues.

1st , we don't have the transmission lines for another power plant. If we had enough transmission lines for more power some of the coal powered plants which only have 1 boiler would probably have put in 2 boilers years ago before the regulations became so strict. So that issue has to be addressed and it is NO small step to get lines across to other states, I mentioned before MN has blocked transmission from new sources that are nonrenewable and nuclear power is nonrenewable. Wind power is renewable and has gone up in small groups that haven't exceded the transmission capabilities, but the capabilities are currently less than what a power plant would be if one where built. They aren't going to build a 150 MW plant.

2nd, it's hard to convince people that nuclear is something they want in their back yard. That's a hard sell anywhere. If it was so easy, why aren't they going up all over the US? A large portion of our power goes to MN. Why hasn't MN put up the nuclear plants, then ND coal power wouldn't be needed as much and less coal would be burned if they couldn't sell the power....because MN doesn't want nuclear in their back yard either.

3rd, there are still issues with nuclear fission. We have waste there too. It might be something we can dig into a mountain for now and not worry about. But 100 years ago they thought that it was no big deal to burn coal and send the emissions into the air. So 100 years ago the technology left us with a puzzle to solve today. Nuclear does more of the same, it's just that you leave the puzzle for someone else to solve, so you think you fixed it. "

JC wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:37 AM:

" Please EZRA tell us more about France and their successful Nuclear Power Plans; then read this article!!!

The nuclear waste crisis in France
briefing document May 30th 2006
Since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has
been largely neglected. Even today, large quantities of waste remain in unconditioned and unstable form,
inventories of historical dump sites are lacking or were lost and one of the largest dump sites in the world
near the La Hague reprocessing plant is leaking into the underground water. Now evidence is emerging that a
new nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water
threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides. The French nuclear waste
authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large
quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear
fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. Even French government regulators are expressing their
concerns over the conditions at both dump sites.
New nuclear projects threaten to make a crisis into an even greater nuclear catastrophe. Specifically, plans
for an underground high level waste disposal site are moving forward. This would be located at Bure, again
in the Champagne region east of Paris. Further, EDF is seeking approval for construction of the European
Pressurized Water Reactor, EPR, at Flamanville. In addition to all the associated hazards, not least the
reactors vulnerability to aircraft impact, the reactor is due to produce the most high level radioactive waste of
any commercial nuclear reactor in France.
The nuclear power and reprocessing industry have created large volumes of waste, of which many are stored
in an unstable condition. They have also illegally dumped tens of thousands of cubic metres of waste in
France, without an option to ever take them back.
The European liberalisation of the electricity market and the partial privatisation of EdF have raised the
question of who is going to pay. "

Wow... wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Wow, Mr. Jenkinson. For someone who always writes columns about loving the beauty of the state and the area Teddy Roosevelt lived, I am shocked and appalled that you wrote this column!
you are fortunate to have a very public platform on which you can address important issues. I would have liked to see you advocate for protecting areas of our state like TRNP- are you aware there are plans to build a "clean coal" plant near the park? I can't say I have ever been to Stanton, but I doubt it is as beautiful as the park (and surrounding area) is right now.
You really missed the boat with this one. "

Here we go again wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:06 AM:

" The power required to capture and compress CO2 will probably approach 10% plant rating once a large scal project is put together. Much of that power requirement is for the CO2 compression, not the capture. If you don't have to pump it very far, then it wouldn't take as much energy.

Coal is currently generating over 50% of our electricity nationally. Opposition to Nuclear is not a local sensation. Our electricity use is going to continue to expand. The only viable, economical alternative we have, is for more baseload coal generation.

Cooperatives own and generate much of the electricty locally. Who do you think owns these Coops?? The people do. Its not 'coal barons' who are driving the boat, the people are driving the boat. Wave your finger at them. "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:32 AM:

" The technology for utilizing the CO2 from the power plants has already been proven as a valuable recourse for making bio fuel and one plant is already using the technology.. More plants will be taking this alternative to CO2 fines. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:36 PM:

" Free will, I never said the visible stuff coming out the stack was anything. You cannot see the co2, that doesn't mean it is not there. I never said what caused the inefficiency, so I am not sure what that has to do with anything. The whole point is lignite is a very poor way to make electricity, you seemed to have acknowledged that. It is time to change directions, why wait until it is too late? Why keep pouring money into a losing proposition. France has clearly proven nuclear is workable, no one yet has explained why a technology that works in France cannot work in North Dakota. The simple answer is special interest in North Dakota do not want it to work. It would be a different set of people making money, and that is intolerable. So we must all suffer so the right people can make money. The ethanol nonsense was perpetrated by a similiar group of narrow minded people that could not see beyond their own wallet. "

free will wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:09 PM:

" Sorry Ezra the reason that coal is inefficient in ND is that lignite is 30% water. You know the big clouds of "smoke" that is water vapor. Yes there are other things in the "smoke" but it is mostly water vapor. The 30% water in the coal is why they don't send the coal to other power plants and instead send the electricity. Keep taking bits and pieces of information and not the entire story and you get a left and right wingers. I hope there are more of us in the middle that understand that change will happen but it isn't going to happen by morning. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:28 PM:

" Dear Comment, let me explain the North Dakota voting mind set. In state we don't want anyone to spend our own money. So we elect conservative never change, don't tax, nothing new Republicans. Although we don't believe in spending our own money we love getting someone else's money. So we send Democrats to Washington to get other peoples money. It works. For every dollar we send to Washington we get $1.78 back. We are a strange bunch we claim we hate socialism, but we have more coops than any other state. We hate welfare, but without farm subsidies giving us welfare we would starve. Once something works we think it will work forever, that is why once we go one direction we can never change. Ask your typical North Dakotan why they do anything, and the answer will usually be "This is the way grandpa did it." "

Jim wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:10 PM:

" Gee, I'm sorry but having gone to the web site cited in the column, viewing the ad multiple times, and looking at the principle references cited in its development, I can only conclude Clay Jenkinson was delusional when he penned this diatribe. I don't believe he understands the purpose the ad and in fact miscontrues it beyond belief. I would not equate the man in the video with a cadaver or the living dead. Nor would I call the landscape, "The Land of Death". In going to the web site cited in the article I found the ad sponsors supported the commercialization of CO2 capture and storage and acknowledged that CO2 storage presently occurred on a limited basis. Links on the web site hooked up to a 2008 EPA report identifying the major sources of greenhouse gases in the United States (which include electrical generating plants fueled by coal) and to a 2008 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists called Coal Power in a Warming World which is very supportive of carbon capture and storage. Clay Jenkinson calls for a responsible national dialogue, but does anything but this in his column. Instead he constructs a straw dog so that he can pronounce the energy industry (and North Dakota) need to forcefully argue a counterpoint based on a false premise. Give me a break. "

Comment wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:49 PM:

" I find it interesting when Ezra criticizes our state's residents for voting for Bush and McCain and Palin - and says we are in the past. And these same voters, on the other hand, support an all democatic congressional delegation in Washington, DC - and have for decades. I just don't get it. But maybe that's because I look at things objectively. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:31 PM:

" Dear Not Me. Take away the farm subsidies, and North Dakota would evaporate. Tell me farm subsidies are not bail outs. Who are you kidding? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:30 PM:

" Dear Get Real, you logic is perverse at best. According to you since we have a lot of something we should use it. At some point technologies change. I totally miss the point. If nuclear power replaced coal fired power, would my computer not work from the nuclear power plants? Change is scary and hard for those stuck in the past to embrace. However, history is replete with major changes. Even the most backward got used to cars and planes. The telephone was pretty scary at first, and radio was a strange invention, but we learned to live with it. The stone age ended, steel and plastic came along. Some people still swear by wooden bows but the wooden bow makers lost out to fiberglass and now carbon fiber. The past is great, but the future is usually better. Are you incapable of change or learning new skills? I can understand how people with limited skills are afraid when new technology comes on the scene, but there will be something you can
do. Even nuclear plants need security guards and janitors. "

not me wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:27 PM:

" It is partly due to the coal economy that ND is doing well too. I think it has been stated that ND is the only state that ISN'T in a recession. It's hard to argue that ND is so backward and stupid, when we aren't the ones crying for a government bail out.

I was in California to visit family and a sign in the hotel bathroom said to "think like a Californian" and don't make the housekeeping wash your towel every day. That will help save the environment. If I were to really think like a Californian I would drive 80 mph on the freeway everywhere I went burnging excess fuel. I would spend millions of $ on electricity to spin pink elephants and teacups in circles, not to help the environment, but just to simply make a corporation richer. I would then refuse to allow any power plant to be built in my state and then cry when we have brown outs and don't have enough electricity when it is 104 and we can't run the air conditioning. I know of another state that thinks like that, they are just to the east of good ol ND. That state has blocked the transmission of new incoming power that isn't from a renewable source, like wind. That state gets colder than the brilliant California, they might be in worse shape when they have brown outs and it is -42 like it was a couple weeks ago. But again, that state needs lake homes and they need boats and jetskis. Those things aren't bad for the environment, but coal is. So if it weren't for these backward ND's, well then the environment would be fine.

Again, if somebody else would change, then I wouldn't have to, because it couldn't be my 6500 square foot house that I have to heat and cool....no way...not me! "

Get Real wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:39 PM:

" To all of you tree hugging hippies out there who say that coal technology should be shut down - I hope you realize that if you live in ND that the majority of your electricity comes from coal burning power plants. Let's see how you enjoy writing your replies by candlelight instead of a lightbulb. And heaven forbid you not use any computers or charge any cell phones, not to mention no refrigerators or ovens. Seriously people, most of you are using coal powered electricity to read this reply, so don't be the ones complaining when we have no power and not to mention the significant decrease in jobs and people moving out of the area. "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:06 PM:

" Ezra.... ND id doing well, under Republican leadership! I think you need to go spread your bull in some other state that needs your help! "

Dewdrop wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:02 PM:

" Grumpy Old Republican: I checked out that website. I also had been reading this very moring about he sme things on other websites. It was exactly the same thing, the Arctic ice has always melted.... and then refrozen. In fact right now, it is thicker now than it ever has been since 1970, accordiing to the ones I had looked at. Also the fact that Antarctica has been getting more and more ice could mean that we are in a 'global cooling' era! hmmmm Is this the end of algore's money makng scheme? No, because some people will not let go of their hate! Right Dems? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:49 PM:

" Pondering this subject it suddenly hit me that Jenkinson missed the whole point of the reality add. The add had little to do with a desolate landscape and had more to do with the idea of "empty". When the guy opens the door to show clean coal technology there is nothing there. That is the point. There is no clean coal technology. Last night I spoke with an engineer from a power plant. He said it would take at least 30% of the electrical output of the plant to capture the CO2. That means you have to burn 30% more coal, which means more pollution. It is just one giant circle. Most coal plants today are lucky to be 30% efficient. That means that for every four cars of coal you burn three are simply turned into heat not electricity. Once you make the process even more inefficient by adding CO2 capture technology, you have a very sad mess. If you own a lot of coal your best bet is to sell the public on the idea that there is a magic solution, so you can sell your coal. If you are heartless and think your interest are more important than the public's, you can spend millions on adds to convince them you have a magic pill you don't or a least you are pretty close. "

2nd Chad wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:26 PM:

" Sorry 1st Chad...I justed used my first name...didn't realize I was causing confusion. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:05 PM:

" All Chads are OK, just as long as you are not a hanging Chad, that is what got Bush elected "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:43 PM:

" We have the highest drug prices in the world because we fell for the drug industry propaganda. Now the coal industry is telling us how much they love us and for our own good we should go along. Yeah "

NotDistracted wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:34 PM:

" The minimum time I have heard regarding the building of nuclear power plants is 10 years. However it has been so long since the so-called environmentalists have allowed us to build one that all the experienced engineers are retired or deceased.
The most highly touted engines burn hydrogen and oxygen like the Space Shuttle. As they say the only thing that comes out is water.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-shuttle.htm/printable
Unfortunately the solid rocket boosters are the same old thing that all rockets use. Mostly Aluminum and Iron Oxide. You might remember that it was the basic ingredients that were used on the skin of the infamous Hindenberg to reflect sunlight. When Germany did a study of that disaster it helped them invent rockets.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/02/26/1052864.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

It take energy to make hydrogen and all other fuels and materials used in space research and war. Or for all the materials to build your house or grow your food. It all begins at some power plant that uses some heat source to boil water to turn steam turbines and that turns an electrical generator.
China is building a coal fire electric generating power plant every week. If we do not pioneer what it takes for clean coal it will never happen.
Remember the trouble some of our athletes got in for wearing filter masks at the Olympics in China.
We need to lead the world in clean coal technology as we convert to Nuclear.
Right now we make a lot of our plastics (polymers) from oil. We probably need to begin making them from coal.
I do not want to be poor for the next 10 or 20 years waiting to catch up with the next technology that might work. Lets do it all right now. "

elec wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Obama hasn't even taken office yet and "the team" is all ready trying to shut down the coal industry. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:05 PM:

" Not Me has a good point, we have met the enemy an it is us. To my knowledge science deals in facts. There is only one kind of gravity. "

Original Chad wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Not that it really matters, but I just want Ezra to know that we have multiple people posting as "Chad" on this thread. I've been calling myself Chad for weeks, and a second Chad has appeared. "

Not me wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:48 PM:

" Nuclear is on option but it will take 30 years to get nuclear plants built, check into the permitting issues with the government. Wind is an option but it needs coal as a back-up. I think there are many sources of CO2 that are causing just as much of an environmental problem as clean coal. The coal industry is regulated day and night for exact emissions that are released. What about your car or pick-up? Do you have someone to regulate how fast you drive every second of the day or how much time you spent with the lights on when you didn't need them? If people started to conserve and cut back they would make more of an impact and less coal would need to be burned, less oil needed for gas. But it's always someone elses job to save the environment. If "they" didn't burn coal the world would be better. But I can drive an oversized SUV (which gets 12 mph) to pull my boat(which burns gas for no other reason than my entertainment) to my lake home (that has been heated all winter while nobody uses it) and that's not going to hurt the environment. It's those "coal people" who hurt the environment, they should change, not me! "

Chad wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:55 AM:

" Erza, They would be (and already are) storing the CO2 the same way they are storing your popcan...underground.

Why spend money on clean coal instead of nuclear...because it actualy has a chance of succeeding in ND. Its that simple. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:15 AM:

" I like this: "The effect of climate change has been documented by people who understand science. " But, my friend, WHICH people, and WHICH science? You only believe the liberally-bent scientists who buy into the "science" (more like religion) of global warming. Try this little gem on for size: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html ...Or is that just "neocon hype?" "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Chad, where are you going to store that CO2 ? Storing nuclear waste deep in a mountain gives you time to figure out an ultimate solution. Dumping co2 in the atmosphere is causing a problem as we breathe. Which is more threatening a problem that can be postponed for hundreds of years or an immediate problem? Why spend money researching "Clean coal" when the same money could be spent for researching how to deal with nuclear waste safely? The simple truth is we are no closer to storing CO2 than we are solving the nuclear waste problem. Nuclear waste has been stored for over fifty years and to this day there has been no adverse effect. The effect of climate change has been documented by people who understand science. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:22 AM:

" The answer to the love it or leave it bunch is simple. Lets try fixing it. So the choices should be love, leave it, or fix it. If you love it, you will fix it. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:21 AM:

" Few industries have voluntarily quit going the wrong direction. If you had large sums of money tied up in coal fields, coal mining equipment, and electrical equipment reliant on coal would you find it difficult to change direction? If you want to see a model for the coal industry, look at the tobacco industry. The first stage was denial. The next stage was lobbying and advertising. The final stage was reality. The public was slow to accept that tobacco was a deadly product. As the evidence piled up people finally had to conclude they were wrong. The problems associated with global warming happen gradually, and become more undeniable as time moves on. How many lives could have been saved if people had been willing to admit early that tobacco kills. Now, the same slow learners want to put off action to avert the next climate mess, because they cannot come to grips with change. "

Online Editor wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:14 AM:

" To JC: I can tell a few things from the IP address associated with the comment, it's not a Tribune employee. "

Nick wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:43 AM:

" We'll I guess I will leave some of my last attempt at a comment out. But just wanted to let everyone on here know that I agree with burning coal to such an extent that I even burn it at my home to keep it warm. It is a wonderful source of heat to which I am thankful. "

JC wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:33 AM:

" Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:33 PM:

" The nuclear waste one human would produce in a lifetime would fit into a 12 once pop can. If a human is putting out that much RA waste he probably won't need a colonoscopy at age 50, they can just walk him by an X-Ray machine!! "

chad wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Erza, I think you dodged a question here. I agree with your nuclear waste popcan claim, but you did not tell us where you are going to store that popcan. Remember that it is toxic waste that cannot be touched for thousands of years. Just think, if everybody in the Bismarck area had a popcan full of waste, that would be a huge amount of waste. Where are you going to put it???? There is no easy answer.

Don't fool yourself into believing that your "big coal" companies haven't looked into nuclear. I know many of the large cooperatives have done just that and they have found that its expensive and almost impossible to overcome the not in my backyard mentality. If it was cheaper and had more acceptance they would push forward on it. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:05 AM:

" Two comments here... First off, I must tell Ezra that he/she needs to leave this God-forsaken backwards state immediately and move to a Utopian society, such as San Francisco or Berkeley or Boston ASAP in order to avoid popping a blood vessel in the forehead from all that anger. Second, I think the "Reality Coalition" is about as viable as MoveOn and other liberal slander machines. They can tout Gore's "evil CO2" bit all they want, but the REAL science is in. Guess what, kids? Spikes in CO2 levels do indeed coincide with global temperature rises. However, the gas levels for this trace gas in the atmosphere tend to spike about 800 years after the temperature does. Perhaps we should pull a scrubber or two out of some coal-fired plants and warm this place up a little bit. (Note sarcasm...man-made CO2 is incapable of creating a catastrophe) I'm much more afraid of global cooling (which is occurring as I type and has been for about a year or more now) than I'll ever fear global warming. "

To EZRA wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:54 AM:

" Without the energy industry in ND, we have no future. This state will be filled with corporate wellfare farms and nothing else. Except of course for the nuclear plant in YOUR backyard. "

Oh Really wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:48 AM:

" I am sure that deforestation in the name of clean ethanol has nothing to do with global warming! If Gore's theory is correct, than why not try to stop the farmers from cutting down rain forests. To target one industry in one country and think that we are going to bring down the level of CO2 is a joke. After all the coal plants in north amarica are shut down and we are living in darkness with no economy left, will China, India etc quit emitting CO2 as well? Doubt it. Educate yourself Ezra and open your eyes to the WORLD. "

Impressed wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:33 AM:

" Lifelong North Dakotan wrote
Wind, solar, geothermal (where applicable), ocean thermal energy conversion (where applicable), tidal (where applicable) and yes nuclear is all better ways to produce electricity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If these ways are better then build them and produce electricity from them. Let people see if they are better.

I do know the approach to destroy the coal industry before there is anything to take it's place is "backackwards" and wrong.

That is the major issue I have with enviromentaists and their attack on coal. Renewables produce about 7% of our electricity and I for one am not willing to shut down coal while we wait for more expensive options. "

Disagree wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:53 AM:

" I'm more concerned with global cooling than I am with global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4613 "

Comment wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:38 AM:

" Ezra, why do you live in North Dakota? "

NoDak John wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:32 AM:

" The work at UND Grand Forks is looked to for advancement in the use of coal by scientists and industry all over the world. Their work IS a big deal to those in the industry. The dignitaries are more than happy to travel to North Dakota to see the latest technology. Dont knock ND, you know not of which you speak. The computer you are using was developed in part in that backward State as is the EMR. Had an EMR? The scientist who launched that technology was a Christian who used his experiments in magnetism with various waveforms superimposed on that steady state field and their effect on various elements to get his PHD. "

Here we go again wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:12 AM:

" CO2 has been established as the major cause of global warming? Last time I checked, global warming itself hasn't been established yet. How can we establish a cause? Political rhetoric is far from scientific fact. In fact the former president of the weather channel (one of the early pushers of global warming theory) has totally reversed himself, now calling it the global warming myth. As far as CO2 capture from coal, sure it can be done. Dakota Gasification Co has been doing it for 8 years. Basin Electric in all likehood will be doing a commercial scale test at Antelope Valley Station in the next couple of years. Basin is also probably going to propose using that same technology for a new base load coal plant in Selby, SD. Why not nuclear?? Its simple econimics. A baseload coal plant in this region, even with CO2 capture is about 1/2 the cost of a Nuclear plant. Does anybody want to pay 2x more for electricity? The not in my backyard mentality with Nuclear will never allow a plant to be built in this area. "

Snap wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Lemme tell you something about that Clay Jenkinson! He's a big deal in North Dakota and that's why he loves it here! If he were at a university anywhere else in this union he would be considered mediocre! "

CO2 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:25 PM:

" Hey Ezra! There have been 190 earthquakes in and around Yellowstone in the past week - several with a magnatude of 3.0 or higher. If that blows (and the experts say it could) it will emit more CO2 than ALL the coal burners here COMBINED ever could. Might overheat the planet. So....how are you going to stop it? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:27 PM:

" Mr. Jenkinson seemed to take great offense at the add. The add was truthful. There is currently no viable technology to burn coal without producing massive amounts of CO2. The coal industry has purpetually led the public to believe, untruthfully that there is a way to burn coal without producing environmental problems. If anyone has been misleading the public it is the coal industry. How, Mr. Jenkinson managed to turn this 180 degrees and claim the reality people were the ones misleading people is strange. If there is viable technology to remove Co2, where is it being used, and how does it work? Oh, were working on it, but its not quite ready yet. Well guess what, were working on how to deal with nuclear waste, but it is not quite ready yet. So why pretend coal has a solution when clearly they don't and for that matter are not even close. "

Reality Check wrote on Jan 5, 2009 4:53 PM:

" I think the whole point of his column was not that coal energy is good or bad, but rather that we as a whole need to have a discussion about it. The way this commercial is presented takes things to an extreme where a discussion is no longer possible. There are some very reasonable people on both sides of the aisle, and one would hope that they can come together enough to talk about coal and energy in a reasonable manner. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:38 PM:

" Law, indeed it does seem simple. You might note the Sierra Club is now pro nuclear, and they are about as hard core as you can get for environmentalist. You will also find many other environmental groups endorsing nuclear energy. The question is when. When will you quit pouring capital into a hopeless direction and start on a more promising path? It is like putting off quitting smoking until next week. It is killing you now. The whole concept is to break out of the North Dakota mindset of "We will change when forced to". GM is now facing the results of that mindset. Are we incapable of learning? How many times do we have to make the same mistake? "

Law wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:11 PM:

" Ezra, I am all for firing up as many nuclear plants as possible. How many will the EPA and the enviros let us build in the next 20 years? I say we keep using coal until the replacement energy is built. Seems simple. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Dear not distracted do cars that run on electricity know if the electricity came from nuclear or coal fired plants. Am I missing something? "

Chad wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:54 PM:

" Global warming is all made up. Look outside. It has snowed a lot this winter.

There Ezra, I said it. Have fun. "

NotDistracted wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Please remember that we import 70 percent of our oil, which means we are becoming poor sending money out of the country.
We have more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. Naturally there are big money interests out there that want to outlaw us using coal to make electricity. We might begin driving electric vehicles and wean ourselves off of oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:33 PM:

" The nuclear waste one human would produce in a lifetime would fit into a 12 once pop can. The waste from coal is killing us as we go. CO2 has been established as the major cause of global warming. Nuclear waste could kill us in the future if we do not find a solution. Coal is killing our planet as this is written. There is a possibility the nuclear waste problem can be solved. We have thousands of years to solve the nuclear problem. The coal problem may have already pushed us over the edge, its time has run out. It seems very strange that we would risk the planet so people in North Dakota can have jobs producing coal. It seems every stranger that the people in North Dakota cannot realize those jobs could be replaced in nuclear energy production. We go to great lengths to save the special interest, but saving everyone seems of little importance. Someone please write back and tell me global warming is all made up because it snowed a lot this year in North Dakota. "

DennisB wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Wow--so much hate here!

I guess things really haven't "changed" since that "glorious" day in November. "

scuttlebutt wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:46 PM:

" Regarding the land in coal country--yes, the surface reclamation is nice, but there are big issues associated with coal mining. In a way, it is a bit like the desert depicted in the ad. People are displaced due to coal mining, and because the mining ruins the aquifers, access to water is a huge problem. This could be why there have been zero acres of mined land at our 2 largest active mines released from bond. Because the companies control the land by not releasing it, they also control the folks who live there. "

jadrmashotmail.com wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:04 PM:

" So Ezra, what is your plan for disposing of the nuclear waste? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:38 AM:

" Dear Really, Coal fired plants actually emit more radiation than nuclear plants. Seems hard to believe, but check it out. The economic boon a nuclear plant would bring with thousands of good paying jobs would be hard for any area to pass up. If you can sell these people on coal with a few advertisements by the coal industry, surely you can pump them up on nuclear. These people bought McCain and Sara Palin, you are not talking about a population hard to fool. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:34 AM:

" Dear comment, contrary to what you say I have taken action. Because of actions I have taken I have been denied jobs by people who object to my views. Try running for any office in North Dakota without being an NRA member, or being prochoice. The people of North Dakota will not elect anyone with progressive ideas, what about that don't you understand. Try running for any office in North Dakota as someone who has moved to this state, and you don't stand a chance. These are not open minded people, and that is why we are in this mess. The fact that North Dakota voted overwhelmingly for McCain should tell the whole story. The people of North Dakota bought the palin around with terrorist non-sense. Also they failed to notice the incompetency of Sarah Palin. Do you really think you are going to sell these lemmings on the idea of thinking for themselves? "

Comment wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:31 AM:

" Ezra. Words without actions?? Actions show that you believe in what you are saying. Just one person can change the world. Look at what happened with just one person in this last election. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:58 AM:

" Dear comment, If you noticed during the last election North Dakota showed it is incapable of facing change and the future. This is a red state that is stuck in the past. Put simply that means we are against progess, we will not elect anyone with progressive ideas and the only purpose we have for liberals is getting money from Washington. Also so you have to follow the religious agenda which means you are for god, against gays, and afraid someone is going to take your gun. "

Really wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Yeah, I'm sure every citizen in North Dakota is hoping for a nuclear power plant in their backyard. No thanks. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:51 AM:

" The last person you would expect to advocate making the same mistake over and over is a historian. The United States learned absolutely nothing from the energy crisis of the 70's. Now here we go again facing shortages and high prices. Had we broken away from old habits in the 70's we would not be in this mess today. No, one could bear to give up big cars and gas hogs. Here we are over thirty years later and Mr. Jenkins is advocating we put lipstick on the coal pig, and declare the problem solved. History often is about major changes. You go from the stone age to the iron age. You go from steel to plastic. People get displaced. Why fight the future by hanging onto antiquated technology. Always the people who have a great deal tied up in the old technology do all they can to promote a loosing proposition. Surely the buggy makers could have developed a faster buggy that carried more people with fewer horses, but did it really make sense just to save the buggy makers? There was a limit to how far you could push buggy technology no matter what the commercials put out by the buggy lobby said. "

Ezrae wrote on Jan 4, 2009 4:03 PM:

" It is a strange notion Mr. Jenkinson puts forth that you have to see something to know it is bad. You cannot see CO2. If you were on a ship on the ocean you would see nothing different even thought the fish in the grand banks have been decimated by over fishing. The idea that since you come to coal country and everything seems normal, there is no problem is a strange proposition. Coal mining for many years caused acid rain in the north east. It affected the north east, not the area where it originated. Pollution from China is now falling on the west coast of the United States. Mr. Jeninkson should make it a point to go up in a small plane some calm evening in Mercer county and see the yellow haze at eye level, then write about the non-existent problem. The reality adds are sponsored by donations, who pays for the coal adds? Who is going to represent the public when the special interest wage propaganda campaigns? Look what the drug industry has done for our own good. We pay more for medicine than any other country in the world, and they have the audacity to run adds patting themselves on the back. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:01 PM:

" Laura, North Dakota's biggest problem is it's inability to break away from the past and face the future. While the rest of the nation showed it was willing to go ahead to a new and promising future, North Dakota voted to stick with the failed past. The coal issue is very similiar, we are afraid to go in a new direction and break away from a failing policy. Once reason the young leave here in droves is the backward nature of our population that as someone else said cannot see beyond the end of their driveway. Instead of being leaders we insist on being followers, and who do we follow, the old people with the old ideas that never change. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:44 PM:

" Laura, you conveniently left out CO2 from your dissertation. Nothing has been done about it or is likely to be done. The only reason we cannot produce nuclear energy in North Dakota is because it will make the current coal reserves worthless. The owners of these reserves don't like that idea. Therefore we are supposed to put off the future or ruin the environment to make sure the special interest are served. Please explain why nuclear will not work in North Dakota when France manages to get 80% of its power from the atom. Dragging and kicking the car industry had been forced to change, is this what we have to do with the energy industry in North Dakota? People make money, and have jobs producing weapons. Should we do it just because some people make money from it? "

Comment wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:26 PM:

" Ezra - me thinks that with all your suggestions on energy - that you should get involved in the public policy arena (legislator, etc.) and see if what you believe in so strongly - if you can make it happen. As in developing consensus. Have you ever thought of doing so? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:52 PM:

" The coal lobby adds are one hundred percent true, plus they are fair and balanced. How dare anyone question their motives. They only want what is best for all of us even if it means they have to make a little money in the process. "

Lifelong North Dakotan wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:46 PM:

" Sorry Halatbis none of this is a conspiracy.

Mr. Jenkinson is a well-respected scholar who is off the mark this time.

Mr. Jenkinson has written articles where he longs for the Missouri River of the past that ran wild.

Doing that would, of course, negate Garrison Dam and its none carbon producing hydro-electric power plant.

Yes Ezra, we could have fission nuclear power plants in North Dakota but fusion is the ultimate way to go. Its cleaner, less nuclear waste, the waste produced cannot be used to make nuclear bombs and small amounts of water could be the fuel. Goggle it. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:42 PM:

" CW4 checked out your web site. Some good stuff for your side. Puzzle is that if the Republicans knew of the impending disaster, why they did nothing. They had the votes to do what they wished. Right before the whole thing blew up McCain, Bush, and good old Phil Grahm said we were just a bunch of whiners. Just like the Republicans promised tort reform, it never happened. No matter how you slice it Bush was captain when the ship sank, I would not take another cruise with him, would you? "

Laura wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Obama said:"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Here's a helpful, enlightening article by Paul Driessen (two excerpts and link below):

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2009/01/03/saving_lives_with_coal

"Since 1970, unhealthy power plant pollutants have been reduced by almost 95% per unit of energy produced. Particulate emissions (soot) decreased 90% below 1970 levels, even as coal use tripled, and new technologies and regulations will nearly eliminate most coal-related pollution by 2020, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz. "

"Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society and bring factories, offices and economies to a screeching halt in states that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming." "

Halatbis wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:46 PM:

" C'mon on you guys---this is all one big conspiracy--big industry in league with big labor who are in cahoots with congress and Pres. Bush. These are the people who keep the 80 miles per gallon cars off the market; they set the price of oil; they set the hourly wage of us working stiffs; they took all the money out of the housing market, etc. etc. How I love those conspiracy theories!!! They explain everything. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Americans have just gone through eight years of propaganda, lies, and deciet. American a wary of Big Coal, and Wall Street, and that whole philosophy of greed. The fact that Americans are fighting back with reality checks should not dismay you. At some point Americans learned the cigarette companies did not have their best interest in mind. You can put a filter on a cigarette and it will still kill you. You can put a filter on a coal fired power plant, and it will still kill you. That ruse no longer works. People do learn from history. "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:30 AM:

" Clay, why can't we produce nuclear energy in North Dakota? How come the French get 80% of their power from nuclear with no problem. Nuclear by the way produces no CO2. What would we do with the coal if we switched to nuclear, let the coal guys starve? Guess we got to feed the coal guys and the GM guys even if they make an outdated product, because that is what we always do. Did you ever hear about that historian who said those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it? Does that apply to Jeffersonian historians? "

Ezra wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:22 AM:

" Like so many of the columnist for the Bismarck Tribune, Mr. Jenkinson just falls in line with the party line before doing any research. Strange that someone who considers himself a scholar would launch into a diatrab without doing a little homework. I would strongly suggest Mr. Jenkinson read the article "Big Coal's campaign of Lies" http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21918521/big_coals_campaign_of_lies Hard to believe Jenkinson has adopted the "Whats good for GM is good for the United States" nonsense just as we try to prop up that sorrowful industry whose campaign of lies failed. "

Lifelong North Dakotan wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:53 AM:

" So Mr. Jenkinson, just what is it you are trying to preach with this rambling all over the place article? I have read it several times and still do not understand what you are really trying to sermonize this Sunday morning

I am a lifelong North Dakotan whose family was once involved in coal mining and electrical generation

There is no such thing as clean coal. Burning coal to boil water, to produce steam, to turn a turbine to spin a dynamo is an inexpensive major threat to our planets climate.

Extracting the carbon dioxide and pumping it into the ground under some impermeable layer of rock is both expensive and dangerous. Dangerous because we live on a geologically active planet and that gas will escape into the Earths atmosphere given time.

Driving a gas guzzling SUV or monster pickup or any vehicle that uses excessive gasoline or gasoline at all is a threat to our planets climate.

The vast amounts of lignite coal that lie under Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota will have to lie where they are. It is a financial sacrifice for the greater good of all life on planet Earth we will have to make.

Wind, solar, geothermal (where applicable), ocean thermal energy conversion (where applicable), tidal (where applicable) and yes nuclear is all better ways to produce electricity.

A massive program, like the Manhattan Project needs to be undertaken to implement fusion nuclear power.

Every time I see the advertisement on television I feel good. It is an excellent tool that teaches an important lesson.

Not to worry Mr. Jenkinson we are not going to dismantle coal-fired power plants today, or tomorrow or this year but some day soon they will be gone.

I have found your article to be so offensive that I am going to contribute money to the Reality Coalition. "

Post Your Own Comment

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.