CCMA! (Clean Coal My Ass!!) TN Sludge Spill Grows to 1 BILLION GALLONS.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/index.html

CNN) -- Estimates for the amount of thick sludge that gushed from a Tennessee coal plant this week have tripled to more than a billion gallons, as cleanup crews try to remove the goop from homes and railroads and halt its oozing into an adjacent river.


TVA officials originally said the cleanup would take four to six weeks. Now they say they aren't sure.

The sludge, a byproduct of the ash from coal combustion, was contained at a retention site at the Tennessee Valley Authority's power plant in Kingston, about 40 miles east of Knoxville. The retention wall breached early Monday, sending the sludge downhill and damaging 15 homes. All the residents were evacuated, and three homes were deemed uninhabitable, according to the TVA

It can be done and there are huge benefits especially as it relates to foreign oil dependency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

This is a huge environmental disaster. I don't think we should waste any more time or endanger any more lives playing with so called "clean" coal. If this were in your backyard I am sure you would feel much differently.

I used to live in Illinois next to coal strip mine -- nearly in my backyard. Clearly there are problems with the extraction and use of coal but there such huge benefits of exploiting this massive home grown energy supply that it is worth spending some resources on developing clean coal technologies.

things you have to get rid of.

Coal is minded these days by leveling whole mountain tops and destroying the environment before the coal is even burned. Clean coal seeks to hide the CO2 but what about the arsenic, the thorium, and the other heavy metals? It's just a huge mess and a PR campaign to white wash a dirty technology.

He spoke out passionately against the mining companies who are using these techniques and destroying the environment in the process. RFK jr said that something like 7 of the highest mountain peaks in Appalachia these mining companies have access to- they have had their tops leveled. The devastation left to the environment is incalculable.

BTW, you must realize PE Obama is a supporter of clean coal technology. Here is something he said during the campaign:

"Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independent!...We put a man on the moon in 10 years. You can't tell me we can't figure out a way to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States of America and make it work!"

I think MY OWN opinion is much more relevant than his..

NO it is NOT a reasonable way to spend money to find a way to make coal "clean"...it is much more reasonable to invest in solar, wind and nuclear!

:eyes:

I am sure Obama is being advised by coal tech experts.

My own counsel will I keep on this issue. I am far more qualified than either of you - just because someone is "advised" by "experts" doesn't make them anything close to "expert", just someone else being led around by an industry that wants to be perpetuated indefinitely.

Douglas J. De Clue
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology

P.S.: And yes I have studied combustion engineering at a graduate level at Georgia Tech. What makes you anything of an expert on the subject?

I am not in a pissing contest but with all do respect being an aerospace engineer does not make you a "clean coal expert". I am certain Obama does have clean coal experts advising him and that is where his clean coal policy came from. You may be right but from what I have heard and read there is still hope clean coal is a possibility.

The "experts" you speak of are working in their own self interest, NOT the national interest.

They are LOBBYISTS not responsible scientists or engineers.

And YES, I AM an expert - you really don't need to actually work IN the coal industry to know enough of the science involved to know that coal is dangerous, dirty and destructive and that there is NO reasonable way to reform it. The sort of "expertise" you refer to is just an excuse to discount the opinions of otherwise technically qualified people.

To ME you just sound like a shill for the coal industry, not a reasonable responsible scientist. You REALLY ought to look into what mountaintop removal does to the "biological" situation in an area where it is practiced...

:eyes:

and I am sure Obama has more than coal business lobbyists advising him.

And it does NOT seem clear that Obama has any real environmentalists on his team to me.

Clearly you not capable of discussing this issue sensibly. Ciao.

someone on DU would post that it was flat and the sun circled the earth instead.

Your position is NOT defensible. This disaster is yet one more case of coal destroying the environment. Any sensible person can see that.

Doug D.

Follow the money...


"Obama's advocacy of coal liquefaction, he said, might have to do with his getting "hammered" by Illinois coal interests."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

Given we can put a man on the moon, our efforts and dollars should be put behind truly green and alternative energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc., not this bogus "clean" coal.

It's a nice idea, but clean coal may not ever be doable.
Of course, they used to say going to the moon was not doable.

Anyway, just about every one of us benefits from the use of coal, therefore, each of us is partly responsible for the mess it creates.

Our job is to work to minimize and eventually halt the mess, somehow, someway.

If we give up on coal then it will have to be replaced by something. The only practical options now are oil, nuclear and hydro -- all have their own list of negatives. Long term there is wind and solar but those are a ways off before they will be practical on a large scale.

We must invest in alternative technologies like wind and solar and we should also raise our portion of nuclear as well. We use a much smaller percentage than other industrialized nations. I would argue for more hydro but I don't really think there are viable locations left undeveloped at this point.

Doug D.

I am not arguing for using coal the way we are now. That clearly is too destructive. I am arguing for figuring out a way to exract it and use it safely. Surprising an engineer would say it could not be done.

Every other Western industrialized nation uses a much larger portion of nuclear.

There is NO way to make coal "safe" at any reasonable cost.

We have been using nuclear in this country for over 50 years commercially with no deaths. You can't say the same for EITHER coal OR hydro. We've been running a nuclear powered Navy for the same amount of time perfectly safely.

Coal is far more dangerous in terms of radioactivity it releases ever hour of every day due to heavy metal particulates than in the entire history of nuclear power. Carbon Dioxide has no "half life", it is a stable compound and there is no way you can "hide" it all. Eventually it will find its way back into the environment.

It's quite a nasty byproduct that will last tens of thousands years.

by thousands of tons so YES I'm OK with it..

There's far less of it and at LEAST it does have a half life and eventually decay.

Try "containing" fifteen years of waste from a coal fired plant in a swimming pool..

Doug D.

Clearly that is problematic. I am arguing for developing "clean coal" technologies. If we can develop ways to extract, process and use coal cleanly and safely then the benefits will be enormous. We have massive coal reserves -- by far the largest in the world.

If nuclear power were truly safe the US taxpayers would not be on the hook for a billion dollar subsidy to this industry.

If nuclear power were safe private investors would accept the risks involved in this industry.


However, private investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability and so we have the federal Price Anderson Act.


http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=4912

no one has ever died in a commercial nuclear power accident. Can't say that even for hydroelectric power.

Just look at Iceland


Iceland phasing out fossil fuels for clean energy

By Peggy Mihelich
CNN

REYKJAVIK, Iceland (CNN) -- Iceland may be best known for world-famous musical export Bjork but there's a new star quickly gaining this island nation worldwide acclaim -- clean energy.

For more than 50 years Iceland has been decreasing its dependence on fossil fuels by tapping the natural power all around this rainy, windswept rock of fire.

Waterfalls, volcanoes, geysers and hot springs provide Icelanders with abundant electricity and hot water.

Virtually all of the country's electricity and heating comes from domestic renewable energy sources -- hydroelectric power and geothermal springs.

It's pollution-free and cheap.

Yet these energy pioneers are still dependent on imported oil to operate their vehicles and thriving fishing industry.

Iceland's geographic isolation in the North Atlantic makes it expensive to ship in gasoline -- it costs almost $8 a gallon (around $2 a liter).

Iceland ranks 53rd in the world in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center -- the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Retired University of Iceland Professor Bragi Arnason has come up with a solution: Use hydrogen to power transportation. Hydrogen is produced with water and electricity, and Iceland has lots of both.

"Iceland is the ideal country to create the world's first hydrogen economy," Arnason explains. His big idea has earned him the nickname "Professor Hydrogen."

Arnason has caught the attention of General Motors, Toyota and DaimlerChrysler, who are using the island-nation as a test market for their hydrogen fuel cell prototypes.

One car getting put through its paces is the Mercedes Benz A-class F-cell -- an electric car powered by a DaimlerChrysler fuel cell. Fuel cells generate electricity by converting hydrogen and oxygen into water. And fuel cell technology is clean -- the only by-product is water. Watch the F-cell navigate through Reykjavik »

"It's just like a normal car," says Asdis Kritinsdottir, project manager for Reykjavik Energy. Except the only pollution coming out of the exhaust pipe is water vapor. It can go about 100 miles on a full tank. When it runs out of fuel the electric battery kicks in, giving the driver another 18 miles -- hopefully enough time to get to a refueling station. Filling the tank is similar to today's cars -- attach a hose to the car's fueling port, hit "start" on the pump and stand back. The process takes about five to six minutes. See some of the F-cell's unique features »

In 2003, Reykjavik opened a hydrogen fueling station to test three hydrogen fuel cell buses. The station was integrated into an existing gasoline and diesel station. The hydrogen gas is produced by electrolysis -- sending a current through water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. The public buses could run all day before needing refueling.

The bus project lasted three years and cost around $10 million.

The city will need five refueling stations in addition to the one the city already has to support its busy ring road, according to Arnason. The entire nation could get by on 15 refueling stations -- a minimum requirement.

Within the year, 30-40 hydrogen fuel-cell cars will hit Reykjavik streets. Local energy company employees will do most of the test-driving but three cars will be made available to The Hertz Corp., giving Icelanders a chance to get behind the wheel. Learn more about fuel cells »

"I need a car," says Petra Svenisdottir, an intern at Reykjavik Energy. Svenisdottir, 28, commutes to work from her home in Hafnarfjorour to Reykjavik. The journey takes her about 15 minutes if she can beat traffic. "If I didn't have a car I would have to take two or three buses and wait at each bus stop to arrive at work more than an hour later, cold and wet!"

Most Icelanders drive cars, says Arnason. Around 300,000 people live in a place about the size of the U.S. state of Kentucky. Transportation is limited to cars, buses and boats. "Everyone has a car here," Arnason says. And it's very typical for an Icelandic family to own two cars. Arnason drives a small SUV.

Fuel cell cars are expected to go on sale to the public in 2010. Carmakers have promised Arnason they will keep costs down and the government has said it will offer citizens tax breaks.

He figures it will take an additional 4 percent of power to produce the hydrogen Iceland would need to meet its transportation requirements.

Once Iceland's vehicles are converted over to hydrogen, the fishing fleet will follow. It won't be easy because of current technological limits and the high cost of storing large amounts of hydrogen, but Arnason feels confident it can happen. He predicts Iceland will be fossil fuel free by 2050.

"We are a very small country but we have all the same infrastructure of big nations," he said. "We will be the prototype for the rest of the world."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html



Yes, the USA can do it too without coal!!

you approve of strip mining? the total destruction of land--and the companies don't even have to pretend to restore the land (there is a scar on the mountain here that has been here since 1961)

the current issue of "positively green" has a most excellent article on the process of coal mining and burning. you might want to read it, and rethink your position.

I am a serious environmentalist. Have been my whole life. It's just that clean coal offers an opportunity to reduce foreign oil dependency which is an extremely serious issue.

and the money would be better spent on renewable alternatives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8038308#8038449


Iceland certainly does not have the vast resources of the USA yet look what they are doing.

We are talking about coal here. Iceland relies on geothermal energy.

I do understand the difference between geothermal and coal.

I am on the same side of the aisle as you on this issue. I was trying to state to dcbob that Iceland is finding affordable ways to find truly green energy alternatives today and they have already implemented many solutions.

with geothermal sources not generally available in the US (outside of a few places like Hawaii, Alaska, Washington state etc.)

but yes we should take advantage of other alternative sources like solar and wind abundant here.

Alternative energy sources often are not practical large scale.

and not sent Bob "Union Buster" Corker to the Senate in 2006.

Not on my radar screen.

and that we keep "big government" FEMA off of their backs in the aftermath.

sentiments I've ever read here.

Enough to make the vast hordes of Limbeciles that live there realize that they really don't want the government out of their lives.

was it a union or a non-union mine that was responsible for the sludge pits (ponds)?

Either way, it isn't Union workers who decide where to place such "ponds", nor are they responsible for whatever containment methods are employed to ensure that they stay that way.

the workers, union or not, but thank you for your reply.:)