It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Academy Blockbuster: Coal's Huge Hidden Costs

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

National Academy Blockbuster: Coal's Huge Hidden Costs


www.commondreams.org

Coal industry lobbyists and coal-state politicians like to remind us that coal is a relatively cheap source of energy.

But in a major new report out today, the National Academy of Sciences details some of the huge "hidden costs" of coal: More than $62 billion a year in "external damages" - that is, premature deaths from air pollution.

A National Academy news release is available here and the report itself here.

Those coal costs are part of the $120 billion in "hidden costs" that the academy's National Research Council documented in its report, "Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use."
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 19-10-2009 by grover]




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
When you take into account acid rain, leveled mountains, black lung disease, green house gasses etc. Coal does not look like the good deal it is marketed as.

The more we learn about the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal the worse they appear...to date natural gas is looking better and better.

www.commondreams.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19/10/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Actually it makes nuclear energy look better and better.

As of Sept. 2009, Europe has 196 nuclear power plants producing energy. France alone has 59!
www.euronuclear.org...

The U.S. by contrast only has 104.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Yeah nuclear energy looks good until you consider the waste and accidents like Chernoble.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


So are you just against power in general? You do not like coal, oil, nuclear, and I am sure since it is a fossil fuel your beloved natural gas will be found to have similar problems.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KissMyBass
 


Please!!!

I have no beliefs about energy per se...just common sense.

If you have problems with your furnace...it vents into the house or isn't efficient you either fix or replace it.

The same should be true with energy...if the big boys weren't blocking it and hadn't been blocking it for decades we would have had a whole range of options by now...and in all reality that should be the sanest approach in the first place.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Does anyone else find the timing of this report a little suspect? Obama is supposed to be signing on to some UN treaty this week regarding "Global Warming" and today we get this. Talk about things that make you go hmmm?



-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


What exactly are these options that the "Big Boys" are blocking? I always love how people like to blame Boogie Man for everything.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Coal mining and coal power plants are by far more destructive than any other form of energy. Naturally they have a big lobbying effort aimed at keeping their industry alive.

Nuclear power is much cleaner. It just needs to be done right. "Green" energy can never fully replace the power plant - solar, wind, geothermal, etc., can supplement power from the grid, but you'll still need the grid and power plants. Aside from the occasional hydro plant the safest is nuclear.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by KissMyBass
 

Solar for one was big in the 70's and it was pretty much swept under the table until the past few years. There is geo-thermal for example and wind. You can with a combination of all three make a large home energy self sufficent enough to sell some back to the power companies (I know I have a friend who has all three) but they are priced high enough so that you have to be well off to afford them.

Biofuel is another. We have been conned into using corn but of the choices available corn is the least energy efficient to produce.

You don't have to buy off an inventor, all you have to do is arrange it so that they are too expensive for the average joe to afford in order to kill something.

Besides berating me...what solutions do you have? More of the same is no answer.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Look if Solar was economically viable in the 70's then it would have caught on. One issue with Solar and Wind is that it only works when its sunny or the wind is blowing.

If a company could build a solar or wind produt that is economically viable then they will, because capitalists like to turn a profit. I know hearing that makes you sick to your stomach and all, because of your views.

More of the same actually would work fine for at least another 50-100 years, but I would support things like
Drilling for more oil in the USA
More nuclear
Finding things to make coal burning cleaner
Better allocation of Natural Gas
Building Wind and Solar where it makes economic sense, but these will never really become the backbone until we are able to store excess energy.


Plus you have all the eco-terrorists who have a hissy fit about the effects of large scale wind and solar projects on the precious environment.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by KissMyBass
 

It was too expensive but I know solar buildings built in the 70's on the coast of Maine and if solar can work there it can work anywhere.

You are naive...yes they like to make a profit for sure but they also don't like change or risks especially big heavy industries like energy...they will keep on keeping on as long as possible.

So you have no solutions just more of the same.

And yes the environment is precious...you can't live without it and there is none to flee to anywhere nearby besides this planet.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 




It was too expensive but I know solar buildings built in the 70's on the coast of Maine and if solar can work there it can work anywhere.


Just because they built them doesn't mean they were cost effective and gave any sort of reasonable return on investment.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Natural Gas has big enviro. problems. The way it is pumped is called "frac-ing" Short for fracturing. The rcok and shale is blasted there-by releasing the natural gas. Unfortunatley, doing this pollutes wells and aquafers. wind also has problems. Besides being an eye-soar, large wind turbines create a low frequency hum thats tends to drive nearby residents nuts. imo solar and tidal/ocean wave technology are the way to go. But for now the best we can do is pay attention to our own consumption.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by jacksmoke]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover
 


Look if Solar was economically viable in the 70's then it would have caught on.



Not true at all, except in capitalist fantasy land.

The truth is that there are tons of technologies and methods of doing things which are replaced for less efficient and less viable means... it all has to do with money.

It all depends whos money you are trying to take away.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Welcome to the real Silent Hill.



This is another danger of coal mining. This could happen anywhere an underground coal mine is located. Scary stuff.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The proponents of coal are actually for clean coal (or cleaner coal, coal is not clean), not the widely implemented coal we already have - therefore criticisms of coal do not necessarily apply to clean coal. These plants are far higher efficiency (>60% vs



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
First off Carter put solar panels on the white house and Reagan sent a clear message to the energy companies when what was one of his first acts of president he had them removed...he also slashed all funding for alternative energy which effectively killed it throughout the 80's and into the 90's.

Second...the whole energy plant approach to solar is bass awkard...imagine every house or building that can be fitted with solar panels contributing to an collective grid.

Big energy will never stand for that.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah nuclear energy looks good until you consider the waste and accidents like Chernoble.


you are wrong on both those statements

i believed them as well

one day i was watching c-span and it was a hearing on energy and such

and the premiere guy on nuclear stuff was amazing

first,,, we are finding many uses fr the waist products and there is actually a market emerging for it

second,,, in all i think(can't remember exactly) 10 peope or 19 dided in chernobyl
and many remember the huge 3 mile island scare-------which many get the idea nuclear is bad from-----not one death occured there

so the fears that accompany nuclear power are totally out of propoganda and fear tactics that have been used

i was against nuclear based on what i heard,,,,,, but this guy with his totally supported facts and figures changed my mind totally

we have been jaded by bad facts and ideas and is based on fear not the true reality



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I am all for coal and nuclear powered generating sites,If only for the amount of" employment it creates", As stated above the filtration technology we have these days is amazing you can actually use the sea to filter any waste and super scrubbers to clean any waste thus kinder to the environment ,



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join