Mountaintop Removal Mining for Coal

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

This is one of those areas where I actually go somewhat liberal.  I say no.  It pointlessly destroys mountains, and it has created disastrous sludge spills.

Personally, I think we need to find a better way to get our energy, and this practice of getting coal is especially bad.

On a related note - does anybody know how Republican Congressmen/women feel on the issue?

[Matt Damon™]

use nuclear power instead of coal

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am adamantly opposed to this type of mining.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

use nuclear power instead of coal

Absolutely!

[Matt Damon™]

We can keep re-using the radioactive material until we get as much energy out of it as possible so disposal isn't as much of a problem as libs think.

[dead0man]

I am adamantly opposed to this type of mining.

What type of mining do you like?

[Franzl]

use nuclear power instead of coal

correct answer

[dead0man]

I agree, we should use more nuclear power, but clearly some enviro wackos still have sand in their vagina over it and will bitch to high heaven.  Of course these people bitch to high heaven about everything and most of us stopped listening years ago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The way it is currently done is pretty much unconscionable. There's no reason, however, for it to be as bad as it is. Landscaped ex-strip mines, ex-slagheaps and so on can actually be really quite beautiful. Mind you, there's something starkly beautiful about some of the old slate "quarries" (in reality vast networks of surface and deep mining) up here, so maybe I should shut up.

[minionofmidas]

Landscaped ex-stripmines can be beautiful places... and great for wildlife too, I'm not talking recreational use. Of course, the law has to ensure that that's actually done eventually.

Obviously, destruction of villages for stripmines is horrible. Continues to happen in Germany, btw, as we're the world leaders for lignite.

The problem with nuclear power (apart from the obvious re: longterm storage, safety. I can see where you're coming from when you dismiss those) is that it's, cough, actually a finite ressource just like coal and oil (yes, you need less of it for one plant, obviously. Much much less. But there is much much less to go around, to.) And that you can no more turn off a nuclear power plant over night than you can a hydroelectric dam so it's inherently wasteful - absurdly so if that's all you got in your energy mix. And of course, the way the laws governing them are set up, which means the taxpayer payed all the cost and bears all of the risk but reaps none of the profit, although *theoretically* that could be changed. (Though I don't see that happening.)

[JSojourner]

I am adamantly opposed to this type of mining.

Likewise.  For multiple reasons.

[dead0man]

What type of mining do you prefer?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Of course it should be legal. It should also be strongly discouraged.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We can keep re-using the radioactive material until we get as much energy out of it as possible so disposal isn't as much of a problem as libs think.

It would still be a problem and here's why. A few weeks ago I watched a program on National Geographic about what happens after humans disappear. Basically once the emergency generators run out of Diesel the pumps shut down and the radioactive wastes boils away the water that it is stored in. Then it explodes with the force of I believe 500 Hiroshima's and thats just one facility. Imagine that happening at every plant all over the world. Don;t I don't expect humans to disappear anytime soon and I think this is highly unlikely. I am a big supporter of Nuclear Power though I think that in the next 10 to 20 years we might be able to use Fusion instead of fission. No don't let laugh me off the face of the earth there is a fusion reactor in existence but its too small and it uses more energy then it produces. The theory is bigger ones would produce more then they use but they have built one that big yet, but something like 20 countries are working on right now. From another program I watched this one on the science channel, they said that fusion uses a lot less radioactive material, the reaction produces more energy(some say hundreds of times more), and the waste is only radioactive for something like 30 years comapared to the 250 for strontium-90 and the thousands of years for Plutonium both of which are used in Fission. Of course for now Fusion is just a theory with some experimentation going on. If this becomes and option then Nuclear could easily become the the main source of power of the US.

On the question of Mountain Top Removal Minining I oppose the practice. My brother is really passionate about this so I am not in the dark on it. I do think there is a use for coal in our energy future but this will need to be addressed first and soon.   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Anybody know how Republican elected officials stand on this?