Rock The Vote...Obama or Mcain!(threads merged)

ya he said it in his speech to San Fran.

 

If most Americans were not consumer whores, I wonder if China would have such a severe pollution issue.

*looks at bottom of mouse... Made in China!*

 

I dont know much about the power plants but the coal mines are much safer. The coal shafts are all filtered and everyone wears masks. There are much higher saftety standards. The people loading the trains and trucks with coal are in filtered cabs. You dont hear much about mines collapsing hear anymore and black lung is a thing of the past. Also coal and timber are the only 2 legal things that really bring wealth to this area. Obamas plan would econimically ruin this already struggling area. Also abandoned strip mine sites have been shown to turn into wet lands and provide more habitat that before they were mined. And the coal companie properties are huge and preserve thousands of acres of forest that will never be touched

 

not sure where you're getting your facts, but, really, coal mines are safe and strip mines are good for the environment. hmmm. also, ky used to (still?) get most of its money from tobacco. times change and you either adapt or fail. i've heard proposals from ky farmers that they could make a lot more money in the future growing hemp instead of tobacco.

wiki:

Chronic lung diseases, such as pneumoconiosis (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced life expectancy. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4000 new cases of black lung every year in the USA (4% of workers annually). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, mining remains the second most dangerous occupation in America.[27]

Coal mining can result in a number of adverse effects on the environment. Surface mining of coal completely eliminates existing vegetation, destroys the genetic soil profile, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, degrades air quality, alters current land uses, and to some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined, [28] This often results in a scarred landscape with no scenic value, though rehabilitation can mitigate some of these concerns.


Mine tailing dumps produce acid mine drainage which can seep into waterways and aquifers, with consequences on ecological and human health. If underground mine tunnels collapse, this can cause subsidence of land surfaces. During actual mining operations, the potent greenhouse gas, methane, may be released into the air. And by the movement, storage, and redistribution of soil, the community of microorganisms and nutrient cycling processes can be disrupted.

sounds pretty crappy to me...

 

I agree with you 100%

 

yes tobacco is huge here. Not as big as pot.......... but thats not legal.... same with moon shine, Cars and baseball bats are too. But I'm talking about this area of Kentucky. South Eastern Kentucky is to mountainous for huge farms. Its main industry is timber and coal still. Coal mines pay a starting salary of 37.50 an hour. I think its much better for the people to have a slightly dangerous well paying job than to be unemployed. Or to grow pot or distill alcohol. All the big farms are north and west of here. Same with the huge toyota and ford plant and the baseball bats in Louisville. And when I said black lung is a thing of the past I meant in this area. And in old strip minning sites and mountain top removals you would never no they were mined. The only way you can tell is if you see flat ridges. After a few years they become reforested Trust me I know I camped on a KJ Mountains Saturday night which was stripped mine and has mountains top removal sites on it and you can barely tell. Its beutiful up there. Most of the forest in Kentucky were gone to at one point but you'd never know today. According to my proffesor the only difference between the hard wood forests now and before they were all cleared is they were slightly more diverse before they were cleared. And I know minning is harmful to the enviroment I was just commenting its not as bad as people make it seem. I think the benifits of minning coal outweigh the slight damage it does now. Coal used to be one of the reasons for the poverty here but now its one of the few sources of wealth and minning it used to do tremendous damage to the enviroment but now things are tottaly different. I probaly would have agreed with you before. But I have learned alot in my appalachian studies class, resource manegement class and alot from experience and people about coal. I think if you came out to Harlan,Kentucky that you would agree with me.

 

i spent years living and caving in that area, so i know it very well. eastern ky u. was the first college i went to. lack of quality education in the area always seemed to be the biggest limiting factor to me. we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. but don't believe everything your professors say. verify, verify, verify.
:beer:
World organizations, and international agencies like the IEA are concerned about the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, and coal in particular. The combustion of coal contributes the most to acid rain, global warming, and air pollution due to the chemical composition of coal, and the difficulties of removing the impurities from this solid fuel prior to its combustion. Acid rain is caused by the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide into the air. These themselves may be only mildly acidic, yet when they react with the atmosphere, they create acidic compounds (such as sulfurous acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid) that fall as rain, hence the term acid rain. In Europe and the U.S.A., stricter emission laws and decline in heavy industries have reduced the environmental hazards associated with this problem, leading to lower emissions after their peak in 1960s.

[edit] Carbon dioxide

According to a 2005 report from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), coal power stations are at the top of the List of least carbon efficient power stations in terms of the level of carbon dioxide produced per unit of electricity generated. Electricity generation is responsible for 41% of U.S. manmade carbon dioxide emissions.[11] Research has indicated that increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is correlated with a rise in mean global temperature, also known as climate change.[12] The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that, to avoid climate change impacts, Annexe 1 (developed) countries must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by between 25 and 40% by 2020. The technology for carbon capture and storage of emissions from coal fired power stations is not expected to be available on a economically viable commercial scale by 2020.[citation needed]

[edit] Particulate matter

Another problem related to coal combustion is the emission of particulates that have a serious impact on public health. Power plants remove particulate from the flue gas with the use of a bag house or electrostatic precipitator. Several newer plants that burn coal use a different process, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in which synthesis gas is made out of a reaction between coal and water. The synthesis gas is processed to remove most pollutants and then used initially to power gas turbines. Then the hot exhaust gases from the gas turbines are used to generate steam to power a steam turbine. The pollution levels of such plants are drastically lower than those of "classical" coal power plants.[13]

[edit] Mercury

Trace amounts of mercury exist in coal and other fossil fuels.[14] When these fuels burn, toxic mercury is released. It then accumulates in food chains and is especially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. The worldwide emission of mercury from both natural and human sources was estimated at 5,500 tons in 1995.[14] U.S. coal-fired electricity-generating power plants owned by utilities emitted an estimated 48 tons in 1999, the largest source of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.[14] In 1995-96, this accounted for 32.6% of all mercury emitted into the air by human activity in the U.S. In addition, 13.1% was emitted by coal-fired industrial and mixed-use commercial boilers, and 0.3% by coal-fired residential boilers, bringing the total U.S. mercury pollution due to coal combustion to 46% of the U.S. man-made mercury sources.[15] In contrast, China's coal-fired power plants emitted an estimated 200 ± 90 tons of mercury in 1999, which was about 38% of Chinese human-generated mercury emissions (45% being emitted from non-ferrous metals smelting).[16]





[edit] Radioactive trace elements

As most ores in the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.[17]