Burningbird

But, but, no coal means no juice which means no shopping on the tube. For heaven's sake, how are you going to know the right kind of cat food to buy Zoe?

Your question holds the seed to it's own reply; Ask the cat.

I'll take tuna. Oh, okay, I'll also take chicken. In a pinch.

Also, Orwell's Down the Mine is still worth reading.
The sooner we replace Coal with nucelar and alternatives, the better.

Speaking of "flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark" and expended plutonium shell casings, available right now on Iraqi Home Shopper!

We don't need no Kyoto, oh no!
Cause we got coal and nuclear.
(sang with twang)

Kevin, thanks for the link to the writing. I don't agree on nuclear energy, though. Not with the problems of waste. And frankly, not when the utility companies that run the reactors let dams break that send a billion gallons of water down a mountain.

jcwinnie, no suh, we don't need no Kyoto (said with a Texas accent).

Clean coal. What an oxymoron. And then you read about the mine that exploded today:

"ICG recently bought the mine from Anker West Virginia Mining Company, which had been in bankruptcy. But in recent years, the mine has been repeatedly cited for safety violations by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. In a recent 11-week review period that lasted from October through December, MSHA inspectors cited the mine for 46 alleged violations of mine health and safety rules.

The most serious violations included problems with protections against roof cave-ins and the mine's overall plans to safeguard against methane gas and dust buildup."

Did you read my linked post?
Coal waste is 5 orders of magnitude bigger for energy generated.
If you tried to pitch Coal as a new technology today against nuclear or solar or whatever, you'd be laughed at, then law-suited to death. Yet somehow, nearly 70 years after Orwell wrote that essay, we still have men dying to mine coal, and children choking on the waste.
Technological inertia can be very scary.

If nuclear power is so safe, why do we still have the Price-Anderson Act, capping the nuclear industry's liability in case of an accident?

Kevin, you're implying that if I'm against nuclear I must be for coal.

I grew up in the fallout circle that is known as Hanford. Back when I was a kid, Hanford 'accidentally' released radioactive waste into the air, contaminating the area surrounding the plant. We supposedly were far enough away to not be adversely impacted by this fallout; however, my grandfather, his siblings, and his mother all died of cancer. My grandmother also had siblings who have died of cancer. My mother's siblings had moved away, so none of them were impacted, but cancer has developed in my immediate family. In fact, cancer has come to dominate my family so much that now I'm at increased risk from developing cancer in one form or another.

Was the release of the radioactive cloud at Hanford at fault? Let's just say that I don't think that nuclear energy is the way to go as long as flawed men make flawed machines.

So no, I don't support nuclear energy. I don't support coal plants or coal energy either. I do think that with conservation, initiative, and community effort, we have enough clean sources of energy to supply what we need (though perhaps not what we want).

Shelley - first, given your family medical history you've outlined, I hope whatever health insurance coverage you have allows you to screen/monitor your health in such a way to catch any onset early! We all want to see you in good health for a long time to come…

Alternative methods of energy production have to be found. Nuclear and fossil fuel energy have their own demons that we will pay for.

Alternative and cleaner energy can be found and mass-produced and marketed…but only when it can be produced in a cost-effeicient enough way to match the profits currently generated by traditional energy. Its all about the money.

I doubt if the numbers really add up for "clean" energy to provide the electric power we need, even if we cut power consumption 50%. If there are real numbers to the contrary that take into account the manufacturing issues, the availability of materials, keeping the electric grid stable, and perhaps costs, etc., then great. But I doubt it.

If there's no nice "clean" solution, then as an engineer and energy professional, I'm not sure what we're going to do. I work in the nuclear power industry, but I think it better not to jump on board that train without a lot of public understanding and input. For this reason I wrote a techno-thriller novel describing how a modern utility-run American nuclear plant operates and how it would handle an accident. (Please note this is far different than the former and current disgrace that is the US government-run Hanford site.) Take a look at "Rad Decision", it's free on the net at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.