Is it just me, or do people get trapped in a coal mine in some east coast city at least once a year?

Why havent we, you know, made a safer system or somthing.

Also, maybe I am a heartless bastard, but when I found out that the news originally said that all 12 of the guys were found alive (The Orlando Sentinal, the paper I get here, their giant headline was "Miracle in the Mines!") I laughed. I can only picture that the company gave the job of going and telling these happy, rejoicing familys that the miners were really dead to the lowliest intern that everybody in the office hates.

reifidom wrote: Better systems aren't cost efficient. That particular mine had a horrible track record. And it was a couple of executives that went to go and break the news. A few of the family members tried to attack the executives.

As expensive as being sued by all those families???

piranhakiller wrote: reifidom wrote: Better systems aren't cost efficient. That particular mine had a horrible track record. And it was a couple of executives that went to go and break the news. A few of the family members tried to attack the executives. As expensive as being sued by all those families???

Methinks that the company had some sort of waiver for the job.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: piranhakiller wrote: reifidom wrote: Better systems aren't cost efficient. That particular mine had a horrible track record. And it was a couple of executives that went to go and break the news. A few of the family members tried to attack the executives. As expensive as being sued by all those families??? Methinks that the company had some sort of waiver for the job.

Well if their smart enough to know how "expensive" it is to be safe and are too selfish to fix their track record then I don't doubt it

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Methinks that the company had some sort of waiver for the job.

You don't get to waive this type of thing.  If the mining company was negligent (which they may not have been) they will pay.  My guess is that they will pay regardless.

And there is a safer way - nuclear power.

Oreo -

Why do you say that?

Count the number of nuclear power related accidents in the entire world, and compare to the number of nuclear reactors.

There has only been one serious nuclear accident - ever - and that was in a plant that was mis-designed, mis-constructed, mis-managed, and mis-operated.

Several large countries (like France) are primarily nuclear-powered, and the US already gets 20% of its electrical generation from nuclear.  Neither France or the US has had any real problems, relatively speaking, and improvements in safety are made all the time.  Coal, on the other hand, kills people constantly and is devastating to the environment - both the mining and the burning.

Nuclear is safer, cleaner, and more reliable than coal, and cheaper than anything else except coal.

Any serious attempt to wean ourselves from coal/oil/gas for electricity will have to involve significant increases in nuclear power.

Rambino wrote: Oreo - Why do you say that? Count the number of nuclear power related accidents in the entire world, and compare to the number of nuclear reactors. There has only been one serious nuclear accident - ever - and that was in a plant that was mis-designed, mis-constructed, mis-managed, and mis-operated. Several large countries (like France) are primarily nuclear-powered, and the US already gets 20% of its electrical generation from nuclear.  Neither France or the US has had any real problems, relatively speaking, and improvements in safety are made all the time.  Coal, on the other hand, kills people constantly and is devastating to the environment - both the mining and the burning. Nuclear is safer, cleaner, and more reliable than coal, and cheaper than anything else except coal. Any serious attempt to wean ourselves from coal/oil/gas for electricity will have to involve significant increases in nuclear power.

• The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant
• Mihama, Japan
• Chernobyl
• Kozloduy nuclear power plant
• Wuergassen nuclear power plant

just to name a few... anyways, with too many nuclear powerplants, thats just screaming to a terrorist, BLOW ME UP! and those things go off with way more power then the atomic bombs...

Chernobyl was bad - no doubt about it.  But that was the worst thing that could possibly happen.  Let's say we have one of those every 50 years.  Unlikely, but possible.  As I mentioned, the Chernobyl plant was poorly designed and poorly constructed, and was being operated in direct contradiction of orders from Moscow.  Chernobyl could not happen with any modern plant today.

The other incidents mentioned were very very minor, relatively speaking.  Chernobyl is the only nuclear disaster ever to occur.  And as pointed out, nuclear reactors cannot explode.  Different technology entirely.

Now compare that to what happens with coal, even when there are no disasters.  Coal burning is the second largest pollutant in the world (after gasoline).  It destroys forests, destroys lakes, destroys ecosystems, kills animals, kills people.  It is incredibly destructive - and that's when it's working right!  Then you add in the thousands of miners that have died over the decades from accidents, from cancer, from a bunch of other diseases problems that result from the extraction process.

One Chernobyl every 50 years is much less damaging to humanity than burning coal the way we do.

Are there safer technologies than nuclear?  Sure - but coal ain't one of them.

Western plants utilize a fundamentally different design approach than the old Soviet/Eastern-bloc plants.  I would tend to agree that they (the Soviet plants) should all be shut down.

This site explains some of the major differences in design:  http://www.insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_1.1.html - http://www.insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_1.1.html

US nukes spend millions of dollars every year to upgrade to the latest and greatest safety designs.  Every worker and visitor wears a radiation badge while in the plant, and the current and cumulative radiation on everybody is monitored closely.  Nukes are not built within 20 miles of a major population center.

What happened in Chernobyl simply could not happen in a US plant.  While disasters are always possible, that particular problem simply cannot occur, due to plant design and population restrictions.

And even so - more coal miners die in accidents EVERY YEAR than have died TOTAL from Chernobyl so far.  While many more will no doubt die prematurely from Chernobyl-related problems, the same is also true of people dying from coal-pollution related problems.

I am painfully aware that no new nukes have been built for a while.  That is about to change, though.  There has been a lot of consolidation in the nuclear business.  Five companies (Exelon, FPL, Constellation, Entergy, and Dominion) have been buying up nuclear plants for years.  The 30-year NRC licenses on these plants are going to start expiring in a couple of years.  Extension requests are already on file with the NRC, and several of these requests also include requests to add or upgrade reactors at existing sites.

As a realistic matter, NRC has to grant most of the extensions - we simply cannot shut down 20% of our generation.  It is also quite likely that they will allow new reactors, unless Congress steps in to stop it.  But given the projected energy needs of this place, that is also unlikely.

We need more generation.  Our only two realistic options are coal and nuclear.  Nuclear is better.

And people are indeed researching cold fusion very seriously.  The first experimental full-scale fusion plant is being built in France right now.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

jesus freak wrote: I have no idea why we aren't tapping into alternative sources of energy.  Everyone chucks it on the backburner.

The "why" is easy - cost.  Coal power is cheap, plentiful, convenient, and easy.

There are significant cost and technological hurdles associated with all "alternative" energy sources.  They can certainly be overcome, but only through aggressive government mandates or incentives - at least if we want it to happen in the next century.

Right now coal energy sells wholesale at about 2-3 cents per kwh.  Solar energy from photovoltaic generation sells for 30+ cents per kwh, and the solar cells degenerate quickly - they have to be replaced every decade or so.

Are you prepared to pay ten times your current electricity bill?

Granted that wind is much cheaper (5ish cents), but there are issues there as well.  Not to mention that at current capacity, every wind and solar manufacturing plant could built non-stop 24/7, and it would still take decades for it to amount to anything on a scale.

Technology is coming to our aid, and eventually I expect that we will be mostly powered by wind and solar, but right now the only realistic alternative to coal is nuclear.

We are not going to run out of room to store nuclear waste.  We can dig deeper, build higher.  The sun will be extinguished before we run out of room for nuclear storage.

The waste is part of what is great about nuclear power.  Yes, nuclear waste is nasty stuff, and it is basically around forever.  But nukes conveniently deposit their waste in a nice bucket for storage.  Coal plants, on the other hand, spew CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, mercury, and a bunch of other stuff I can't spell into the atmosphere, into the water, and into the soil.  Nuclear plants, when built properly, create NO dangerous emissions into air or water.  Zero.  All the waste is in that nice bucket.

Could there be a leak?  Sure - but again, given the nature of nukes, a leak would be a small problem.  A really really bad leak might give a dozen workers an increased chance of cancer 20 years from now.  And that would be a BAD leak.  A tiny problem with a coal mine and 12 miners die right now.

As pointed out, coal miner is one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet, and working at the coal plant is no joy either.  Working at the nuclear plant, on the other hand, is one of the safest jobs around.  Mining for uranium/plutonium is not so pleasant, but you get a lot more bang for your buck with that stuff, so there is much less total danger.

Brian Fellows wrote: Isn't it illegal to fire employees for unionizing?  Rambino?

That's a tad out of my area...   union law is complicated.  I don't know, but can find out.

Generally, however, anybody can be fired for any reason or no reason.  The big exceptions are that you can't fire people based on race, gender, age, veteran status, religion, etc...