And their vote counts more than yours because they live in rural districts with lower populations. Smh at “democracy.”
You really need to trace where the power from that coal plant goes. It probably mostly goes to cities 100’s of miles away, (NIMBY). Just like the power from solar and wind farms. Nor was it the choice of those rural Americans to build that coal plant there. But they still get to drive by it so you can game on your console.
no war but the class war
American seniors: “Damn Medicare advantage, won’t cover my surgery!”
Also American seniors: “Of course I’m voting Republican! We can’t let homosexuals in our bathrooms!”
For those among us with a higher intellect (aka metric system users): 5mpg equals a consumption of 47 litres/100km.
0.47 l/km? That’s not too bad right?
47L/100km is terrible, my car does like 5L/100km.
In the US this would be about 5mpg. That is beyond horrible.
cO2 iS PlANt fOoD
This isn’t the fault of democracy; it’s the fault of the US system. Nobody knew what made a good democracy when the US was founded. After 250 years it’s really showing its age and the need for an upgrade. Primarily, Congress needs to be dismantled and replaced with a parliament.
No this is coal:
swimming pools <3
/j
Ahh thanks for the picture! I used to live near where they had several of these growing up. We were fed the “clean coal” angle. So many grow up believing that it’s better than other coal and better burning. (clean coal isn’t a thing lmao) The peopel felt better with this angle about it.
It was the northern plains, though. So it was all boring open landscape already. (I referred to it as the moon growing up.) There’s not a lot of people living out there, anyway. Wyoming specifically, though, has environmental regulations on oil, gas, and coal from a beautification standpoint. So yes, they can have these large pits, but once done, they have to turn them into things like ponds/lakes/etc. They can drill for oil/gas as well in the state, but they can only be so many feet/miles between pumpjacks to not ruin the landscape. That type of thing.
It’s been slowing down as an industry, coal that is. One of the major exporting countries that was buying and using coal (had even completely purchased many of the processing plants there in WY) was China. In the last few years, China has largely moved away from using coal as much, so that industry is in decline. They’ve been doing a lot more Solar, Wind, and Hydro. So as long as we keep moving toward that, these big pits will slow. You just need to get other big coal consuming countries onboard.
EDIT: OH another fun thing about Wyoming as a state, but specifically counties that have these coal mines, they require x amount of the profit made from these resources must be put back into the towns themselves. A beautification type fund or something (I have since moved away but recall this) So you actually will have some surprisingly well tended and well funded towns randomly in wyoming because of this.
(I do recall as a kid, the mines would have their explosion technicians be the ones to do the fireworks events for the fourth of july celebrations. Seeing as they were already well versed in exploding things, those were some of the most magnificent fireworks displays.)
Compare that to other states that have natural resources that are being mined and drilled, they don’t require as much to be put into the places they’re getting things from, and things get run down and driven out. The resource itself isn’t going anywhere, but you get these people who bend over backwards allowing these industries to take advantage and suppress other industries so their worker pool isn’t competitive because it will “bring jobs and industry in”. They end up giving far too many concessions to the fossil fuel industry, not holding them accountable for their actions in the area. The resources get used and then they move out and leave a huge vacuum, killing smaller communities entirely.
So Wyoming is actually pretty well situated on handling the fossilfuels in there.
I hate to be that guy, but China has increased electricity production in general. It is just that solar + wind + hydro make up most of the gain. However that still means:
Ahh thanks for the link! I admit I’m coming in at a more anecdotal position of people I know who still live and work in that industry. So it may just be their isolated area that is experiencing a downturn. They may be still acquiring coal but from other sources.
over here they destroy towns and forrests for this shit ;w;
nuclear is pretty cool.
You just need to find a long term storage solution that is safe (and cheap) for the next 100.000+ years. That‘s longer than the modern history of humans. At our current trajectory this period will contain hundreds of world wars, none of the current nations will exist and we will have technology far beyond our comprehension. I am also totally neglecting all the companies making the profits today will be gone. Funnily enough many nuclear disposal site are built close to borders, which shows the short sightedness of the designer. Also also the resources for nuclear energy are finite, same as with coal. So we can may be use the technology for couple hundred years at best, but have to deal with the waste way longer.
I am not against new nuclear power plant projects, but please think about disposal first, let companies pay for it today and then think about building the actual plant.
Memes like these make progressives look like dumbasses.
Look at all that water vapor polluting the air! Omg
- Sincerely, a progressive
Coal and natural gas plants can also use the same cooling tower design.
It looks like maybe a coal plant is depicted, on account of the tall smoke stacks and what look like drop chutes for handling solid coal. But the layout doesn’t make sense. What are the smoke stacks coming out of?
I like those cooling towers now that I know what they do. It’s kind of dope inside there
One could say… they’re pretty cool
I’ll never forgive you for this
Also the vast acreage of corn grown for ethanol is apparently fine.
The latest petrochemical industry astroturfed “wisdom” is that solar cells leach toxic chemicals into the soil. Get that. I mean, we can’t eat fish more than once a week because the entire fucking planet is full of mercury from mining and burning fossil fuels, but solar cells are the problem, right.
Feels good to live in a rural area that’s embraced solar.
Damnit, Stabby, I was trying (not very hard, mind you) to work.
There’s a lot of back and forth going on in this thread, a lot of it around environmental impact of coal, and land uses. I’ll try to clear some of this up. At worst, you’ll just get my ramblings on the topic.-
Nuclear energy. I largely agree with @arrow74@lemmy.zip. Nuclear has a shitty stigma, and that really precludes it from being even a transitional energy source, particularly in North America. While the wastes live forever (essentially) they are concentrated, and after a century or so, they are generally similar to other toxic wastes (e.g., primarily alpha and beta radiation), and if properly stored, are pretty safe. I’m not a nuclear expert, however, so this is more of an opinion than anything, though maybe a bit more informed than the average schmoe (though schmoe I am).
-
Coal mining - historically, very destructive, no land use planning, just let the pit fill on its own, Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (herein: ML/ARD) issues. ML/ARD issues arise when you have metal and sulphur bearing rock that’s exposed to atmosphere over time. Sulphur oxidizes, drops pH, and leaches metals out of the rock. This can occur sometimes at neutral pHs but it’s less common and dependent on the metals in the rock. If you just leave the pit to fill on its own, it takes a long time, and you’re more prone to ML/ARD and water quality issues as a result. If you actively flood the pit, you can largely avoid these issues, but you still need to model, check, and monitor your future water quality so you don’t have a pit full of toxic crap. Usually, if water quality is poor, they can use semi-passive treatment (e.g. in pit bioreactors) or actively (water treatment plant) treat water until water quality is good enough to release to the surrounding environment, once the pit’s water elevation reaches whatever target they have set out for it.
@MythicalMenace@slrpnk.net points out how mining companies are often required to put money back into the towns around them. This is part of social closure of the mine, so they don’t leave behind ghost towns. Generally, though, it doesn’t work. Towns need another source of employment once the mine shuts down, but we’re largely starting to see mining companies be required to have some sort of social transition plan in place for workers and people connected to the mine.
2a - Mining wastes @grue@lemmy.world yes, coal wastes can be toxic, this links back to ML/ARD I mention earlier. Tailings are crushed (usually to sand sized) rock that’s been processed - they usually have faster ML/ARD onset due to their smaller particle size -> increased surface area. @SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world also tied to ML/ARD and water management -see #2 above
3 - coal plants: not much to add here, but they are often a source of metal deposition (via dust, fly ash), and radioactivity (radon in rock).
Nuclear waste is pretty bad and incredibly expensive to store. That storage also needs to be maintained for the entire time it’s stored. Burying it is not enough, that will contaminate the water somewhere. Not to mention the upkeep on nuclear plants is very expensive and even then they only have a lifespan of 5 decades. Plus, it only takes one disaster for a meltdown. That said, these are problems that could be addressed and mitigated and in some areas it makes sense.
I’m not saying its not harmful, but it does drop in risk over time, and it is concentrated. In comparison, one waste rock dump I’m dealing with is about 237 ha in size, and contains 21 million tonnes of ML/ARD generating waste rock. Another mine I know will contain 3 billion m3 of tailings in their tailings storage facility.
Dealing with any waste is not cheap, though the level of effort is smaller with nuclear than traditional mining wastes. If you store the waste in engineered drums/cells etc. which are water tight and stick them underground, after siting the storage location well, you’re in pretty good shape.
I won’t contest nuclear plant upkeep.
How long are those drums good for? I wouldn’t count on anything staying leakproof for a hundred years, let alone thousands.
That’s a valid concern, but they use dry cask storage. If you inter these casks underground, you can redirect any water that may seep into the storage chamber or use an impermeable cover over the casks. We do this a lot with mining wastes.
-
Not me, I’m rural American and I installed my own solar power at home
So here’s where this is not exactly always true. My parents own a good chunk of land, more than 100 acres. Around the same time we were approached by an oil company wanting to put a well on their land, and a solar company wanting to put solar panels on the land. The oil company wanted 5 acres for a 100 year lease. The solar company wanted 70 acres on a 100 year lease. During these leases the land effectively belongs to the company who signs the lease. So for solar, for 100 years we wouldn’t be able to plant or grow or run livestock on the land. So the scenario pictured is not always the way that it works.
And for the record, we told both of the companies no.
Thanks for posting about your experience with the leases, I had not considered the implication of the land use for solar on the landowner. I assumed you could still do whatever you wanted (within reason) under the panels with the understanding that anything in the way when it came time to service them would be moved or destroyed. Preventing grazing or planting would be a problem. I assume that is not necessarily how every lease is setup but its good info.
Having been to a couple of drill/frac sites on ag land, I’d say y’all made the right call by saying no to that.
Put them over parking lots, on rooftops, out in the desert. Endless possibilities.
