Originally Posted by MontyB

So you do what most places do these days and limit operational site area so if they want to strip mine an area they have return depleted sections to original condition before they can open up new areas, it has worked extremely well with groups such as the forestry industry locally.

There is no doubt it will cost more initially but in the long run clever industries will learn to minimise that cost and in some industries (such as forestry) they can turn a profit on the process through renewable planting.

But that's beside the point; they're destroying some of the oldest and most beautiful mountain areas in North America.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

But that's beside the point; they're destroying some of the oldest and most beautiful mountain areas in North America.

It is not beside the point as the damage can be managed and repaired, certainly if you are talking wiping out species I may be inclined to say its not worth it but like it or not trees, rocks and dirt are not all that unique and can be replaced.

I am not one to get sentimental about pretty views and wooded areas which if you recall are bear toilets, I wont argue that strip mining is ugly and an eyesore but then so is the mother in law and I am reliably informed it can be fixed.

Originally Posted by MontyB

It is not beside the point as the damage can be managed and repaired, certainly if you are talking wiping out species I may be inclined to say its not worth it but like it or not trees, rocks and dirt are not all that unique and can be replaced.

I am not one to get sentimental about pretty views and wooded areas which if you recall are bear toilets, I wont argue that strip mining is ugly and an eyesore but then so is the mother in law and I am reliably informed it can be fixed.

Monty, Thanks for that laugh.

I think that the environmental extremists are the ones to be feared. Generally they are the ones pushing the return to a nomadic existence. I agree that we should expect companies to limit their impact on the environment as much as reasonable possible, but the green groups HAVE to compromise.
Maybe we can dress them up in wool sweaters and give them balloons to rub on their heads. Course if they are not careful and a spark is created, they will have to pay for the ozone they just created.

Like I said, environmental fanatics are religous fanatics. Impossible to reason with.

I actually agree with point 1+2.

1. Low gas prices kill innovation to find better alternatives, and it encourages people to drive which it turn makes the USA dependent on Foreign oil and ruins the economy.

2. Coal is a dead end technology. Dirty, polluting, dangerous to mine, and provides less watts than a nuclear power plant which is a much better option.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I actually agree with point 1+2.

1. Low gas prices kill innovation to find better alternatives, and it encourages people to drive which it turn makes the USA dependent on Foreign oil and ruins the economy.

2. Coal is a dead end technology. Dirty, polluting, dangerous to mine, and provides less watts than a nuclear power plant which is a much better option.

The environmentalist wackos don't want
nuclear (3 mile island),
coal (dirty and inefficient),
oil (dirty and controlled by the evil corporations),
wind (eyesore),
solar (take up too much space) or
hydroelectric (we must protect the salmon).
They are unwilling, as 13th redneck has already pointed out, unwilling to negotiate. They want to crow about the "problems" but have no ideas or solutions.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

The environmentalist wackos don't want
nuclear (3 mile island),
coal (dirty and inefficient),
oil (dirty and controlled by the evil corporations),
wind (eyesore),
solar (take up too much space) or
hydroelectric (we must protect the salmon).
They are unwilling, as 13th redneck has already pointed out, unwilling to negotiate. They want to crow about the "problems" but have no ideas or solutions.

That Depends on the enviromentalist, not all are so radical in fact most aren't. For example many have begun to change their minds about nuclear.

The two largest accidents 3 mile Isle and Chernobyl were done in very poorly designed plants. The French have pioneered Nuclear powered technology, and almost all of its power is nuclear. Frankly if we were to borrow some of their expertise it would go along way to solve our own powergrid problems. If its done correctly and safely, then nuclear power is a viable option, if you cut corners thats when accidents happen.

They do offer some ideas, And they do promote some ideas hybrid/electrical cars was a enviromentalist idea. Biofuel is another idea.

Rememebr the powerful oil industry lobby wants to delay alternative energy for as long as possible (for reasons you can guess), so because they say this or that is ineffective to replace oil, doesnt necessarily mean it is.

Its about money and politics, not technology.

Agree about money and politics. Definately the root of everything in this country at least.

As far as nuclear goes, I agree that since the French (shudder) have a lot more experise than just about everyone, we should use their help.

Chernobyl reactor tech is completely different than 3 mile island. Once reason that the US uses water moderation is that it is much easier to build and operate than the liquid sodium reactors that the russians use. Liquid sodium is more dangerous but cheaper to build. Add to that the fact that their technicians running the plant are likely less trained than US technicians.

The problem that the wackos have with nuke plants is waste. We currently just bury it in Yuma?. Need to come up with a better way to get rid of it. Send it to the moon or shoot it into the sun are some options.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

As far as nuclear goes, I agree that since the French (shudder) have a lot more experise than just about everyone, we should use their help.

Very unlikely any country in the world has more experience with nuclear reactors than the US. 70 years and probably more than 1,000 reactors. Nuclear powered subs, ships, power plants both in the US and foreign countries. Advances from experience of other countries could aid safety and would all be good. Problem is in sharing technology. Countries do not want more nuclear capable countries.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

The problem that the wackos have with nuke plants is waste. We currently just bury it in Yuma?. Need to come up with a better way to get rid of it. Send it to the moon or shoot it into the sun are some options.

Of course this is not practical due to the fact that spent uranium is heavier than lead. And the tonnage of waste would make the number of rockets extreme and the likelihood of a rocket failing and the waste being spread all over the world. It would be the last part of a rocket to burn up on reentry. Encased in its radiation shield and that fact it is dense enough to probably not burn up in reentry.

People think of the waste as nuclear bombs being buried underground. This is not true but the illusion persists along with problems transporting it to a storage site. No one wants these "nuclear bombs" transported through their neighborhoods. It is radioactively dangerous for centuries.

Realisticly all forms of energy that the US posesses will be needed if the US wants to be energy independant. There is no short term fix.

The only short term relief would be people using less, and I am all for that, as long as it does not effect me .

Chukpike. Thanks for the clarification. I was under the mistaken assumption that our nuclear expertise was geared more towards military reactors for ships/subs. I do understand that a lot has to happen to initiate a chain reaction. (Sufficient reaction mass, sufficient pressure) and that spend reactor fuel lacks the first and the pressures required for detonation are extreme.
I agree that the US has to do more to improve efficiency of what we use now. Traditionally the US answer to an energy shortage is to get more. Efficiency improvement will only get you so far and eventually we will need to develop better technology and build more plants. Maybe we need to spend more money on fusion research or superconductors.