Coal Trains Going BYE BYE in Michigan

[PatAzo]

Nuclear power will never be "perfectly safe". There is always a risk. No matter how well controlled there is a risk. While unlikely the catastrophic nature of a failure makes it an unacceptable risk to many people.

[James Sofonia]

Nuclear power will never be "perfectly safe".

Nothing in our world is perfect except God's creations. You probably live in a wooden house as I do, it's not perfect but it serves me well even though it could kill me some day. Planes, trains, and especially automobiles kill but we still use them. Nuclear power has killed far less people than any of the above, again especially the auto. Nuke servers us well with NO air pollution whatsoever. We have learned how to burn coal very cleanly too. Yes phase out the plants that can't afford to meet the new technology, but please keep the lights on and do it in a non intrusive way to the public. I would vote yes for the next nuke or modern coal plant that wants to build and come on line so I can continue to watch my MTV.

[bdconrail29]

Nuclear power will never be "perfectly safe".

Nothing in our world is perfect except God's creations. You probably live in a wooden house as I do, it's not perfect but it serves me well even though it could kill me some day. Planes, trains, and especially automobiles kill but we still use them. Nuclear power has killed far less people than any of the above, again especially the auto. Nuke servers us well with NO air pollution whatsoever. We have learned how to burn coal very cleanly too. Yes phase out the plants that can't afford to meet the new technology, but please keep the lights on and do it in a non intrusive way to the public. I would vote yes for the next nuke or modern coal plant that wants to build and come on line so I can continue to watch my MTV.

Your statistics are skewed badly. Of course nuclear power has killed far fewer than automobiles. How many more cars drive everyday and how many nuclear power plants are there? Just probability alone would automatically increase deaths due to automobiles. I don't understand that comparison.

The point is, if we build lots more nuclear power plants, the risk increases. Even though something may not go wrong at one of the plants, if it does, it is typically catastrophic whereas something of similar nature at a coal burning plant wouldn't be. That's the risk the public isn't prepared to take.

No air pollution? Do you think that the waste disposal system of exhausted metals doesn't have the risk of causing far worse pollution in other areas? I'm wondering if you know how a nuclear power plant works?

[Saturnalia]

The risk from continued fossil fuel usage and resulting pollution is FAR FAR worse than the absolutely astronomically tiny chance of a modern nuclear plant having problems which spills significant radiation.

There are hundreds of nuclear power stations the world over, and only three have ever caused a problem, all of which produced lessons now built into new stations.

The risk is overblown. Wind and Solar isn't practical, and fossil fuels pollute. Go nuclear

[bdconrail29]

The risk from continued fossil fuel usage and resulting pollution is FAR FAR worse than the absolutely astronomically tiny chance of a modern nuclear plant having problems which spills significant radiation.

There are hundreds of nuclear power stations the world over, and only three have ever caused a problem, all of which produced lessons now built into new stations.

The risk is overblown. Wind and Solar isn't practical, and fossil fuels pollute. Go nuclear

I think what you are not getting is that no one on here is overblowing the nuclear risk. The public, in general, however, is. So regardless of what we think isn't going to matter in the end. The public hears the word "nuclear" and freaks out.

With that said, I don't think you have any idea the hazards of and containing wastes from a nuclear power plant, nor the operational costs. There's more to it than just "go nuclear."

Also, are you proposing cars run on nuclear energy? How are you going to eliminate all fossil fuel usage? I think to nitpick on coal power plants is really asinine considering vehicles emit far, far more pollution from gasoline burning.

[Saturnalia]

The risk from continued fossil fuel usage and resulting pollution is FAR FAR worse than the absolutely astronomically tiny chance of a modern nuclear plant having problems which spills significant radiation.

There are hundreds of nuclear power stations the world over, and only three have ever caused a problem, all of which produced lessons now built into new stations.

The risk is overblown. Wind and Solar isn't practical, and fossil fuels pollute. Go nuclear

With that said, I don't think you have any idea the hazards of and containing wastes from a nuclear power plant, nor the operational costs. There's more to it than just "go nuclear."

Also, are you proposing cars run on nuclear energy? How are you going to eliminate all fossil fuel usage? I think to nitpick on coal power plants is really asinine considering vehicles emit far, far more pollution from gasoline burning.

I'm very well aware of the challenges of storing nuclear waste...the canceled underground storage facility was a short-sighted decision.

And yes, I am proposing cars run on nuclear energy. Because we all know electric cars are the eventual way of the future. Best to make that electricity with nuclear energy than majority fossil fuels like we do now. In order for ~Z~ to propel his dream Tesla, he'd have to plug into the Consumers power grid, which is over half produced by coal, and only a small minority by wind, solar and hydro-electric.

The world's demand for electricity will not be decreasing. Nuclear is by far the cleanest and most efficient option.

[SousaKerry]

Actually even coal plants produce nuclear waste. Fly ash from coal plants is often radioactive as you are basically concentrating the coal and whatever impurities it has within. I once worked for a boss who worked for consumers as a project manager when the Palisades plant was constructed. He had a story about how the Geiger counters kept going off when they were preparing the plant for startup. Apparently to save money Consumers used fly ash and cinders as an aggregate in their concrete mix, it was found that the fly ash was radioactive and thousands of tons of concrete had to be torn out re-pored and the rubble treated as low grade nuclear waste. He also claimed that during the investigation he had a 5 gallon bucket of this fly ash in the back of his truck that was so radio active they had to treat it the same as spent fuel rods.

Needless to say my former boss is a cancer survivor due to his years of exposure working in the nuclear industry in the 60's. He is still called upon as a consultant to the NRC as one of the last people in the US still alive to actually build a nuclear power plant.

Despite all this is still a strong advocate of nuclear power and would like to see more plants built as he believes it is the most efficient form of power with almost no emissions.

[bdconrail29]

The risk from continued fossil fuel usage and resulting pollution is FAR FAR worse than the absolutely astronomically tiny chance of a modern nuclear plant having problems which spills significant radiation.

There are hundreds of nuclear power stations the world over, and only three have ever caused a problem, all of which produced lessons now built into new stations.

The risk is overblown. Wind and Solar isn't practical, and fossil fuels pollute. Go nuclear

With that said, I don't think you have any idea the hazards of and containing wastes from a nuclear power plant, nor the operational costs. There's more to it than just "go nuclear."

Also, are you proposing cars run on nuclear energy? How are you going to eliminate all fossil fuel usage? I think to nitpick on coal power plants is really asinine considering vehicles emit far, far more pollution from gasoline burning.

I'm very well aware of the challenges of storing nuclear waste...the canceled underground storage facility was a short-sighted decision.

And yes, I am proposing cars run on nuclear energy. Because we all know electric cars are the eventual way of the future. Best to make that electricity with nuclear energy than majority fossil fuels like we do now. In order for ~Z~ to propel his dream Tesla, he'd have to plug into the Consumers power grid, which is over half produced by coal, and only a small minority by wind, solar and hydro-electric.

The world's demand for electricity will not be decreasing. Nuclear is by far the cleanest and most efficient option.

See, that's where your lack of real experience/knowledge surfaces. Nuclear energy is not clean at all. At all. The footprint of toxic waste is astounding and costly. Have you actually worked in a nuclear power plant? Do you have any kind of advanced degree in physics? I'm thinking you haven't and don't. Your simplistic, idealistic model is simply wrong. Did you know the sun might explode tomorrow too? Anyways, this discussion isn't worth it anymore. If you think the solution is to knock down all the coal burning plants and build and implement tons of nuclear power plants, than go right ahead. While we're at it, let's just build nuclear car engines too. We could have cylinders of hydrogen inside and call it the Fusion Core V6 and spray helium out the exhaust pipe.

[Saturnalia]

Have you actually worked in a nuclear power plant? Do you have any kind of advanced degree in physics? I'm thinking you haven't and don't. Your simplistic, idealistic model is simply wrong. Did you know the sun might explode tomorrow too?

Ahh, the good old fallback to "you're just ignorant and don't know enough to comment" when one cannot formulate anything worthy of a true rebuttal.

You know that people don't need advanced degrees in subjects to comprehend the issues. Are you going to suggest that you must have a PhD in applied mathematics to comment on the tax code? I don't think so.

While we're at it, let's just build nuclear car engines too. We could have cylinders of hydrogen inside and call it the Fusion Core V6 and spray helium out the exhaust pipe.

I suggested that electric cars would make primary-sourced power in cars unnecessary. Once battery tech matures, and as long as a reliable, cheap grid power supply continues, there will be an ever-decreasing need for gasoline/hydrogen/dog crap powered cars.

But hey, don't listen to me. I don't have a PhD in nuclear physics.

[James Sofonia]

Your statistics are skewed badly. I'm wondering if you know how a nuclear power plant works?

No, I don't know. Why don't you explain it here.
All I understand is that they start the turbine and I plug in my toaster.

[bdconrail29]

Have you actually worked in a nuclear power plant? Do you have any kind of advanced degree in physics? I'm thinking you haven't and don't. Your simplistic, idealistic model is simply wrong. Did you know the sun might explode tomorrow too?

Ahh, the good old fallback to "you're just ignorant and don't know enough to comment" when one cannot formulate anything worthy of a true rebuttal.

You know that people don't need advanced degrees in subjects to comprehend the issues. Are you going to suggest that you must have a PhD in applied mathematics to comment on the tax code? I don't think so.

While we're at it, let's just build nuclear car engines too. We could have cylinders of hydrogen inside and call it the Fusion Core V6 and spray helium out the exhaust pipe.

I suggested that electric cars would make primary-sourced power in cars unnecessary. Once battery tech matures, and as long as a reliable, cheap grid power supply continues, there will be an ever-decreasing need for gasoline/hydrogen/dog crap powered cars.

But hey, don't listen to me. I don't have a PhD in nuclear physics.

<But hey, don't listen to me. I don't have a PhD in nuclear physics>

Edited: No, that is not what I meant.

[bdconrail29]

<Ahh, the good old fallback to "you're just ignorant and don't know enough to comment" when one cannot formulate anything worthy of a true rebuttal.>

Ok, fine. I apologize. I still think my arguments are valid, but I realize we are all entitled to opinions. I'm sorry if you felt that way.

[Saturnalia]

Ok, fine. I apologize. I still think my arguments are valid, but I realize we are all entitled to opinions. I'm sorry if you felt that way.

Apology 100% accepted. Nothing personal what so ever. While I'm far from an expert, I do know a decent lot. As somebody who watches transports and energy, I've always had an interest.

Watching the Fukushima disaster happen was disheartening, to be sure, but I also have great faith in technology and our ability to learn from mistakes. That's why I think any new reactors would be of superior safety, with now three major disasters and numerous smaller ones to learn from. In fact, we just studied nuclear physics in my advanced physics course (HS course, college level). Fascinating stuff. I recognize the risks and costs, but for me at least, those are minimized and it's well worth it in the long term.

It's worth reiterating, nothing personal, and I keep no disdain. I just loathe the ignorance argument, because I do genuinely love the discussions, love learning things from them.

[J T]

It's worth reiterating, nothing personal, and I keep no disdain. I just loathe the ignorance argument, because I do genuinely love the discussions, love learning things from them.

Oh quit being a drama queen.

[Norm]

Came here expecting to read about coal trains, not a knock-down dragout between environmentalists and realists.

[Saturnalia]

Came here expecting to read about coal trains, not a knock-down dragout between environmentalists and realists.

Well, the realist is gonna tell ya that these threads about coal ALWAYS end up about the environment, so you should expected that.

The environmentalist is gonna tell ya to get off the computer because train sites require electricity, the generation of which requires fossil fuels.

Oops.

[jwilliam33]

How about the mercury, arsenic, sulfur...all of the pollutants that come from the burning of coal that others downwind must deal with. As much as we like to watch coal trains it is selfish and unjust to ignore the people who will be negatily affected by the generation of electricity. BUT that also includes those who have to look at the ugly wind turbines on the landscape or does it? ( unpleasant sight vs unpleasant air quality; comparing apples to oranges ) Switching to cleanER burning fuels like biomass and natural gas will reduce the pollutants. The issue is in the USA coal is so cheap and reliable that it will be the most difficult to let go of. The sun isnt always shining on the solar panels, the wind blows more in certain places than others, biomass serves many other functions than just for fuel ( ethanol: food vs fuel )

Also for hydrogen and electric vehicles, until the energy is produced from a clean source, no net change will occur.

Back on subject to coal trains, this means CN will still run 764/765 will still run to Durand, 782/783 to Monroe from Toledo and the other pair that runs to River Rouge.

It has been interesting that, since these "pollutants" have been reduced, we are now facing sulfur deficiencies in our soil and are having to supplement our soils for this whereas we never had to before.

[Notch 8]

Wind Mills are fine when the wind blows.. Natural Gas is Okay when gas is it is at near historical low. Nuclear Power is OK till there's an "Incident" point is all form's of energy has negatives... Coal is not dead.. least not yet ! Good thing India & China and the Soviet Union is going to stop burn coal too.

[AARR]

China and Japan (I thought it was India) announced they are planning on building between them 160 coal fired plants. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... ding-them/

Coal is not dead.. least not yet ! Good thing India & China and the Soviet Union is going to stop burn coal too.

[TrainStuff13]

When in general is the best time to catch a coal train on the Holly Sub?