I'll continue to happily shovel "dusty", "life-threatening" coal for not only my own enjoyment, but the enjoyment of countless others throughout Australia!

Just my worthless 2c

Tom

I might change my fluorescent light bulb to a tungsten one tonight.

That, and like flathog, I'll most definitely be waving at Grantham as he passes in his diesel powered 82 (Or DL) Class, while I'm shoveling the ash aside outside the depot in Lithgow.

Stop this filthy coal.

I am all for nuclear!!!

(30 years later: ooops, what do we with this left over stuff?)

Stop this filthy coal.

I am all for nuclear!!!

(30 years later: ooops, what do we with this left over stuff?)

Johnboy, the people who consider coal dirty are hypocrites. They still use the electricity it makes, don't know any good alternatives, and don't economise any more than us rednecks. Apparently, "left wingers" dont use or like coal....so they reckon! (Scoff scoff)

Actually I'm not really a redneck, but I won't give lip service to conservation and safety when action is what's required. Phil wont act, but lip service is already prevalent, as well as being branded "right wing".

M

This is easy, no need to stop burning or mining the stuff on these grounds.

But there is a case for getting our dust suppression right, monitoring it, setting standards and enforcing them.

Some of those Hunter coal mines featured on four corners in April were running large haul pack fleets in very dusty conditions with a single water truck struggling to keep up. The first place to start is the pit ramp, and the runs to the ROM - I know several operations that use automatic sprayers in these high volume areas, why not coal mines adjacent to towns? Areas with automatic sprayers free up the existing water trucks to spray other areas more frequently.

Why not adequate, real time dust monitoring - if the mines dust mitigation is not doing its job, shutdown until it does, quite the incentive to run the water cart, or keep it serviceable which is often the problem. Why not enforce shut downs on the ten worst dust days of the year?

Of course, much of the dust off the mine is plain old silicate dust, not coal dust, though this doesn’t mean you want to breathe it.

For the rest of it - get the suppression right on the coal handling stuff - enclose cones and stockpiles, conveyers and re handling gear.

At the very least dust degrades the urban environment and wrecks the washing. At worse, it induces respitory disease and cancer. So lets spend a few % of the revenue on doing the industries dust suppression right. Makes far more sense than a 40% super profits tax.

I totally agree. If it is that bad then bring in change. I will more than welcome the alternatives if the whingers can bring it up.

Seriously, Nuclear is the cleanest power (except the waste is a small issue which is being worked on overseas) but they are so blind they point-blank refuse to accept nuclear because they think we are going to start a nuclear war with it or something.

[edit]Thread cleaned, one poster banned.

Floor open for on topic discussion.[/edit]

I totally agree. If it is that bad then bring in change. I will more than welcome the alternatives if the whingers can bring it up.

Seriously, Nuclear is the cleanest power (except the waste is a small issue which is being worked on overseas) but they are so blind they point-blank refuse to accept nuclear because they think we are going to start a nuclear war with it or something.

I'm a conservative who believes in the need for clean energy - so I'm a bit in the middle here (yes, being 'a bit in the middle' is like being 'a bit pregnant' or 'a bit dead', but you know what I mean).

Coal is low impact / high frequency in terms of risk,  nuclear is high impact / low frequency.  In other words, coal is continually making some small amount of people ill.  Nuclear could go for a hundred years of never giving one person so much as a pimple on the asre, and then kill 100 000 in one incident.  

They work out the same in that we accept bad things in return for not living in the stone age.  It's no different to the fear of flaming death in a car crash not being enough to keep you hiding under the bed and having supplies home delivered.

Fossil fuels are not evil.  We need them until we can get our siht together to progress to better technology.  Which we will.  We always do.   But that better technology won't be driven by squeaky-voiced protesters who smell "vaguely of cats and patchouli oil" (thank you P.J. O'Rourke) - it'll be driven by suit-wearing grown-ups in business and the military.  As usual.

I totally agree. If it is that bad then bring in change. I will more than welcome the alternatives if the whingers can bring it up.

Seriously, Nuclear is the cleanest power (except the waste is a small issue which is being worked on overseas) but they are so blind they point-blank refuse to accept nuclear because they think we are going to start a nuclear war with it or something.

I'm a conservative who believes in the need for clean energy - so I'm a bit in the middle here (yes, being 'a bit in the middle' is like being 'a bit pregnant' or 'a bit dead', but you know what I mean).

Coal is low impact / high frequency in terms of risk,  nuclear is high impact / low frequency.  In other words, coal is continually making some small amount of people ill.  Nuclear could go for a hundred years of never giving one person so much as a pimple on the asre, and then kill 100 000 in one incident.  

They work out the same in that we accept bad things in return for not living in the stone age.  It's no different to the fear of flaming death in a car crash not being enough to keep you hiding under the bed and having supplies home delivered.

Fossil fuels are not evil.  We need them until we can get our siht together to progress to better technology.  Which we will.  We always do.   But that better technology won't be driven by squeaky-voiced protesters who smell "vaguely of cats and patchouli oil" (thank you P.J. O'Rourke) - it'll be driven by suit-wearing grown-ups in business and the military.  As usual.

Bro TLD™, that is an eloquent way of saying there is no need to be inefficient, especially at policy level.

Half (or more) of the problem is that successive state gummints of both flavours won't spend their hard extorted tax moneys on maintaining and/or updating the existing infrastructure, it could be far more efficient (ie: "green") but there is a budget. Sports is in, green is out.

M

This government has no idea of what is needed in electricity. The Owen Report of 2007 is clear that NSW needs a lot more base load generation by 2013. The cost of the plan expansion of Delta's Mt Piper with another 2KMw set is about $2B.

The state budget for the next four years states:
"$1.8 billion for generator capacity"

Not even enought to meet power generation needs. This money will only maintain current generation.

So I am not sure what the Lithgow people are worried about. The gumnut isn't rushing to expand our power supply in Lithgow.

I fervently support the mining of coal! I dont support burning it without filtration of toxic pollutants.

Coal took hundreds of Mullins of years to make. Burning it is an incredibly shortsighted and stupid waste if a non - renewable resource. It's too valuable to burn.

Burning also concentrates and releases radiation 1000 x higher than nuclear power plants. The facts are in on toxic fallout using current methods. Lets get smarter and richer using coals organic compounds for value added recylable products so we can use them for thousands of years not just a week or two.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Dust suppression ? Sounds like a half smart lawyer just came up with a new way to make money to me, then lets watch the OH&S industry jump on the band wagon.'


The Zodiac

I remember when they said mobile phones were dangerous to the brain, has anyone got brain cancer yet?

This thread is several years old, why raise it from the dead?

I fervently support the mining of coal! I dont support burning it without filtration of toxic pollutants.

Coal took hundreds of Mullins of years to make. Burning it is an incredibly shortsighted and stupid waste if a non - renewable resource. It's too valuable to burn.

Hmmmm, you support mining coal, but not burning it as it's too valuable? What do you suggest it could be used for if it's not burned? Unless you burn coal it's just another rock.

You, sir, are either a goose or troll. I'm going to go with a bit of both.

Hmmmm, you support mining coal, but not burning it as it's too valuable? What do you suggest it could be used for if it's not burned? Unless you burn coal it's just another rock.

You, sir, are either a goose or troll. I'm going to go with a bit of both.

He wants us to wait a few million years for it to turn into diamonds...

There were groups trying to tell the Newcastle Community this year that Coal train dust was dangerous and should be covered.
Why don't they spray some water on the coal when the train leaves the mine so the top layer crusts and is less prone to entering the environment?
The problem with Newcastle is there is always groups trying to save the world from everything.

how big is the problem? are we talking this is serious or are we subjected to the musings of a group of rent a crowd locals?

Fireman Dave, coal is much more valuable a resource if it has been liquified into crude oil for refining.
I think this was the point RobertNeill was trying to get across although he doesnt yet know himself.

Fireman Dave, coal is much more valuable a resource if it has been liquified into crude oil for refining.
I think this was the point RobertNeill was trying to get across although he doesnt yet know himself.

You could be correct, but, I suggest you're giving RobertNeill too much credit.