Comments on: Tenessee radio-active coal-ash slurry pond failure not a mining incident http://ithinkmining.com/2008/12/26/tenessee-radio-active-coal-ash-slurry-pond-failure-not-a-mining-incident/ Sharp opinions about mines and mining from Jack Caldwell Thu, 31 May 2012 02:57:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Fred Reeve http://ithinkmining.com/2008/12/26/tenessee-radio-active-coal-ash-slurry-pond-failure-not-a-mining-incident/#comment-921 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:38:27 +0000 http://ithink.mining.com/?p=1471#comment-921 It would be interesting to know the amount of Carbon Emissions that were created to excavate and transport a specific amount of coal (100 rail cars at 100 tons each) to the Coal Fired Power Plant and compare those emissions to the Coal Fired Power Plant emissions that resulted from the burning of the same amount of coal (10,000 tons).
I wonder how much fly ash is produced from the burning of 10,000 tons of coal?

]]> By: pond plants http://ithinkmining.com/2008/12/26/tenessee-radio-active-coal-ash-slurry-pond-failure-not-a-mining-incident/#comment-922 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:55:10 +0000 http://ithink.mining.com/?p=1471#comment-922 i also got a pond in the garden and i love it.

]]> By: Keith http://ithinkmining.com/2008/12/26/tenessee-radio-active-coal-ash-slurry-pond-failure-not-a-mining-incident/#comment-920 Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:50:51 +0000 http://ithink.mining.com/?p=1471#comment-920 Hi Jack,

I agree with you that this disaster has nothing direct to do with coal mining. Where I disagree with you is that this disaster does not have anything relevant to do with a choice of coal for power. You say this incident, and what it brings to popular attention, shouldn’t affect the choice between nuclear and coal power. This conclusion doesn’t make sense to me–I think it’s highly relevant and relatively unknown that coal power always involves these massive amounts of nasty, heavy-metal rich byproducts. anyways.

]]>