Wyoming has a novel approach to keep their coal industry alive

[Zaydin]

What is it, you might ask? It's easy: Wyoming plans to sue states that don't buy coal. It's just as stupid as it sounds. Wyoming has decided that rather than admit that coal as a whole is dying and making the painful but necessary long term move of moving away from coal and developing new industries in the state to replace it, they are going to just burn money on frivolous lawsuits to try and prop up an industry that is going to die no matter what they do.

That's not even getting into the question of whether they have any sort of legal standing to sue over something like this to begin with.

[Santti]

Typical. Strategies that are only there to keep the politicians in power, for as long as possible. And bugger all else.

This obviously won't do anything, but it sounds good for the people with permanent blinders on.

[Zaydin]

Typical. Strategies that are only there to keep the politicians in power, for as long as possible. And bugger all else.

This obviously won't do anything, but it sounds good for the people with permanent blinders on.

Like I said, that's not even getting into whether they would have the standing to sue over this to begin with.

[Theodarzna]

Build lots of nuclear power plants boys, I think over all that might be better since everyone around the great rectangular state of Wyoming will inevitably be having to buy power from them.

[Howel]

How about they spent that money in trying to find methods to restructure those affected by the failing industry instead? It is not like coal mining is an entirely skill less profession, lots of machine operators, that you could target with some money for relocation, teaching other machinery etc..

[uuuhname]

why go nuclear when geothermal power is right there. tap that Yellowstone caldera.

[Theodarzna]

why go nuclear when geothermal power is right there. tap that Yellowstone caldera.

I'd say both then, though Geothermal I am unsure about how much power it generates versus consumes to get started. Nuclear I know a bit more about. But I'd say do both because it can create an ecosystem of jobs in an area and focus on unionized work that stays in the area.

[D Luniz]

Im not sure if coal pit workers get the same deal as coal miners, but if they do, then they'll go kicking and screaming. Cause its only bad when other people get money from the government.

[PC2]

Losers always have to force other people to do what they want instead of innovating and offering a better product or lower costs...

[uuuhname]

I'd say both then, though Geothermal I am unsure about how much power it generates versus consumes to get started. Nuclear I know a bit more about. But I'd say do both because it can create an ecosystem of jobs in an area and focus on unionized work that stays in the area.

true, I don't think geothermal is anymore difficult to get going than nuclear though.

[Theodarzna]

Nuclear takes more to keep it going than geothermal. See, geothermal uses the natural heat to power turbines. Nuclear uses fuel rods to boil water and create hazardous waste we really don’t have a way to clean up.

We do however actually bother to contain the waste, where as coal, oil and natural gas we just dump all the waste product into the atmosphere and terraform our own planet with it. As for energy dense power source, Nuclear remains top of the heap and while I'll grant the start up cost can have a price tag for it, I'd say its worth it given geothermal is limited by geography and I am not certain how much bang for your buck you get with it.

Also nuclear waste is fairly minimal at this point and there are solutions on what to do with it from recycling, to bury it incredibly deep underground, ect.

[Rasulis]

Wyoming does not have a lot of options. Mining, quarrying, oil and gas are 30% of their economy. The state government has been trying to grow other sectors since 2008 with no success. 2020 was a very bad year for Wyoming. The state nominal GDP dropped by 10.4%. The largest US state GDP drop in 2020. The state need major Federal government infusion. No private funding will invest in Wyoming. The population base is too small.

[PC2]

Wyoming does not have a lot of options. Mining, quarrying, oil and gas are 30% of their economy.

A state doesn't need those natural and environmental opportunities to thrive though. All that's needed is more education, brainpower, and the right cultural attitudes.

[draynay]

A state doesn't need those natural and environmental opportunities to thrive though. All that's needed is more education, brainpower, and the right cultural attitudes.

Its Wyoming.

[Theodarzna]

We don’t have a place to bury it and recycling it isn’t happening on a large enough scale. This is about geothermal vs nuclear, and nuclear produces NO additional waste aside from what the earth was already putting out through the geothermal source. It’s literally just using the heat generated by the earth itself to power the turbines.

As soon as you have a place to dispose of nuclear waste safely we can talk, but even then the fuel rods require mining efforts which puts it at a serious disadvantage to beautiful geothermal power.

Yeah, it is called a large deep hole, simple as. You get clean zero carbon power and the most energy dense power on the planet. Also mining the stuff create mining jobs, for people who know how to mine and have experience mining. Man, good thing we have a reserve army of those.

Geothermal is fine, I am not positing an either or, I am just saying, build a lot of power planets since Geothermal likely doesn't employ as many people, given its limited geography I'd say do both and make the state a power plant.

[D Luniz]

A state doesn't need those natural and environmental opportunities to thrive though. All that's needed is more education, brainpower, and the right cultural attitudes.

Anyone that gets those first two, leaves.

As for nuclear fuel waste, arent there some molten salt designs that are close to full scale testing that are supposed to be able to run that sort of low level waste?

[Theodarzna]

A state doesn't need those natural and environmental opportunities to thrive though. All that's needed is more education, brainpower, and the right cultural attitudes.

That is basically daft. I mean at the end of the day California's big economic advantage is it has three major port cities. Port cities are much easier to build if you are on the coast, where there is an ocean to you know have a port. Building a sea port in Wyoming would be kinda dumb.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone that gets those first two, leaves.

As for nuclear fuel waste, arent there some molten salt designs that are close to full scale testing that are supposed to be able to run that sort of low level waste?

Yes, although last I had read it was already being tested. I think its a promising answer if people don't like that "Dig a deep hole" idea. Then again there is very little waste actually generated.

[PC2]

That is basically daft. I mean at the end of the day California's big economic advantage is it has three major port cities. Port cities are much easier to build if you are on the coast, where there is an ocean to you know have a port. Building a sea port in Wyoming would be kinda dumb.

Every place should exploit local advantages such as access to a lot of water or a coastline. But my point is it is a bonus and not a requirement for future success.

[Theodarzna]

Every place should exploit local advantages such as access to a lot of water or a coastline. But my point is it is a bonus and not a requirement for future success.

Nah, it is the horizon of what is really possible, at the end of the day water access and waterways are just always better. This is some wildly magical thinking there.

[Slant]

This sounds like a scheme to feed some buddy lawyers with money for basically doing nothing... while at the same time getting some cheap votes. Not bad. I don't think anyone expects just one of these cases to go through, but those juicy billables...