Clean-up will cost millions, probably hundreds of millions. Sen. Corker says the federal government should not contribute, an odd stance for someone whose constituents are mostly TVA rate-payers...

Wait a minute Senator Corker. The Federal Government bailed out London, England base insurance company AIG for a larger price tag than this TVA disaster. If the Federal Government can bail out a foreign company it should bail out a power generating utility that serves seven states.

Have big coal kick in? Sure, why not. The people of this seven state region didn't break this. Penalizing the economics of a seven state region makes no sense.

This is not a natural disaster in the strict sense. It is a seven state disaster that affects too many jobs to dismiss like Senator Corker did. The Federal Government repealed laws and created new laws that contributed greatly to the sub prime mortgage breakdown. Then the Federal Government paid for bailouts to protect jobs. Federal Government negligence with TVA is no different than the negligence with the sub prime mortgage breakdown.

This is about jobs also and the people of this seven state region are not red headed step children who should be pushed aside to fend for themselves. Senator Corker is wrong. Is this pure politics by Senator Corker protecting Tennessee Gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam? Someone should ask Bill Haslam if the seven state region of TVA ratepayers should receive Federal Government assistance for this cleanup. He should go on the record.

(link...)

As for the "Seven States" and Bob Corker foolishness,

AIG, Corker votes bail out.

U.S. Banks Corker votes bail out.

TVA, Corker says tough luck you pay for it suckers.

This happened because Zach Wamp got out in front and said the Federal Government should pay for part of the TVA cleanup. Corker had to defend the Haslam position so there you are. Why hasn't Candidate Bill Haslam made a public statement on this? Because Wamp beat him to it?

Want to bet that anyone that tries to ask Bill Haslam the question will be shut down?

It is not a specious question. Except to you and Bob Corker.

To try and steer this discussion away from the private vindictiveness of one individual, I would like to point everyone to Scott Barker's significant reporting in today's KNS. TVA took precautions last winter against such a failure, but did not this winter because they had monitors in place. Given that consultants recommended a winter halt and that plant manager Ron Hall has been at Kingston for less than a year, my primary question is whether TVA staff had the institutional memory and adequate understanding of the risk of a saturation-freeze rupture to take appropriate precautions. Were the monitors providing accurate readings, and was staff able to properly understand the data?

Also significant in Scott's article is his mention that the walls of the dredge cells were composed of bottom ash, so some small portion of the spill is that other type of coal ash. I think, but I'm not sure, that radioactive uranium and thorium found in coal tends to concentrate in bottom ash more than fly ash. Perhaps someone with better knowledge can confirm or correct that and comment on whether the amounts involved are significant enough to be a concern.

This disaster appears to have been avoidable, but it was not avoided because of the relentless cost-cutting and outsourcing that has become the hallmark of successful business management in recent decades and the basis for executive bonuses. I'm tired of watching elites get rich wielding fiscal knives while the rest of us suffer under prohibitive health-care costs and rising job insecurity, a long-term trend now spiking. It is time to exact a pound of flesh from those who promulgated this failing corporate paradigm.

"this disaster appears to have been avoidable, but it was not avoided because of the relentless cost-cutting and outsourcing that has become the hallmark of successful business management,"

Of course it was avoidable.

The bottom line came first so that TVA executives could get a big bonus and Swan Pond residents have paid the cost of TVA's cost cutting.

This disaster appears to have been avoidable, but it was not avoided because of the relentless cost-cutting and outsourcing that has become the hallmark of successful business management in recent decades and the basis for executive bonuses.

Not forceful enough. This happened because of the new culture of TVA where cost cutting is incentivized by bonuses to high level executives at the expense of both operational safety and public safety. TVA chose to save the $2.6 million dollars to prevent this disaster and it will cost over $350 million dollars to clean up.

Think you might write a column about that rikki?

And just so we know rikki, do you agree with Senator Corker that TVA ratepayers should pay for the TVA ash spill cleanup?

I wonder what effect the drought had on the structural integrity of the pond. Expansion, contraction, sinkholes, etc. Then heavy rains. In California that triggers mud slides.

Both 9 and "Jason the Lurker" are throwing the term "social democrat" around a lot today. Hmmm.

Could it be - SOCK PUPPET??

I think it's funny when folks attack social democrats while defending the coal industry. Had not the true costs of coal been socialized to start with, the coal industry would be much smaller.

And 9, the coal industry absolutely bears blame for the TVA spill. The coal industry spent massive amounts of money lobbying against rational regulations at both ends of the coal chain. When the EPA reports on coal ash were up for review and implementation, the coal industry was right there lobbying against them.

The environmental coasts of coal have been paid by everyone in America rather than those who profited. You can't have it both ways...Well, anymore, anyway...Since we socialized the costs, we have to socialized the profits. The rational thing to do is implement a strong surcharge on coal production on the way to phasing it out altogether.

To the folks who whine about the government taking their hard earned money...I would say that they didn't actually earn all of it so much as stole it. Rikki has a valid point about who should pay.

We've got another one of those. I can hear the sounds of friends rummaging through their recipe files right about now.

I forgot who posted this already and I'm not reading back through all of that... I don't know many of you people, but I use my real name and I am very easy to find.
What I think you may be up to is to make the cost of coal so high that wind power becomes competitive. To externalize the cost of coal to the degree wind and solar become viable. Another tried and true social democrat ploy. You're not alone with that gambit.

Why do people get attacked as hippie freaks who talk about renewable energy of any kind? I don't know a whole lot about Kunstler, but it's probably not his fault that houses in the suburbs are beginning to sit empty. Alternative energy is, for most of the world, no longer a mysterious giant that lives in the hills that wants to rob the tax coffers. There are a lot of people getting their asses to work to find means by which to supplement the efforts of oil and coal in a cost-effective manner. Wind is "there," and these guys at Stanford say that every 36,000 to 40,000 turbines could displace 10% of U.S. coal at a cost of $61 to $80 billion, including O&M plus initial costs (also the present value of payments to date from the black lung–disease benefits program). This could be supported at no net federal cost by investing 3 to 4% of one year’s $2.02 trillion budget in turbines and selling the electricity over 20 years. Similarly, California could provide 10% of its 1999 electricity (2.35 × 1011 kWh/year) (12) by buying 4500 to 5000 turbines at 7.5 to 9.9% of one year’s $101 billion budget and selling the electricity over 20 years.

The biggest challenge with electricity has been storage, especially when it comes to vehicles, but Lockheed Martin is busy playing with cool new toys that use what they say could be a "true game - changing technology." They are field testing a portable power vest which weighs 3 pounds, replaces 16 to 20 pounds of batteries, and provides 90 hours of power. Another item imaginatively dubbed "BattPack" is designed to remove the obligation of auxiliary power-generation off of military vehicles in the field. Instead of having to burn vehicle fuel--and create a lot of noise--to generate electricity for communication and mission operations centers, battlefield units can use BattPack which delivers up to 12 hours of power, depending on the mission. The people who make the ultra capacitor technology want to put it in or connect it to everything from your ipod to solar panels to Bradley tanks.

Even people who think that global warming is a hoax and are unaware of the methane pockets that are trapped under the permafrost realize that sensibly diversifying our means of energy production/storage/distribution is smart economics, don't they? Having the ability to personally produce power at home and sell it back to your utility provider shouldn't seem "futuristic in an anti-utopian way." Tennessee is only one of 8 states left that don't have a net metering law.

When the EPA reports on coal ash were up for review and implementation, the coal industry was right there lobbying against them.

One of the main problems with our friends on the other side (Palin/Bush Repugs). They can't reason deductively beyond one degree removed.

I would say that they didn't actually earn all of it so much as stole it.

Definitely. Did anyone hear this yesterday? Excerpt:

What used to be a peak is now a massive mining site. A coal company scrapped off the top of the mountain to get to coal seams. Across Appalachia, similar operations are flattening mountains and covering up streams. The Bush administration has promoted what is called mountaintop removal mining, and it even changed environmental rules when lawsuits threatened to halt the practice.

...agree more with Nine than the “main click” group ... I am looking forward to an engageing argument...

The sound of skb tapping fingers of one hand on desk while rubbing chin with the other.

This Richard S. Courtney?

Visit us at

The Home

As someone else mentioned, I don't understand the conservative right-wing knee-jerk reaction to any alternative energy development.

Wind will not replace coal. It will, however, reduce consumption of it in some areas.

Yes, there are problems with our outdated power grid, which is why a "smart grid" is one of the top priorities.

Yes there are problems with storing power from variable/intermittent sources.

We haven't done the research on it or the grid or anything else because we're too busy mining and burning coal and importing oil to fund terrorists while running up a big IOU to China. That's a brilliant strategy.

TVA even does stupid stuff like pipe water back up the mountain to release it through the turbines again. It's a net energy loss, but it's "free" hydro-power and this lets them generate when there's demand and use up excess power when there isn't (power that could be charging PHEVs).

Even TVA can do "creative" things with 100 year old technology. Surely we can do better.

"I am far from being on welfare. The only check I will ever get FROM the government will be a huge income tax return this year where they made me prepay my taxes for 2008. (yes rikki, pre-pay.) I work for no corporations or anyone else for that matter. I strongly oppose socialism but believe in social responsibility."

Change huge check to small and strongly oppose to mildly and this pretty much describes me. Does it hurt Jason's persecution complex to know it's not just him against the monolithic us.

I don't spend much time contemplating wind power but I've built a couple of solar collectors ove the past year or two.

____________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Solar is very effective for water and space heating. It would be difficult for solar to provide 100%, but if we can cut down on energy usage we can cut down on ash piles.

___________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Nuclear makes wind moot.

It makes wind all that much cheaper. Newkular is SO totally NOT affordable. Irrespective of all its other problems.

The new nuclear designs are a huge benefit and a huge improvement ... Over doing wind power now may hurt more than it helps.

You are delusional.