“Newly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump Administration are encouraging states to solve their own problems. Coal-related controversies like these offer many states and communities excellent opportunities to find novel solutions that recognize sound science, hidden agendas, often limited options, and undesirable repercussions of poorly informed policy decisions. Let’s hope they are up to the task.”

Preventing ruptures and spills is primarily a function of selecting, building, and maintaining the best possible ash landfill facilities. A much more vital and fundamental issue involves alleged toxicity risks. Anti-coal activists insist the risks are unacceptably high; sound science says otherwise. (Also see Part I yesterday)

Like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North Carolina sets allowable Cr-6 limits at 100 ppb for drinking water (equivalent to 100 seconds in 33 years or 4 cups in 660,000 gallons of water). …

“Companies have proposed turning the ash into cement blocks or gravel, for construction projects. Vocal activists quickly nixed that option, even though it would solve multiple problems and involve virtually no contamination risks. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the real reason for all the vocal consternation is that these agitators simply hate coal and want to drive it out of business.”

“Some activists say Duke (and other companies) should simply dig up millions of tons of ash from various depositories. Not only would that involve hundreds of thousands of dump truck loads, millions of gallons of fuel, and huge dump trucks lumbering through towns and along back roads and highways. A far more basic question is: Take it where, exactly?”

Scary coal ash stories make you wonder: What energy will be left when activists are done?…