Akula,

Good points.

And your "inform yourself" directive is well taken.

The challenge for non-engineers like myself is understanding what we look at when we analyze proposals.

The other huge challenge is trust, on many levels:

It's difficult to know whether a particular company is trustworthy (talking in a general way, not directing that at PolyMet, a company I don't know). Will officials do what they promise? Will they cut corners if they can get by with it?

It's difficult to understand whether particular technologies and safeguards will actually work (or whether they just look good on paper).

And it's difficult to ascertain whether government regulations and inspectors are stringent enough, or have the teeth to hold up in court and economically.

I mean, one wants to believe in man's inner goodness, and in technology, and in government regulation (the good kind).

... As to the larger question, both you and Solotripper are right.

As a nation, as a society, we have to begin embracing a different mentality when it comes to energy production AND consumption. Before it's too late.

Here in the Bluegrass, there's some pretty cool developing technology out there involving algae, miscanthus and other biomass, stationary barges and underwater turbines, as well as interesting ideas on the use of so-called clean coal (I'm not yet sold). Kentucky unfortunately doesn't have the sunshine or the wind to do those in a big way.

Kentucky's energy and environment secretary is a really smart guy and its governor last year put out a fairly progressive long-term energy strategy. Since then the state has won a lot of federal dollars and has recruited a lot of private sector investment.

We'll see where it goes.

And now, to tie it back to Minnesota, and pristine water ...  

Man, I don't know what to say, but having seen devastated landscapes I'd err on the side of protection. Once an ecosystem is decimated, it really can't come back in a meaningful way on a meaningful timeline. Not when it takes a thousand years to create an inch of forest floor (or whatever the formula is), or takes a act of God to remove hard metals from the goop at the bottom of a lake.

... And I better shut up. I'm probably not adding to the discussion but confusion and anxiety.

Alas.

-- kypaddler  

p.s. On the underground vs. surface issue. A dumb question for my own edification: Is it much cheaper and much safer to come at the mineral from above ground, i.e. digging a pit?