Biden says no to Coal

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
We have plenty of coal and as long as the particulates are kept to the minimum, it shouldn't be so bad.

Read the article I quoted. Even "clean" coal produces tons of CO2, as does burning any hydrocarbon, including gassified coal. It would be clean, in terms of environmental damage, if the CO2 can be sequestered. It will be practical when that can be done at a competitive price.

Would you rather build nuke plants and store toxic wastes or try to capture carbon dioxide (non toxic) and store it somehow?

They are for solar and wind......

Obama obviously believes that using a footstock like corn to make ethanol for fuel is somehow environmentally better than burning coal for power.

Don't forget, we don't really know what impact CO2 has on temperature. There are models that if they are true will enslave mankind to the ilk of Gore who considers the debate over, despite um... lots of debate and scientists of various fields admitting there needs to be a lot more studies done.

Beyond measure to prevent soot from raining down on our streets, I want all the coal burning that we possibly need.

Have you ever been to Beijing or Sao Paolo? Soot is not raining down their streets (can't see it) but its very hard to breathe, and I am not kidding.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I read a story a while back about one of the unreported benefits of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Crops yields go up as CO2 go up. If you dont believe that, ask any seasoned weed farmer. I believe higher CO2 levels will just encourage plants to grow bigger and faster, offsetting much of the CO2 emissions. It seems like environuts would have us living in the dark rather than make incremental steps to clean power. The magic power source that gives us abundant, clean energy with no pollutants or hazardous waste is a long, long way off. Hell, they even complain about the birds being killed by the wind farms.

I think enviornment protection goes very far to the left so much so that I think it just pisses off everyone.

What I don't get though is why we are so reluctant from investing in things like solar/wind (see Picken's plan)...

I mean talk about a potential CASH COW. This would be bigger than the internet boom / tech boom.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mani

If the dems are dumbledore, then the repubs are voldemort. And we know the good guys win in the end.

dumbledore is dead...



anyway, biden's quote that the wsj reported this morning made it sound like his opinion is no coal for america, if there is coal it'll be in china and pray that it's clean.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I read a story a while back about one of the unreported benefits of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Crops yields go up as CO2 go up. If you dont believe that, ask any seasoned weed farmer. I believe higher CO2 levels will just encourage plants to grow bigger and faster, offsetting much of the CO2 emissions. It seems like environuts would have us living in the dark rather than make incremental steps to clean power. The magic power source that gives us abundant, clean energy with no pollutants or hazardous waste is a long, long way off. Hell, they even complain about the birds being killed by the wind farms.

I think enviornment protection goes very far to the left so much so that I think it just pisses off everyone.

What I don't get though is why we are so reluctant from investing in things like solar/wind (see Picken's plan)...

I mean talk about a potential CASH COW. This would be bigger than the internet boom / tech boom.

Because its not an investment. Just the opposite, in fact; solar/wind have been subsidized for years.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Part of my investing theme is to invest in "green" sectors on the theory that these are the growth industries. I researched the concept of clean coal earlier this year and was not able to turn up a single reputable expert who considered the concept anything more than a misnomer. The science just isn't there with no realistic possibilities even on the horizon.

A lot of us so-called eviornuts would seriously love clean coal to be a realistic possibility. The US certainly is a huge energy demander and it is also the Saudi Arabia of the world as far as coal reserves go.

Perhaps you should redirect your venom into less cursing and namecalling and more towards reporting actual facts which disprove Biden's position. That is, if you actually what to persuade anyone versus just venting your emotions.

His position is that of greater dependence of Middle Eastern oil, since between him and Obama, they're rejected every other viable source.

 

[piasabird]

There are no actual facts for Global Warming.

What I want to see is proof that what is proposed for supposed global warming will have the desired effect, or any effect at all. What is the Return On Investment??? And prove it.

We probably would be better off if we just stop buying goods from non-western countries who dont have environmental protection.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

I'm in engineering grad school doing models for concrete and those are hard enough. You'll have a hard time convincing me that any of the climate models involving very, VERY complicated fluid dynamics and all that is accurate. I don't even know how one could go about calibrating those models.

Before you leftist Obamabots start talking about me fvcking up the world by not subscribing to the Al Gore bandwagon, I ride my bike to school everyday, 5 days a week last year for 4 miles each way. I moved closer to campus and I rarely drive. I do my part to reduce consumption of resources. No, I don't think the science of global warming (carbon dioxide and stuff) is indisputable, but I do believe that overconsumption is a problem. If we could all make a conscious effort in conservation we'd be leaving the next generation a better world.

Fvck assholes like Al Gore who think they're making a difference flying in a fvcking private jet and live in a 10k sqft home. He'll probably have a bigger carbon footprint than all of us combined on ATPN.

I find posts like this totally ridiculous. Basically you're saying "fluid dynamics is HARD, therefore the science on global warming isn't any good". Sorry, but being a grad student doesn't really mean anything compared to decades of research by tends of thousands of people that say otherwise. If you've got some specific criticisms of the studies that you can back up by showing how the flaws in their models would disprove or substantially alter their findings, by all means post them.

Finally, if I never heard the stupid Al Gore private jet thing again it would be too soon. He flies that private jet around trying to get entire countries to cut their carbon emissions. Complaining about that is akin to saying "Why is this business spending money on advertising!? Businesses are supposed to take IN money, not SPEND it!" We all know that if Al Gore uses a 100 watt lightbulb when a 60 watt one will do, it means global warming isn't real.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find posts like this totally ridiculous. Basically you're saying "fluid dynamics is HARD, therefore the science on global warming isn't any good". Sorry, but being a grad student doesn't really mean anything compared to decades of research by tends of thousands of people that say otherwise. If you've got some specific criticisms of the studies that you can back up by showing how the flaws in their models would disprove or substantially alter their findings, by all means post them.

no, he's saying that the models describing global warming are like the drake equation.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I don't know why this would suprise anyone. Obama/Biden are in the back pocket of the tree huggers. Unless the sierra club approves it Obama/Biden are against it.

Being pro-environment is bad. Gotcha.

/shakes head

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I read a story a while back about one of the unreported benefits of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Crops yields go up as CO2 go up. If you dont believe that, ask any seasoned weed farmer. I believe higher CO2 levels will just encourage plants to grow bigger and faster, offsetting much of the CO2 emissions. It seems like environuts would have us living in the dark rather than make incremental steps to clean power. The magic power source that gives us abundant, clean energy with no pollutants or hazardous waste is a long, long way off. Hell, they even complain about the birds being killed by the wind farms.

I think enviornment protection goes very far to the left so much so that I think it just pisses off everyone.

What I don't get though is why we are so reluctant from investing in things like solar/wind (see Picken's plan)...

I mean talk about a potential CASH COW. This would be bigger than the internet boom / tech boom.

Because its not an investment. Just the opposite, in fact; solar/wind have been subsidized for years.

I have no problem with the U.S. government subsidizing any kind of public infrastructure projects in this country. If a wind farm is unprofitable to build, but profitable to operate and maintain, then by all means our government should help them get off the ground with preferred loans and such. Another thing we should limit is the endless environmental studies that have to take place for each and every project. No environmental impact study should take more than a year to complete. They should complete the study, and based on the consensus, proceed with or modify the project, and bar the process from any further legal review. I'm all for solar, like most environmentalists, but needing 3-5 years to study the impact of a solar farm in the middle of the fucking desert is complete bullshit.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: winnar111
-snip-
?Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion ?

Imagine what the US government could do with it's portion of royalties from new drilling. ANWAR estimated at 16 billion barrels, with a price per barrel at $100, and royalty rate at 40% (low side estimate) equals about $600 billion.

As far as coal goes, I'm far more worried about sulfur and heavy metals. If they can eliminate that, I'm happy. IMO, CO2 is just plant food.

We're not gona be off coal anytime soon, and those worried about CO2 need to support the tech that absorbes that. I recall a thread not too long ago where this technology was being opposed by some enviro groups. Makes no good sense to me.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I find posts like this totally ridiculous. Basically you're saying "fluid dynamics is HARD, therefore the science on global warming isn't any good". Sorry, but being a grad student doesn't really mean anything compared to decades of research by tends of thousands of people that say otherwise. If you've got some specific criticisms of the studies that you can back up by showing how the flaws in their models would disprove or substantially alter their findings, by all means post them.

no, he's saying that the models describing global warming are like the drake equation.

I hope that's not what he's trying to say, because that would be awfully silly. I'm not sure if it's just Mike Asher's blog or whatever, but Dailytech and ATPN are some of the last places you can still find global warming deniers.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: quest55720
I don't know why this would suprise anyone. Obama/Biden are in the back pocket of the tree huggers. Unless the sierra club approves it Obama/Biden are against it.

Being pro-environment is bad. Gotcha.

/shakes head

Lets talk about how good the western climate initiative is.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
We have plenty of coal and as long as the particulates are kept to the minimum, it shouldn't be so bad.

Read the article I quoted. Even "clean" coal produces tons of CO2, as does burning any hydrocarbon, including gassified coal. It would be clean, in terms of environmental damage, if the CO2 can be sequestered. It will be practical when that can be done at a competitive price.

I like the idea of sequestering but I just don't think its a realistic goal to even get a small portion of the CO2 emitted from electrical production sequestered. Our grid is WAY to spread out for it to ever be economical. The transportation costs alone kills the idea for all but a few existing plants and new plants are relatively few and far between.

The fact of the matter is this: We currently burn a crap ton of coal for power. We will continue to burn a crap ton of coal for power even if we don't let them build another coal burning plant. We currently, nor in the near future, can not replace the energy provided to the grid from that crap ton of coal we burn.

The more "cleaner" coal plants they bring online the more "dirty" ones they can take offline. Simple as that. Say whatever else you want but Americans simply will not go without all the electricity they want whenever they want it.

 

[BrownTown]

Carbon sequestration is currently in the same world as nuclear fusion and low cost solar panels. They all work IN THEORY, but nobody has gotten it to work in real life. Energy sources are a multiple choice question and "clean coal" isn't even on the list.

 

[DealMonkey]

There's no such thing as "clean coal." It's a figment of your brainwashed mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Coal had its day in the sun.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I read a story a while back about one of the unreported benefits of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Crops yields go up as CO2 go up. If you dont believe that, ask any seasoned weed farmer. I believe higher CO2 levels will just encourage plants to grow bigger and faster, offsetting much of the CO2 emissions. It seems like environuts would have us living in the dark rather than make incremental steps to clean power. The magic power source that gives us abundant, clean energy with no pollutants or hazardous waste is a long, long way off. Hell, they even complain about the birds being killed by the wind farms.

I think enviornment protection goes very far to the left so much so that I think it just pisses off everyone.

What I don't get though is why we are so reluctant from investing in things like solar/wind (see Picken's plan)...

I mean talk about a potential CASH COW. This would be bigger than the internet boom / tech boom.

Because its not an investment. Just the opposite, in fact; solar/wind have been subsidized for years.

I have no problem with the U.S. government subsidizing any kind of public infrastructure projects in this country. If a wind farm is unprofitable to build, but profitable to operate and maintain, then by all means our government should help them get off the ground with preferred loans and such. Another thing we should limit is the endless environmental studies that have to take place for each and every project. No environmental impact study should take more than a year to complete. They should complete the study, and based on the consensus, proceed with or modify the project, and bar the process from any further legal review. I'm all for solar, like most environmentalists, but needing 3-5 years to study the impact of a solar farm in the middle of the fucking desert is complete bullshit.

If we're actually going to subsidize energy products, we might as well do it with nuclear power which actually provides us some energy, rather than meaningless amounts of power from wind.

President Bush just structured a trade deal with India over nuclear fuel. Makes sense, I suppose, since we refuse to use it ourselves. No wonder they're growing faster than we are.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: winnar111
-snip-
?Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion ?

Imagine what the US government could do with it's portion of royalties from new drilling. ANWAR estimated at 16 billion barrels, with a price per barrel at $100, and royalty rate at 40% (low side estimate) equals about $600 billion.

I always wondered why the lefties whined about a couple billion in Alaskan pork when they lock a couple trillion dollars of Alaskan oil in the ground.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Fvck assholes like Al Gore who think they're making a difference flying in a fvcking private jet and live in a 10k sqft home. He'll probably have a bigger carbon footprint than all of us combined on ATPN.

You really expect the wealthy not to live in a big house, even when they balance it with carbon offsets?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Fvck assholes like Al Gore who think they're making a difference flying in a fvcking private jet and live in a 10k sqft home. He'll probably have a bigger carbon footprint than all of us combined on ATPN.

You really expect the wealthy not to live in a big house, even when they balance it with carbon offsets?

You really expect the middle class not to drive a big SUV? or use as much electricity as they want/can reasonably afford?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Fvck assholes like Al Gore who think they're making a difference flying in a fvcking private jet and live in a 10k sqft home. He'll probably have a bigger carbon footprint than all of us combined on ATPN.

You really expect the wealthy not to live in a big house, even when they balance it with carbon offsets?

Lol, carbon offsets, lol



Lol




Lol, that would be the socialist answer.