France's nuke plants faced some problems a few summers ago when the temperature was so hot that their plants couldn't run on full capacity due to cooling issues.
It's really not that simple. Requires lots of planning by engineers/scientists and public input...
Two words: Yucca Mountain. It's already built but a$$hole Reid wants to kill it (Fvck Nevada, what a worthless piece of sh!t state). We spent so much money there, why can't we at least move it there temporarily?
Meanwhile nuclear waste is still just stored in the open.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Because he's the messiah, right? :roll:
No matter what his influence as a politician, he can't avoid reality. He doesn't have the power to kill off coal as a major souce of power generation. He wouldn't have the power as POTUS. Even a 100% Democratic congress couldn't wouldn't do this simply because of the realities of the demand for our electric infrastructure. Just because I give him benefit of the doubt here doesn't mean that I don't take what he says with a proper teaspoon of salt. Not all of us are partisan hacks.
Actually he was very clear. He was talking carbon credits. A new or old plant, there is not much way around carbon emissions. This coupled with his lack of interest on nuclear power is quite disturbing...
I can't believe you are buying into something from Newsbusters.
First off, read the SF Chronicle's rebuttal:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...-lies_half_truth_2.DTL
Secondly, I am sure you are smart enough to understand the cap and trade system. If you listen to the full interview Obama speaks of how the cap and trade system would prevent the construction of new coal plants that didn't use new technology to "clean/sweep" the air before it was released. Simply put, if companies want to build a new coal plant they have to buy offsets for the pollution they will create. They can either invest in technology (which exists now and that Alabama Power was recently forced to use) or they will be forced to buy massive amounts of carbon credits which would be very expensive.
It is classic "sin tax" so to speak. If they pollute they will pay the price. If they invest in technology then they will only have to buy a small amount of carbon credits. They Economist has had a running discussion of carbon credits and cap/trade systems for sometime now.
Yes but a carbon tax is a carbon tax. And with 50% of our power currently coming from coal, this is going to be crushing for everyone as those carbon credits costs are going to get passed down to the consumer....
I clicked on the sfgate.com link thinking that the audio tape was fabricated. Instead it went off about how the tape was in the public domain since a long time ago.
I back Barack for POTUS but he needs to explain WTF he means with these comments.
Folks aren't concerned about if it was hidden or not -- the comments are the story.
I back Barack for POTUS but he needs to explain WTF he means with these comments.
Folks aren't concerned about if it was hidden or not -- the comments are the story.
And again... this is nothing new. Obama's position on a cap and trade system has been known for a long time. The fact the he pointed out that companies must invest in technology to avoid having to purchase new credits is nothing special. Pretty sure that his plan allows for current companies to pay a reduced price if not be exempt much like the flawed EU system.
I never said carbon taxes were the perfect solution -- I am just pointing out that it is not a new idea. Furthermore, this is hardly a "surprise" or a cover-up up as Drudge and others were alleging.
Companies won't move away from coal until they have an incentive to do so. Making them buy more pollution control equipment is a good thing. Encouraging the construction of nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric or other forms of alternative energy is a good thing. There is no silver bullet to get us away from coal and oil. We have to have a steady approach that gives incentives for companies to invest in technology that is renewable, reliable, and clean.
I don't want coal companies going bankrupt and neither does Obama. He was simply pointing out that a cap and trade system discourage the new construction of coal plants that use old and inefficient technology. Those that employ new technology using scrubbers and other pollution control equipment will not only pay less of a carbon tax but they will give us cleaner air.
I generally agree cap and trade is an effective tool for controlling emissions. However, he said he would bankrupt the industry. This state would be less concerning if he was less anti nuclear power. But it appears he is against that too as he is only willing to look at it and only will say that when he has to say something on that subject.
Right now coal provides 50% of our power and I will guess that most are not going to lend themselves to capture carbon.
I think we are going to find they are going to be quite expensive as there is currently now cheap way to capture and alternatives are not cheap either. And if the goal is bankrupt i dont see them being cheap either...
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
He never said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry, that's just how Drudge and others have spun it. This is all he said.
Taking his words at face value, all this means is he wants to discourage the building of new, unclean coal. I'm also sure he will encourage current coal to improve their emissions, but not to the point of them shutting down. I haven't bothered reading the whole interview, but I wouldn't be surprised if he addressed grandfathering in existing plants. Of course, including that would've made this a non-story.
How would clean coal stop this issue? I'm a little confused then on what clean coal entails. I'm pretty sure it means low sulfur grade coal, which would minimize acid rain. Anyone telling you that clean coal will reduce the CO2 output of said plant needs to take a chemistry class.
Can someone explain to me what is wrong in wanting companies who produce NEW coal plants to abide by stricter pollution regulations? Especially if the cost difference is not significant.
There is big difference between funding of research for clean coal, transitioning away from coal and bankrupting an industry. And if we are to transition away from coal, we need nuclear and lots of it.
Clearly you didn't even listen to the tape. He's talking about new coal plants using old technology, not new plant with new technology.
EDIT: And he also says that coal will always be with us, unlike McCain who wants to get rid of it completely.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter