Obama's plan would "bankrupt" coal plants, by his own admission.

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just to get it out of the way, I want him to win, but these kinds of things are really bad to be on the record for:

link

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Surprised that tonight is the first I've heard of this, especially with Biden touting clean coal.

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....

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.

No, he didn't say he was going to bankrupt the industry.

Here are his remarks:

I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I?m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

?But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can?t, then we?re gonna still be working on alternatives.

?But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I?ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

?So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It?s just that it will bankrupt them because they?re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that?s being emitted.


And, yes, I agree that I don't care for his anti-nuclear stance, but I am tired of the spin. He did not say he was going to bankrupt the system. His cap and trade stance is not fundamentally different from McCain's or the way the EU has tried to implement it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the linked interview-

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

I'll admit Obama wasn't really very clear- his reference was to conventional coal burning technology vs the clean coal technology being developed today. Coal has to be able to compete on the same environnmental field as other forms of energy if it's to survive, and I'm confident that it will.

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...

link

?The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,? the spokesperson said. ?We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It?s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).?

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.

You think he going to let old coal plants not pay carbon credits. If you let old coal plants out of the carbon game, you have basically created a useless market for carbon.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
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.

Nothing, but it kind of hoses companies that are legally operating right now.

Not true.

I'll leave his website to show what he actually says:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

He is only calling for 10% of energy to be renewable by 2012. I posted his actual remarks to give context for what he is saying. He said you cannot take coal off the table. He simply wants it to be so that new companies HAVE to install the scrubbers and implement clean coal technology. Obviously he realizes that you cannot cut even dirty coal completely out of the picture before the technology is 100% ready and affordable.

Obama is not an idiot. He doesn't want the country to have blackouts. Let's step back for a minute and THINK.

This is nothing more than a carrot and stick approach which uses a lot of stick by providing strong incentives for companies to develop their new plants with new technology (like scrubbers, coal washing, etc) and to modernize their existing plants.

No one expects coal to be going anywhere anytime soon. Currently there are not any economic incentives for companies to use this technology. The only ones that have been deploying it are the ones who have been fined for over-polluting or in states where the state environmental agency has attempted to cap or regulate emissions. If you don't provide an incentive then why in God's name would a company want to spend money on this tech?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the linked interview-

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

I'll admit Obama wasn't really very clear- his reference was to conventional coal burning technology vs the clean coal technology being developed today. Coal has to be able to compete on the same environnmental field as other forms of energy if it's to survive, and I'm confident that it will.

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...

link

?The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,? the spokesperson said. ?We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It?s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).?

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.

You think he going to let old coal plants not pay carbon credits. If you let old coal plants out of the carbon game, you have basically created a useless market for carbon.

I think he will do as others have done with the cap and trade system. They give companies x number of years to update before having to purchase the full number of credits for the amount of pollution they produce. Again, anyone can logically see that coal is not going anywhere unless we think Obama is stupid enough to want blackouts... Read my post above -- he has a carrot and stick approach. Otherwise, companies have zero incentive to actually develop or use new technology to reduce emissions.

Let's be honest... would automakers have made smaller cars and be developing cars with that get better gas mileage if it wasn't for CAFE standards? We'd have been even more fucked during the past few years of high prices. Even with weak CAFE standards it was the price of oil and gas that made automakers and Americans change their tune.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the linked interview-

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

I'll admit Obama wasn't really very clear- his reference was to conventional coal burning technology vs the clean coal technology being developed today. Coal has to be able to compete on the same environnmental field as other forms of energy if it's to survive, and I'm confident that it will.

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...

link

?The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,? the spokesperson said. ?We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It?s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).?

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.

You think he going to let old coal plants not pay carbon credits. If you let old coal plants out of the carbon game, you have basically created a useless market for carbon.

Look, the guy isn't stupid. He acknowledged that we get most of our energy from coal so I doubt that he's going to charge the same amount for existing plants and new plants. The incentive should be to stop the creation of new coal plants like they're making in China and move on to something less detrimental to the environment, not choking our #1 energy supply for the sake of the environment.

 

[PELarson]

"So if somebody wants to build[/B} a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Nice rewriting of what he said.

you do know the difference between built and build, other than the last letter?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill.

No, he didn't say he was going to bankrupt the industry.

Here are his remarks:

I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I?m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

[/quote]

And these rules as back doored administered by the epa have been very effective as reducing NOx and SOx. His vote against only slowed the implementation.

?But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can?t, then we?re gonna still be working on alternatives.

Once again restraining ourselves and leaving china out. Another good way to bankrupt industry in general.

?But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I?ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

Does this sound like it only refers to new plants.... I dont think so.

?So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It?s just that it will bankrupt them because they?re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that?s being emitted.


And, yes, I agree that I don't care for his anti-nuclear stance, but I am tired of the spin. He did not say he was going to bankrupt the system. His cap and trade stance is not fundamentally different from McCain's or the way the EU has tried to implement it.

The difference is McCain has no intentions of bankrupting an industry...

 

[RY62]

West Virginia weighs in:

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/2...-comments-unbelievable

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama's comments "unbelievable."

"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally."

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

"In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen," Hamilton said. "Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

"If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's state director said Obama's statements are troubling, especially for West Virginians.

"I think this clearly shows the attitude the Obama-Biden ticket has toward coal," Ben Beakes said Sunday. "Rhetoric is cheap, but behind closed doors what they tell their supporters - that's what we have to take as gospel.

"They're definitely not friends of coal."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill


Let's be honest... would automakers have made smaller cars and be developing cars with that get better gas mileage if it wasn't for CAFE standards? We'd have been even more fucked during the past few years of high prices. Even with weak CAFE standards it was the price of oil and gas that made automakers and Americans change their tune.

The last few years of high gas prices made the auto switch to better fuel economy more than cafe ever did. The reason is it forced consumers to make a change, rather than force a change on consumers. And obama is also interested in making electricty more expensive as well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dari


Look, the guy isn't stupid. He acknowledged that we get most of our energy from coal so I doubt that he's going to charge the same amount for existing plants and new plants. The incentive should be to stop the creation of new coal plants like they're making in China and move on to something less detrimental to the environment, not choking our #1 energy supply for the sake of the environment.

And what can save us carbon wise is nuclear, which he basically has no interest in.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just to get it out of the way, I want him to win, but these kinds of things are really bad to be on the record for:

link

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Surprised that tonight is the first I've heard of this, especially with Biden touting clean coal.

I wouldn't worry a lot about it, as our choices for fueling power plant are quite limited at this point. If the cost of producing electricity goes up dramatically, perhaps other forms of cleaner energy can compete.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just to get it out of the way, I want him to win, but these kinds of things are really bad to be on the record for:

link

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Surprised that tonight is the first I've heard of this, especially with Biden touting clean coal.

I wouldn't worry a lot about it, as our choices for fueling power plant are quite limited at this point. If the cost of producing electricity goes up dramatically, perhaps other forms of cleaner energy can compete.

Yes if you triple the cost, solar can compete, but only during the day. Wind has similar problems. Nuclear is very cost effective, but it wont get much play....

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill


Let's be honest... would automakers have made smaller cars and be developing cars with that get better gas mileage if it wasn't for CAFE standards? We'd have been even more fucked during the past few years of high prices. Even with weak CAFE standards it was the price of oil and gas that made automakers and Americans change their tune.

The last few years of high gas prices made the auto switch to better fuel economy more than cafe ever did. The reason is it forced consumers to make a change, rather than force a change on consumers. And obama is also interested in making electricty more expensive as well.

Again, here is my point... without CAFE we'd have been in even more trouble. And, yes, without higher prices we'd all still be driving around in gas guzzlers. But, you know what? If CAFE wasn't around many companies wouldn't have had those "few" economical models to boost their overall CAFE number so we'd have been left with no choice but to bend over and take it.

Higher electrical prices in heavy coal burning states would push companies toward using different fuel sources which is what we want. Making companies create a cleaner product or pay for it dealer on the OPEN MARKET of a cap and trade system is yet again another way to promote change and give them an option.

They can still build a plant, but if they don't make it clean they won't make much money in doing so.

As far as marginalizing China... my state gets most of its coal from Colombia these days even though Alabama use to be a heavy producer of coal. Tis a shame that Obama is so close-minded and refuses to research the realities of the TLC with Colombia which would be a boon to the US and Colombia.

Obama is not without his flaws -- he has plenty -- but his idea of a cap and trade system is not radical and will not bankrupt the coal industry. Furthermore, unless something is done there is zero incentive to switch from coal or reduce pollution.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill.

No, he didn't say he was going to bankrupt the industry.

Here are his remarks:

I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I?m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

And these rules as back doored administered by the epa have been very effective as reducing NOx and SOx. His vote against only slowed the implementation.

?But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can?t, then we?re gonna still be working on alternatives.

Once again restraining ourselves and leaving china out. Another good way to bankrupt industry in general.

?But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I?ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

Does this sound like it only refers to new plants.... I dont think so.

?So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It?s just that it will bankrupt them because they?re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that?s being emitted.


And, yes, I agree that I don't care for his anti-nuclear stance, but I am tired of the spin. He did not say he was going to bankrupt the system. His cap and trade stance is not fundamentally different from McCain's or the way the EU has tried to implement it.

The difference is McCain has no intentions of bankrupting an industry...[/quote]


Dude, McCain is harder on coal that Obama is and he's not exactly been a big fan of allowing pollution. At best McCain and Obama are a wash on the coal issue and overall on energy they are a wash. I give kudos to McCain for his vision for nuclear and Obama gets points for his push for other renewable solutions. Again, there is no silver bullet. We need it all. Clean coal, nuclear, renewable fuels, a cap and trade system, etc.

The major knock against Obama is nuclear and the major knock against McCain is that he thinks we can drill our way out of this problem. We can't.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just to get it out of the way, I want him to win, but these kinds of things are really bad to be on the record for:

link

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Surprised that tonight is the first I've heard of this, especially with Biden touting clean coal.

I wouldn't worry a lot about it, as our choices for fueling power plant are quite limited at this point. If the cost of producing electricity goes up dramatically, perhaps other forms of cleaner energy can compete.

Yes if you triple the cost, solar can compete, but only during the day. Wind has similar problems. Nuclear is very cost effective, but it wont get much play....

The cost of those technologies and the improvement in their efficiency will not come about if there is not a disincentive for dirty fuels and an incentive for new and clean fuels. You know that.

The private sector argument that some would like to give would be true IF there was a reward out there.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
The idea this guy is brilliant is the scam of the election (after ACORN)

No one would ever claim you of the same. You needent worry nor hate.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill

Again, here is my point... without CAFE we'd have been in even more trouble. And, yes, without higher prices we'd all still be driving around in gas guzzlers. But, you know what? If CAFE wasn't around many companies wouldn't have had those "few" economical models to boost their overall CAFE number so we'd have been left with no choice but to bend over and take it.

I disagree, cafe has been largely useless. Consumer and car companies fairly quickly switched to smaller cars with smaller engines without cafe regulation.

Higher electrical prices in heavy coal burning states would push companies toward using different fuel sources which is what we want. Making companies create a cleaner product or pay for it dealer on the OPEN MARKET of a cap and trade system is yet again another way to promote change and give them an option.

But this only hurts the consumer. These credits will pass directly to the consumer as it is will be a cost of doing business.

They can still build a plant, but if they don't make it clean they won't make much money in doing so.

As far as marginalizing China... my state gets most of its coal from Colombia these days even though Alabama use to be a heavy producer of coal. Tis a shame that Obama is so close-minded and refuses to research the realities of the TLC with Colombia which would be a boon to the US and Colombia.

Lets also not forget that conservative were pushing futergen( a combined cycle coal gasificaton with carbon capture project) and it has largely been oppsed by democrats. And now you want me to beleive they are in favor of such technology. Pardon me if i remain skeptical.

Obama is not without his flaws -- he has plenty -- but his idea of a cap and trade system is not radical and will not bankrupt the coal industry. Furthermore, unless something is done there is zero incentive to switch from coal or reduce pollution.

You right it will require incentive, but I dont think you are going to like the incentives when we finally get to see them.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Just to get it out of the way, I want him to win, but these kinds of things are really bad to be on the record for:

link

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Surprised that tonight is the first I've heard of this, especially with Biden touting clean coal.

I wouldn't worry a lot about it, as our choices for fueling power plant are quite limited at this point. If the cost of producing electricity goes up dramatically, perhaps other forms of cleaner energy can compete.

Yes if you triple the cost, solar can compete, but only during the day. Wind has similar problems. Nuclear is very cost effective, but it wont get much play....

Sad to say, but the writing is on the wall on this one. When the cost of business gets to high in this country, you move your factory south of the border, and import the finished product back in to this country to the consumer. Transmission lines are cheap. Problem solved, because we aren't polluting anymore.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill

Dude, McCain is harder on coal that Obama is and he's not exactly been a big fan of allowing pollution. At best McCain and Obama are a wash on the coal issue and overall on energy they are a wash. I give kudos to McCain for his vision for nuclear and Obama gets points for his push for other renewable solutions. Again, there is no silver bullet. We need it all. Clean coal, nuclear, renewable fuels, a cap and trade system, etc.

The major knock against Obama is nuclear and the major knock against McCain is that he thinks we can drill our way out of this problem. We can't.

I disagree, we can drill our way out of this problem. We only need to drill enough to last use though our transition period. The electrification of the car has started and that is not going to change.

Thinking we dont need nuclear is a far bigger knock than thinking we can drill our way out of this problem.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Conservatives are so short-minded. We need to move AWAY from coal, that is not the future. That is a dead end.

To create jobs, revitalize our economy, and lead the world again in technological achievement we must lead the way in developing new sources of renewable energy. This stupid "drill, baby, drill" represents the true ignorance and stupidity of Conservatives and their failed ideology. Failed, miserable, ideology.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill

The cost of those technologies and the improvement in their efficiency will not come about if there is not a disincentive for dirty fuels and an incentive for new and clean fuels. You know that.

The private sector argument that some would like to give would be true IF there was a reward out there.

The cost of those technologies are dropping even without the goverment being involved. the cost of solar is dropping about 50% every decade. Within 20 year solar is going to be a very big player on its own and without much help from the government. But solar will still only be a daytime player as it will still be cheaper to use coal or nuclear for baseload generation.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Conservatives are so short-minded. We need to move AWAY from coal, that is not the future. That is a dead end.

To create jobs, revitalize our economy, and lead the world again in technological achievement we must lead the way in developing new sources of renewable energy. This stupid "drill, baby, drill" represents the true ignorance and stupidity of Conservatives and their failed ideology. Failed, miserable, ideology.

How are you supposed to compete in a global market when your shit is already to high priced? How do you force other countries to take your high road? Do you force them to follow you? You can't feed 300 million people with your fucking liberal pipe dreams.....

 

[Mill]

charrison -- We will have to agree to disagree. I don't like the government having to intervene, but with the way we have created our certain system it will take drastic actions and incentives to transition from a nation based on oil, gas, and coal to a nation that uses other alternative sources. We forget how many coal mines, coal fired plants, gas stations, etc are in this nation. Any transition is going to take awhile, but it is better that we get started now.

I have no opposition to increasing drilling but with the caveat that we strongly push forward on renewables and other alternative forms of energy. Too many morons like Sarah Palin think we only have to drill and we will find enough oil for hundreds of years. Any energy policy will have to require the work of both the private sector and the government. Tax breaks must be given, incentives and programs must be created, and we have to focus on more than drilling and nuclear. A look at every prudent and conceivable energy source is the answer. Solar, nuclear, wind, or hydroelectric by themselves will do nothing. A combination of everything is necessary.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Conservatives are so short-minded. We need to move AWAY from coal, that is not the future. That is a dead end.

To create jobs, revitalize our economy, and lead the world again in technological achievement we must lead the way in developing new sources of renewable energy. This stupid "drill, baby, drill" represents the true ignorance and stupidity of Conservatives and their failed ideology. Failed, miserable, ideology.

How are you supposed to compete in a global market when your shit is already to high priced? How do you force other countries to take your high road? Do you force them to follow you? You can't feed 300 million people with your fucking liberal pipe dreams.....

How are we competing in the global energy market? Probably the only thing we can export is coal. We need to import our oil and natural gas. We don't need to force other countries to go to alternative energies to get an economic benefit. By providing a viable alternative energy industry, we free ourselves from a decidedly negative trade on oil and gas and position ourselves as the leading research and manufacturing nation of the next energy sources. Fact is, we won't need to force others to follow, eventually they have to follow as resources dry up.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

The cost of those technologies and the improvement in their efficiency will not come about if there is not a disincentive for dirty fuels and an incentive for new and clean fuels. You know that.

The private sector argument that some would like to give would be true IF there was a reward out there.

The cost of those technologies are dropping even without the goverment being involved. the cost of solar is dropping about 50% every decade. Within 20 year solar is going to be a very big player on its own and without much help from the government. But solar will still only be a daytime player as it will still be cheaper to use coal or nuclear for baseload generation.

I'll have to agree with this. I've read some about the photovoltaic technology and it's going to play a decent role at some point in the near future.