W
wrightme43
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ"]YouTube - SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY[/ame]
shamrocker
Junior Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 275
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Greenville, SC
I guess I don't see the big deal....we need to move away from coal powered plants. If we don't push the energy companies to build cleaner sources of power now, when should we??
Edit: I can understand why we don't want the entire industry bankrupted, what it sounds like is he doesn't want NEW coal plants built.
Edit: I can understand why we don't want the entire industry bankrupted, what it sounds like is he doesn't want NEW coal plants built.
Last edited:
shamrocker
Junior Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 275
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Greenville, SC
It's interesting is that John Mccain was the only Republican presidential candidate who also supported the same Cap & Trade system.
W
wrightme43
Well see thats the problem
Wind is presented at is maximum capacity. It normally operates at less than 50% of its rated output, and is inconsistent.
Solar is only functional for part of the day.
Nuclear is wonderful, but prevented at every turn.
Natural gas is outstanding, but is also a limited commodity.
Coal supplies right at 50% of our power needs.
If his plan is to "bancrupt" any new plants, what is his plan for the ones in place now?
Wind is presented at is maximum capacity. It normally operates at less than 50% of its rated output, and is inconsistent.
Solar is only functional for part of the day.
Nuclear is wonderful, but prevented at every turn.
Natural gas is outstanding, but is also a limited commodity.
Coal supplies right at 50% of our power needs.
If his plan is to "bancrupt" any new plants, what is his plan for the ones in place now?
dark_isz
rejected liberal
..........
Last edited:
meh
Both candidates are for nuclear power. Besides that I think the next generation Coal Gasification (which Obama supports) is better for us all.
The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal. - washingtonpost.com
Both candidates are for nuclear power. Besides that I think the next generation Coal Gasification (which Obama supports) is better for us all.
The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal. - washingtonpost.com
A good article from Popular Science on Coal Gasification.
It's kind of cool really, Bring in coal, strip out the hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
It's kind of cool really, Bring in coal, strip out the hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
Tailgate
Senior Member
Nope, Obama is NOT for nuclear power. He BARELY makes mention of it. He wants to wait until it's "safe." (whatever that's supposed to mean). Nuclear power doesn't create hardly any greenhouse global warming and miners don't die in tragic accidents. I like Obama but I don't know why he isn't on board with nuclear power. France is years and years ahead of the USA.
This is a typical ploy to try to cast Obama as against the little guy. (And of course by implication McCain is for the little guy.) They do it all the time. Last time is was the lumberjacks, and how the environmentalist love Owls more than people.
What never gets mentioned in these slanted videos, is the fact that these industries are externalizing a lot of their operating costs to remain profitable. In the case in point on coal, if the actual cost of the green house gases and sulfur dioxide, and mercury pollution were factored into the cost of producing electricity from coal it would make it less attractive and alternatives more attractive. The Cap & Trade system (which i think Bush 1 came up with) tries to capture these costs through setting limits on emissions in the form of pollution credits for those who invest in new technologies to sell to those who don't. Ultimately resulting in lower overall emissions at some environmentally sustainable level based on best science.
I doubt that Obama was referring to bankrupting existing electric utilities who have coal fired plants, but rather if you wanted to build a new coal plant without using the latest scrubber technology it would not be economical because of the pollution penalty.
What never gets mentioned in these slanted videos, is the fact that these industries are externalizing a lot of their operating costs to remain profitable. In the case in point on coal, if the actual cost of the green house gases and sulfur dioxide, and mercury pollution were factored into the cost of producing electricity from coal it would make it less attractive and alternatives more attractive. The Cap & Trade system (which i think Bush 1 came up with) tries to capture these costs through setting limits on emissions in the form of pollution credits for those who invest in new technologies to sell to those who don't. Ultimately resulting in lower overall emissions at some environmentally sustainable level based on best science.
I doubt that Obama was referring to bankrupting existing electric utilities who have coal fired plants, but rather if you wanted to build a new coal plant without using the latest scrubber technology it would not be economical because of the pollution penalty.
dark_isz
rejected liberal
..........
Last edited:
Tailgate
Senior Member
dark_isz: thanks for providing his official position. It re-iterates what I just said: he's against nuclear power until it's "safe." Don't be a chump! Nuclear power is ALREADY safe. France took---no, make that "bought"--our nuclear technology that Carter admin discontinued and now is a world leader in energy independence. The USA dropped the ball. Obama is not for nuclear power. What you took off his website is PC smoke. But, forget his website, didn't you listen to what he said about it during the second debate? He has NO plans to get USA back on new nuclear power plants.
dark_isz
rejected liberal
..........
Last edited:
Tailgate
Senior Member
Well, we shouldn't be arguing because we both agree: Obama's against expanding nuclear power because, presently, he says it isn't "safe." We don't have an argument over what he says. I completely disagree with the notion that nuclear power generation is not safe already. We'll just have agree to disagree on that.
Spent fuel rod storage is the big buggaboo. Some plants are having to resort to dry cask storage since the spent fuel pools are getting full.
New Mexico is tying up Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository, though I am sure that there are legitimate concerns, doesn't help with the idea of building more plants.
I personally have changed my attitude favorably towards nuclear power after being involved with auditing operations of nuclear plants.
I just have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why reprocessing has not been reconsidered since the Carter Administration took it off the table?
Reprocessing would help solve a lot of storage issues as well as the need to mine more ore since the average spent fuel assembly still contains about 70% or 80% (or something close to it) of the energy of a new assembly.
Without getting into the liability issues, nuclear power plant construction is a long term proposition also, you can't bring a nuclear plant on-line in the same time frame as a coal plant of similar size.
If nuclear is going to happen I would venture to say that it will have to be subsidized by the government to be profitable. I think that this is why an electric utility has not applied for a license since the 1980's due to cost and environmental interveners.
New Mexico is tying up Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository, though I am sure that there are legitimate concerns, doesn't help with the idea of building more plants.
I personally have changed my attitude favorably towards nuclear power after being involved with auditing operations of nuclear plants.
I just have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why reprocessing has not been reconsidered since the Carter Administration took it off the table?
Reprocessing would help solve a lot of storage issues as well as the need to mine more ore since the average spent fuel assembly still contains about 70% or 80% (or something close to it) of the energy of a new assembly.
Without getting into the liability issues, nuclear power plant construction is a long term proposition also, you can't bring a nuclear plant on-line in the same time frame as a coal plant of similar size.
If nuclear is going to happen I would venture to say that it will have to be subsidized by the government to be profitable. I think that this is why an electric utility has not applied for a license since the 1980's due to cost and environmental interveners.
necrotimus
Stop looking at my title!
For anyone who wants some information on nuclear power in an easy to read format:
What is nuclear? / Public education for all things nuclear
It is written by young nuclear engineers so it reads as pro nuclear but they are independent.
What is nuclear? / Public education for all things nuclear
It is written by young nuclear engineers so it reads as pro nuclear but they are independent.
Tailgate
Senior Member
I have to agree. Reprocessing is what France does/has been doing and it's a shame that the US has fallen behind so badly where it USED to be on leading technology edge. It's a shame that now global warming is an issue becasue so-called "clean" coal technology contributes wildly to global warming. I'm not voting McCain but at least he didn't cave into the coal industry states for votes. As it stands, now with oil prices dropping AGAIN, this country will probably---as in the past 30 years--- revert back to same 'ol "do-nothing" energy policies again.
mdr
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
Until proven wrong I have to agree with Oscar54 on the coal issue.
The outcome Obama wants is not to bankrupt current coal plants, but to encourage that our NEW sources of energy are clean. You will not get clean power in the NEAR future if you keep subsidizing dirty energy sources. The lack of a TCO (total cost of ownership) philosophy in energy pricing is a subsidy, it's just hidden. Cap and Trade isn't "new" in any sense, it just brings TCO out into the open. And both McCain and Obama favor it. Now - what were we really arguing about here OP? Oh yeah, that evil Obama wants to destroy our economy. I don't think so and if you look at the facts you won't either.
As for the nuclear issue - it's not just about spent fuel storage, it's also about site security. I live 25 miles downwind of a nuke power plant and 6 miles away from a dozen or so nuclear ships and subs. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the ba$tard$ aren't out to get you.
Hotei
The outcome Obama wants is not to bankrupt current coal plants, but to encourage that our NEW sources of energy are clean. You will not get clean power in the NEAR future if you keep subsidizing dirty energy sources. The lack of a TCO (total cost of ownership) philosophy in energy pricing is a subsidy, it's just hidden. Cap and Trade isn't "new" in any sense, it just brings TCO out into the open. And both McCain and Obama favor it. Now - what were we really arguing about here OP? Oh yeah, that evil Obama wants to destroy our economy. I don't think so and if you look at the facts you won't either.
As for the nuclear issue - it's not just about spent fuel storage, it's also about site security. I live 25 miles downwind of a nuke power plant and 6 miles away from a dozen or so nuclear ships and subs. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the ba$tard$ aren't out to get you.
Hotei
Last edited:
mdr
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
You might want to think back to 2003 and the massive heat wave France experienced. You know, the one in August where a week of 100+ degree temps left almost 15,000 people dead. One of the (many) reasons for the catastrophe was that some of France's nuclear plants had to be shut down during that time due to overheating. Not sure just where the cutoff is but I believe that when the intake cooling water hits 90 degrees or so the circuit breakers kick in and they cut back or even shut down the reactors. I've never heard of a wind turbine or a solar cell shutting down just because things got to 100 degrees. A little less efficient - perhaps - but not down. Anyway, something to think about when you start pushing nukes as the solution - that old law of unintended consequences...
Hotei
I agree with Oscar on many points.
Propaganda...
Anyway how's the ploy with our new celebrity - Joe the Plummer?
jamesfz6
The faster red one!
My dad is putting solar panels on his house this winter. It will generate more than enough electricity for his house and shop. As for the shorter days, the power is stored up in battery cells so even at night you can run everything. I am curious to how it all works when he gets it.
