Obama on coal ...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Obama on coal ...

Post by Tom Ligon »

Just checking the daily polls on Rasumsen, and this popped up ...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... es-to.html

If this is correct, Obama just told a San Francisco audience he'll put a carbon cap fee in place which will effectively bankrupt anyone who tries to build a coal plant (he reportedly says exactly that ... his words). There's some discussion as to what this really means, but one way or another, the coal states are not gonna like it. While WV is solidly Republican (I've never understood why, but they are), this is bound to nudge Pennsylvania in McCain's direction, and several other states as well.

Not taking sides here (I'm a closet, albiet cautious, global warming believer, and would seriously like to eliminate burning coal) ... just enjoying the show.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

The only way to get the word out is to hit the major news networks, and they are not going to report anything detrimental to Obama until after Tuesday. Not without a lot of help.
Last edited by Aero on Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aero

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Post by rj40 »

Wow. No transition time? I keep hoping BFRs will work, and we use them to turn coal into gasoline until alternatives are developed (electric cars, hydrogen cars). Eventually, I would hope the need for coal goes away, but what is his time frame? It sounds like he means immediately. Oh jeez. And isn’t coal used in more than just power generation? We have so much of it, and we wouldn’t be allowed to use it? Even to give us time to transition to other stuff?

Tom Friedmans book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” makes the case that countries with lots of petroleum have trouble with just about everything else (freedom, innovation, etc.). With a working polywell industry, we might be in a situation where we find ourselves petroleum rich. Turn coal into gasoline, use some for ourselves, sell the surplus at cheaper prices and undercut OPEC. I wonder if anyone thinks we would go the same way as those peto-dictatorships?

I’m a global warming believer (not that I WANT to be), but this is nuts. Just turn it off? He can’t mean that. Right?

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Post by rj40 »

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ns-to.html

“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. "
-Sen. Obama


So I have no clue as to what, exactly, he wants to do, or when.

Jeff Peachman
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:47 pm

Post by Jeff Peachman »

I know there are a lot of McCain supporters on here, so I can see why you think this is what you've been waiting for. But this is obviously another video that McCain supporters are trying to spin to make Obama look bad right before the election. Obama does not want to bankrupt coal plants, obviously, because's he's not stupid.

His position on the cap and trade system is well documented in other places. He wants to gradually reduce the number of coal credits to give the market time to adjust. He may not have put his position as clearly in this sound-bite in particular.
- Jeff Peachman

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Don't forget that there's a decent amount of coal mined in Illinois.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Obama does not want to bankrupt coal plants, obviously, because's he's not stupid
That's the problem; no one knows what Obama wants, and he's said a lot of fairly stupid things, because like most politicians he just panders to whoever's in front of him, and he's been pretty far left up until about March of this year.

So we have him saying things like the "bitter small-towners cling to their guns and religion" while also saying he's going to protect gun rights and respects religion, we have him saying only people making 50K or less should get a tax cut and also saying everyone under 250K will get one, we have him fundraising and distributing money with terrorists like Ayers and Khalidi while saying he deplores what they stand for, we have him going to Rev Wright's racist sermons for 20 years while claiming to be a postracial candidate.

And of course, we have him saying he's going to bankrupt new coal plants and oppose new nuke plants while also claiming to support both technologies.

Shrug. He's just another will o' the wisp politician, and no one knows what he'll do. If you're an optimist. you can believe he's going to do whatever aligns with your interests. If you're a pessimist, you can believe he's going to do the opposite.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Obama on coal ...

Post by ravingdave »

Tom Ligon wrote:Just checking the daily polls on Rasumsen, and this popped up ...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... es-to.html

If this is correct, Obama just told a San Francisco audience he'll put a carbon cap fee in place which will effectively bankrupt anyone who tries to build a coal plant (he reportedly says exactly that ... his words). There's some discussion as to what this really means, but one way or another, the coal states are not gonna like it. While WV is solidly Republican (I've never understood why, but they are), this is bound to nudge Pennsylvania in McCain's direction, and several other states as well.

Not taking sides here (I'm a closet, albiet cautious, global warming believer, and would seriously like to eliminate burning coal) ... just enjoying the show.


I was a global warming believer for about a month. The spectroscopic absorbtion of water vapor completely changed my mind. Have you considered this ?


David

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Benefit by mistake.

Post by Helius »

Personally, I'd rather cap and trade Coal produced Sulfur; The Adirondacks can't handle it with their thin granite, no lime soils. Typical of Liberal government there is sometime benefit, but by fortunate accident.

I agree we can't say Carbon is a problem yet, but we can certainly say acid rain is.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

Dave,

Cautious beliver: I think we've got warming, but I think we're too dumb to fully understand the problem. And I think we're introducing carbon (and sulfur, etc) into the environment at unprecedented and accelerating levels, stuff that's been sequestered for eons. Curiously, it could be the sulfur in the coal nucleates some of that water vapor, making clouds that reflect sunlight, diminishing global warming. One hypothesis suggests China's coal plants may be moderating GW. Which all goes to say the problem is complex and we're still running more on emotion than proven atmospheric and oceanic science.

What I do believe is Dr. Hirsch's arguments about peak oil are worth seriously thinking about. I don't think we'll go to war with anyone over a coal shortage any time soon. Oil ... I dunno. Right now coal is taking some of the load off oil, and a sudden public policy to clamp down on it with no replacement is likely to be counterproductive in ways that could go far beyond the dangers of global warming. While coal makes more CO2 per BTU, oil ain't zero either, so which you are burning is a matter of degree.

Hence my enthusiasm for fusion.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Tom Ligon wrote:Dave,

Cautious beliver: I think we've got warming, but I think we're too dumb to fully understand the problem.
Not too dumb to rule out factors.

Most warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century, most CO2 release in the second half.

CO2 multipliers in the models are much higher then experiment shows.

CO2 has a diminishing returns effect. To get the effects predicted in the disaster models we'd need an atmo something like 70% CO2.

Warming, yes.

Anthropogenic warming, no.

Duane
Vae Victis

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I think that the greenies have made a bad decision by trying to push the anthropogenic warming theory. Wether or not it's true, we didn't think about this thirty years ago. But we still came up with the EPA. Why? Because cars and coal plants make for bad air. There's a patently proven reason for reducing emissions. Whether or not global warming is even considered.

I'd like to be able to go to Los Angeles some day to visit friends and family there, and not feel like I'm suffocating. I literally have trouble breathing there. The health care costs that this is causing alone should cost justify some changes.

What's really more interesting about cap and trade programs is where the revenue gets shunted. If it's actually put into technology to improve energy production (like fusion), I think that's well considered. Or maybe to balance the budget.

Energy is a trust, and dealt with as one in the US. Because it's impossible to really have competition in the energy arena. The infrastructure costs are simply too high. Therefore the only way to produce change in this "industry" is to use artificial incentives. Yes there are short term costs. But we have to move to something better eventually. Might as well bite the bullet and get it over with sooner rather than later. I don't want to put the burden on my children. I'm sure they'll have plenty of challenges in their day (like paying down our financial bail-out).

Mike

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

No he won't...

Post by kurt9 »

Obama won big in the Northern Mid-west states (OH, IN, PA, IL) that voted for Bush in 2000 and '04, where manufacturing makes up the economic base. These economies are reliant on coal-generated electricity. Despite his rhetoric, it is unlikely that Obama is going to do anything to piss off voters in these states (like limiting new coal plant construction) if he wants to keep a democrat congress in '10 or re-election in '12.

Obama is as much the political animal as Bill Clinton was.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Tom Ligon wrote:Dave,

Cautious beliver: I think we've got warming, but I think we're too dumb to fully understand the problem. And I think we're introducing carbon (and sulfur, etc) into the environment at unprecedented and accelerating levels, stuff that's been sequestered for eons. Curiously, it could be the sulfur in the coal nucleates some of that water vapor, making clouds that reflect sunlight, diminishing global warming. One hypothesis suggests China's coal plants may be moderating GW. Which all goes to say the problem is complex and we're still running more on emotion than proven atmospheric and oceanic science.


What I mean is that Water Vapor is the most absorbive of all greehouse gasses. It comes mainly from the oceans and increases with heat. It ought to be a positive feedback mechanism, but it isn't.

We ought to be in a runaway greenhouse condition right now but we aren't. A little research yields that Water vapor is a NEGATIVE feedback effect. (due to cloud scattering of light into space)

This makes sense. The system is self regulating and water vapor is the key.


David

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

Dave, et al ...

All this rather misses the point. I hardly meant to start an argument on the merits or demerits of GW, or even coal.

The question was, would the news that Obama had made a potentially explosive comment about bankrupting coal and coal-utilizing industries damage his results in coal-producing states, most importantly Pennsylvania? And Monday morning, McCain did pick up on the news and attempted to use it.

We now know the answer to the question.

Nah!

Post Reply