- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama Bankrupting Coal Industry and more...
Obama Bankrupting Coal Industry and more...Follow
Obama wrote:
“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. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that 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 an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should."
“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. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that 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 an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
/shrug
As the earlier quote stated. This isn't exactly new. It's the same thing I argued the last time this issue came up. Obama's policy with regard to coal is designed to make it so expensive that alternatives become cheap in comparison. Carbon sequestration is a boondoggle. It's so ridiculously expensive that it's simply not feasible to do large scale, but that didn't stop Obama from supporting R&D funding for it when it was coming to his home state.
Combining a cap and trade system with the clean coal requirements he wants to put in place does effectively make coal power much much more expensive. The existing plants have to pay huge penalties to keep operating, and new plants will cost just as much more attempting to meet the emissions requirements. While on paper, it looks like the objective is to make cleaner mechanisms more competitive, and cap and trade mechanisms can work when properly applied, the way it's being proposed in this case is pretty clearly just to create another "tax" on coal without using the word "tax".
When 90% of coal plants can't meet the requirements (and that's honestly a lowball estimate when we're talking about the carbon sequestration stuff), it just means that everyone's paying a penalty to the government. There's no "trade" in the cap and trade system, and it just becomes a tax. That gets passed on to the consumer (either way), the cost of energy goes up, and the environment gets polluted at pretty much the same rate.
And for the record, nuclear is vastly cleaner than coal. Interestingly enough, with carbon sequestration requirements, it's even moreso. The only dirty part of nuclear power is storing the waste material. Sequestration of carbon emissions from coal plants would require similar storage of waste, but with a whole hell of a lot more of it. It's a step in the wrong direction IMO...
As the earlier quote stated. This isn't exactly new. It's the same thing I argued the last time this issue came up. Obama's policy with regard to coal is designed to make it so expensive that alternatives become cheap in comparison. Carbon sequestration is a boondoggle. It's so ridiculously expensive that it's simply not feasible to do large scale, but that didn't stop Obama from supporting R&D funding for it when it was coming to his home state.
Combining a cap and trade system with the clean coal requirements he wants to put in place does effectively make coal power much much more expensive. The existing plants have to pay huge penalties to keep operating, and new plants will cost just as much more attempting to meet the emissions requirements. While on paper, it looks like the objective is to make cleaner mechanisms more competitive, and cap and trade mechanisms can work when properly applied, the way it's being proposed in this case is pretty clearly just to create another "tax" on coal without using the word "tax".
When 90% of coal plants can't meet the requirements (and that's honestly a lowball estimate when we're talking about the carbon sequestration stuff), it just means that everyone's paying a penalty to the government. There's no "trade" in the cap and trade system, and it just becomes a tax. That gets passed on to the consumer (either way), the cost of energy goes up, and the environment gets polluted at pretty much the same rate.
And for the record, nuclear is vastly cleaner than coal. Interestingly enough, with carbon sequestration requirements, it's even moreso. The only dirty part of nuclear power is storing the waste material. Sequestration of carbon emissions from coal plants would require similar storage of waste, but with a whole hell of a lot more of it. It's a step in the wrong direction IMO...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The only dirty part of nuclear power is storing the waste material.
You make it sound trivial! Lol.
But yeah coal is nasty **** too....(tho how long does its waste need to be sequestetered for. 10,000 years? 6 weeks? foerever?)
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
The only dirty part of nuclear power is storing the waste material.
You make it sound trivial! Lol.
But yeah coal is nasty sh*t too....(tho how long does its waste need to be sequestetered for. 10,000 years? 6 weeks? foerever?)
Yeah. That's what's so absurd about the sequestration idea. You take something that is not harmful in small concentrations, and is arguably necessary (carbon dioxide). But because we're terrified of global warming, we'll take that natural forming element, mix it with some binding agents to trap it, cook it a bit, then compress it until we've got this "goo" that is just plain toxic, and now we have to store it in waste facilities forever.
Um... What was the point again? If we want to reduce the total amount of CO2 produced by burning coal, why not use nuclear energy? It's competitive with current pre-sequestration coal costs right now, even including the waste storage. Why on earth would you choose to burn coal, but then spend billions of dollars capturing and storing CO2 output as waste? You've just made coal just as problematic as nuclear in terms of waste storage, you're still putting other pollutants out there (cause the system's not perfect at trapping emissions), and you're spending a ridiculous amount of money doing it...
And at the risk of turning this into a political issue (hah!). Obama wants to pursue clean coal and sequestration processes, while McCain wants to build a bunch of nuclear power plants. Who's got the better platform here? It's kind of a no-brainer really...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The only dirty part of nuclear power is storing the waste material.
Forgetting the fact that there is no long-term solution to the storage of nuclear waste, and that the short-term solutions are all problematic in some ways, there's still the problem that nuclear power is ridiculously expensive. The cost is always far, far above any estimates, and it's a long, slow process. They work ok in France because when they were built the state was very centralised and the whole thing was publicly funded. I don't see the US doing the same thing though, they'll want to do it public/private like the UK tried, and it's really not as easy and cheap as it sounds.
So if we start building a Nuclear facility right now, when exactly is the first day it will be online? 2038? 2025 at best?
I don't hate Nuclear power even though I'm a greenie, but I also realize that we've probably missed the boat on it being a power source for the entire country just because it takes so long to build one (not to mention you can't build them en masse due to lack of specialized labor). By the time we've built a handful of them we should be well on our way to building other generators (wind, tidal, geothermal, solar, even clean coal could be completely done by then).
I just think we've missed the window for nuclear power, Europe was doing it when we were still scared of it and they are reaping the benefits.
I don't hate Nuclear power even though I'm a greenie, but I also realize that we've probably missed the boat on it being a power source for the entire country just because it takes so long to build one (not to mention you can't build them en masse due to lack of specialized labor). By the time we've built a handful of them we should be well on our way to building other generators (wind, tidal, geothermal, solar, even clean coal could be completely done by then).
I just think we've missed the window for nuclear power, Europe was doing it when we were still scared of it and they are reaping the benefits.
gbaji wrote:
McCain wants to build a bunch of nuclear power plants. Who's got the better platform here? It's kind of a no-brainer really...
Jophiel, back over the summer, wrote:
45 more plants would be about a 45% increase (we have 103 now). 100 plants would obviously double it. Yucca Mountain is already near its legal limit.
So what is McCain's plan? Open reprocessing plants? How many? Located where? France gets away with it partially because they centralize the process and use economies of scale to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, France doesn't have to move nuclear waste from New Jersey to Nevada. So do we centralize it and transport waste hither and yon throughout the nation or do we build multiple stations, none running as efficently as a central one would? Either way, those are going to need to be running by the time we have these 45 new plants. Is he just going to dump the spent fuel? Where? We need to know soon, don't we?
So what is McCain's plan? Open reprocessing plants? How many? Located where? France gets away with it partially because they centralize the process and use economies of scale to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, France doesn't have to move nuclear waste from New Jersey to Nevada. So do we centralize it and transport waste hither and yon throughout the nation or do we build multiple stations, none running as efficently as a central one would? Either way, those are going to need to be running by the time we have these 45 new plants. Is he just going to dump the spent fuel? Where? We need to know soon, don't we?
Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 6:24pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
There's also the problem that only a handful of companies can actually build nuclear facilities, and only one of them is American (GE. If they're even still in the business.)
So we'll have the same crap that went down last year where Boeing and Northrup-Grumman competed against each other, and the non-US company lost, which caused a ********* of protests. (Then it turned out that someone had cooked the cost estimates anyway, and the whole process has to be rebid again. Why do capitalists hate America?)
I prefer wind power myself. Some people say wind farms are ugly, but I think they're graceful. And there's plenty enough flyover country in the US so that we could stick 'em on un-farmable windy hills where no one has to look at em but the cows.
So we'll have the same crap that went down last year where Boeing and Northrup-Grumman competed against each other, and the non-US company lost, which caused a ********* of protests. (Then it turned out that someone had cooked the cost estimates anyway, and the whole process has to be rebid again. Why do capitalists hate America?)
I prefer wind power myself. Some people say wind farms are ugly, but I think they're graceful. And there's plenty enough flyover country in the US so that we could stick 'em on un-farmable windy hills where no one has to look at em but the cows.
baelnic wrote:
So if we start building a Nuclear facility right now, when exactly is the first day it will be online? 2038? 2025 at best?
And if we start tomorrow, it'll be that date plus one...
That's a really **** poor argument IMO.
And Joph? Where are they going to store the coal sequestration waste? That part of it is a wash. Another **** poor argument IMO...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
And Joph? Where are they going to store the coal sequestration waste? That part of it is a wash. Another **** poor argument IMO...
Hooray! We agree!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
And if we start tomorrow, it'll be that date plus one...
That's a really **** poor argument IMO.
That's a really **** poor argument IMO.
We could build Wind Turbines all over the western US in 10 years, or we could build a handful of Nuclear Power plants in 30 years.
You based your argument on carbon sequestration being a boondoggle. I'm just saying that by the time you fix the carbon problem with Nuclear power it will be 30 years too late. I know you don't believe it, but a lot of us believe we need to fix it NOW.
Quote:
That's what's so absurd about the sequestration idea. You take something that is not harmful in small concentrations, and is arguably necessary (carbon dioxide). But because we're terrified of global warming, we'll take that natural forming element, mix it with some binding agents to trap it, cook it a bit, then compress it until we've got this "goo" that is just plain toxic, and now we have to store it in waste facilities forever.
I agree so far.
Quote:
If we want to reduce the total amount of CO2 produced by burning coal, why not use nuclear energy?
Thats where we differ (on this subject).
BECAUSE NUCLEAR POWER HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE VAST AREAS OF THIS PLANET UNINHABITABLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Why we dont spend the billions of dollars on researching and actually producing renewable sources (solar in particular. After all, if all life on this planet is here BECAUSE of the sun, surely its just a matter of effort on our part to figure out how to use it to supply our (human) power needs) rather than spending all our time trying to pretend nuclear is an answer.
Sure, nuclear accidents are not an everyday occurence. But they happen. And more importantly, what happens 2000 years from now when someone happens across all of our 'safely disposed of, clearly labelled as dangerous waste'? You think they are going to have a clue as to what those "Danger! Radiation!!" signs are supposed to mean??
Shit I struggle to read English from 200 years ago. Those signs are going to be the equivelant of ancient Sumerian to the first people who find a nuclear waste dump in the future. I just hate the idea of leaving all that stuff lying around for others to deal with.
But thats just me.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Sure, nuclear accidents are not an everyday occurence. But they happen. And more importantly, what happens 2000 years from now when someone happens across all of our 'safely disposed of, clearly labelled as dangerous waste'? You think they are going to have a clue as to what those "Danger! Radiation!!" signs are supposed to mean??
Shit I struggle to read English from 200 years ago. Those signs are going to be the equivelant of ancient Sumerian to the first people who find a nuclear waste dump in the future. I just hate the idea of leaving all that stuff lying around for others to deal with.
But thats just me.
Shit I struggle to read English from 200 years ago. Those signs are going to be the equivelant of ancient Sumerian to the first people who find a nuclear waste dump in the future. I just hate the idea of leaving all that stuff lying around for others to deal with.
But thats just me.
Yeah, look at what happened to Lord Carnarvon.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And Joph? Where are they going to store the coal sequestration waste? That part of it is a wash. Another **** poor argument IMO...
Except that the total cost of nuclear power is comparable to coal, when we compare existing nuclear to existing coal. Meaning that we're including the cost to store nuclear waste in the nuclear side of the equation, and comparing to the cost to run current "dirty" coal plans (with no sequestration at all).
Obama's proposals for coal would add in the need to store the toxic waste from carbon sequestration with a significant price tag increase to convert CO2 emissions into said toxic waste and then on top of that the increased cost to store it (which would be similar to the cost to store the same quantity of nuclear waste, except there's a lot more coal waste per unit of energy generated).
The net result is that coal now has the exact same negatives as nuclear (more really) at a much much higher price. That's why it's silly. If you want to reduce the total CO2 production from running coal plants, it's absurd to talk about applying carbon sequestration to coal plants and then include "storing waste" as a negative for using nuclear power as an alternative. That's just a super dumb approach. Just build nuclear power plants. Less waste to store, more power, cleaner, and vastly cheaper than coal plants using carbon sequestration.
Oh. And as to the earlier argument about how long it would take? You guys are aware that carbon sequestration has only really been tested in a lab environment, right? They developed a process for doing it, but it's never actually been used on anything bigger than samples in a lab. There's still an enormous amount of R&D required to turn that into a large scale process, much less build working systems for new generation coal plants. Whereas nuclear power is a pretty well known quantity. We've improved safety and design, but it's not like we have to invent and design a whole new thing from scratch if we choose to build nuclear power plants.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sure.
I don't care enough to argue. I'm too busy feeling good about tomorrow
I don't care enough to argue. I'm too busy feeling good about tomorrow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
The net result is that coal now has the exact same negatives as nuclear (more really) at a much much higher price.
Exact???? Hmmmmm.....
Neither coal (clean or otherwise) or nuclear is 'long-term' or 'safe'.
Clean coal/nuclear....... The debate between Obama and McCain is all about politics and all the bollox that goes with it, and NOTHING at all about ensuring future energy supplies.
The reality is that the world as whole needs to do something safe. And long term. And by long term I mean we need to take into account the effects of our 'waste' on people thousands of years in the future.
Anything less is irresposible.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
There have been several proposals to permanently deal with nuclear waste even without a fusion reactor, which I still maintain is not very far away.
1. Launch it into the sun.
Given today's polymir technology, we could easily build a 100% explosion and re-entry proof capsule to store nuclear waste. Launching the material would elicit massive protests from scared people, so this approach will never occur. It's also rather expensive at the moment.
2. Inject it into an active undersea volcano.
Several of the geothermal vents at depth are already very radioactive. Why not drill a hole, inject pellets of radioactive waste, and let it blend into the background radiation? Transporting it to the site would be an issue, and the drilling and injection equipment would be very costly(ceramic injection chambers, etc) but it could be done. An undersea injection would prevent ash fallout if an eruption occured.
3. Dump it into the Marianis Trench in indestructable containers
Yeah, maybe in 20,000 years people will forget english. But if they have the technology to reach the Marianis trench, they have the scientific background to understand radioactivity. If you put it in a thick enough, engineered well enough container coated with enough plastic, Salt water corrosian would not be a problem. After you drop it in, bury it with a few thousand tons of gravel or something along those lines.
4. Feed it to chickens and create a giant mutant Were-Chicken!
Probably not advisable, but fun!
A pebble bed reactor puts out (including pipes and turbine lineings, maybe enough radioactive waste to fill a rail boxcar every 30 or so years. Much less than that if you only count the high level waste that will take thousands of years to decay. Most of the material will decay to safe levels after a hundred years or so. An 1990's era coal reactor over a 30 year timespan puts out hundreds of tons of soot, Thousands of tons of Co2 gas, and suprise suprise, burning coal releases radioctive waste into the atmosphere. A modern coal plant does reduce much of that, sure, but only in areas where emissions laws are strict enough to require them to do so.
Does a fission reactor put out some really bad ****? Sure. But its less really bad **** than a coal plant
1. Launch it into the sun.
Given today's polymir technology, we could easily build a 100% explosion and re-entry proof capsule to store nuclear waste. Launching the material would elicit massive protests from scared people, so this approach will never occur. It's also rather expensive at the moment.
2. Inject it into an active undersea volcano.
Several of the geothermal vents at depth are already very radioactive. Why not drill a hole, inject pellets of radioactive waste, and let it blend into the background radiation? Transporting it to the site would be an issue, and the drilling and injection equipment would be very costly(ceramic injection chambers, etc) but it could be done. An undersea injection would prevent ash fallout if an eruption occured.
3. Dump it into the Marianis Trench in indestructable containers
Yeah, maybe in 20,000 years people will forget english. But if they have the technology to reach the Marianis trench, they have the scientific background to understand radioactivity. If you put it in a thick enough, engineered well enough container coated with enough plastic, Salt water corrosian would not be a problem. After you drop it in, bury it with a few thousand tons of gravel or something along those lines.
4. Feed it to chickens and create a giant mutant Were-Chicken!
Probably not advisable, but fun!
A pebble bed reactor puts out (including pipes and turbine lineings, maybe enough radioactive waste to fill a rail boxcar every 30 or so years. Much less than that if you only count the high level waste that will take thousands of years to decay. Most of the material will decay to safe levels after a hundred years or so. An 1990's era coal reactor over a 30 year timespan puts out hundreds of tons of soot, Thousands of tons of Co2 gas, and suprise suprise, burning coal releases radioctive waste into the atmosphere. A modern coal plant does reduce much of that, sure, but only in areas where emissions laws are strict enough to require them to do so.
Does a fission reactor put out some really bad ****? Sure. But its less really bad **** than a coal plant
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Quote:
Exact???? Hmmmmm.....
Neither coal (clean or otherwise) or nuclear is 'long-term' or 'safe'.
Clean coal/nuclear....... The debate between Obama and McCain is all about politics and all the bollox that goes with it, and NOTHING at all about ensuring future energy supplies.
The reality is that the world as whole needs to do something safe. And long term. And by long term I mean we need to take into account the effects of our 'waste' on people thousands of years in the future.
Anything less is irresposible.
Neither coal (clean or otherwise) or nuclear is 'long-term' or 'safe'.
Clean coal/nuclear....... The debate between Obama and McCain is all about politics and all the bollox that goes with it, and NOTHING at all about ensuring future energy supplies.
The reality is that the world as whole needs to do something safe. And long term. And by long term I mean we need to take into account the effects of our 'waste' on people thousands of years in the future.
Anything less is irresposible.
You do know that the assumption that Humanity is causing the "rising temperature levels" is a theory, a hypothesis, not fact. In fact, more scientists believe that we are NOT the cause. In fact, in the history of the earth this is NORMAL, it is a cyclical event. Until you can prove that it is indeed true, no one should bankrupt any energy output, nor, mandate any "environmental" legislature that would put into question our economy.
We should have a "All of the Above" strategy that McCain supports. I think though, that Nuclear and continued R&D into other sources of energy is needed. I don't know why we can't jettison our nuclear waste at some point onto other planets, or into space. The fact is, solar energy is not efficient right now, Wind energy is not a stable source of reliable energy (Not to mention the HUGE amount of land is needed to "farm wind" which if you want "long-term" energy solutions then wind is not one. The fact is the human population is going to skyrocket exponentially, we need the land for living space (Especially since you want these solutions to take into account a thousand years form now (Crazy)).
My point is, there HAS to be a transitional period from fossil fuels, to more efficient means of producing energy. As of right now "More efficient means of producing energy EXIST". That is NUCLEAR ENERGY / Hydroelectric (Still at the mercy of nature). While expanding upon our continental energy resources, we should also put more into R&D for new energy sources. That is where the environuts and most of us who think logically and realistically differ. You believe we can abolish all "fossil fuel" energy and replace that with "Lalala Enviro friendly energy sources" simply it doesn't exist right now. Transition. Learn the word.
Sure Paul. There's certainly a valid debate to be had between the pollution and ecological issues surrounding coal versus the risk potential and storage issues surrounding nuclear.
My main objection was to the argument that "clean coal" using sequestration was an ideal solution because it has super low emissions just like nuclear, but with nuclear power you have to store all that waste. That's just an unfair argument.
With coal, you either have a "dirty" plant that is constantly polluting the environment (and adding all that CO2), or you have "clean coal" and carbon sequestration, which now makes the emissions similarly low to that of nuclear, but *also* requires storage of waste materials (and more of it). It's wrong to argue against the waste materials generated by nuclear power while also arguing that coal can be zero (or near zero) emissions, because the only way that happens is if you use sequestration, which means that the coal plant produces toxic waste that has to be stored just like nuclear waste does.
If you compare apples to apples, both can be "clean" in terms of their day to day emissions. But if you go with that model, coal costs more and produces more waste that has to be stored. It's as simple as that. The second you start talking about building near-zero emission coal plants, you're better off building nuclear plants instead. They already produce zero emissions, the storage issue becomes advantageous for nuclear, and the cost is lower.
The only reason to use coal instead of nuclear is if you simply accept the pollution and CO2 they produce as a necessary "cost" to offset the cost of using nuclear material and storing the waste products. That's a valid argument, but that's *not* the argument that Obama is making. He's saying that we should take the worst course, producing less energy at a higher cost, while generating more waste to store.
Sorry. It's a stupid idea. The only reason it's even entertained is because it sells well politically to people who don't realize just how stupid it is. It's one of those positions that is so monumentally dumb that even the guy using it to get elected knows he's just using it to get elected.
My main objection was to the argument that "clean coal" using sequestration was an ideal solution because it has super low emissions just like nuclear, but with nuclear power you have to store all that waste. That's just an unfair argument.
With coal, you either have a "dirty" plant that is constantly polluting the environment (and adding all that CO2), or you have "clean coal" and carbon sequestration, which now makes the emissions similarly low to that of nuclear, but *also* requires storage of waste materials (and more of it). It's wrong to argue against the waste materials generated by nuclear power while also arguing that coal can be zero (or near zero) emissions, because the only way that happens is if you use sequestration, which means that the coal plant produces toxic waste that has to be stored just like nuclear waste does.
If you compare apples to apples, both can be "clean" in terms of their day to day emissions. But if you go with that model, coal costs more and produces more waste that has to be stored. It's as simple as that. The second you start talking about building near-zero emission coal plants, you're better off building nuclear plants instead. They already produce zero emissions, the storage issue becomes advantageous for nuclear, and the cost is lower.
The only reason to use coal instead of nuclear is if you simply accept the pollution and CO2 they produce as a necessary "cost" to offset the cost of using nuclear material and storing the waste products. That's a valid argument, but that's *not* the argument that Obama is making. He's saying that we should take the worst course, producing less energy at a higher cost, while generating more waste to store.
Sorry. It's a stupid idea. The only reason it's even entertained is because it sells well politically to people who don't realize just how stupid it is. It's one of those positions that is so monumentally dumb that even the guy using it to get elected knows he's just using it to get elected.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's true that the earth warms and cools in cycles, sometimes becoming totally tropical, sometimes becoming covered in continent sized sheets of ice.
BUT you cannot simultaneously call the warming trend part of a "natural cycle" unless you accept:
- That during periods of glaciation, animals evolved the traits needed to survive, then went extinct when the earth suddenly warmed
- The earth is older than 6,000 years.
If you take the Bible as literal truth, the two arguments are contradictory. (Unless you believe that the warm up part of the "natural" -- more like supernatural -- cycle is just the prelude to the End Times like Palin and her friends do. God did it . . . such a convenient excuse.)
The last glaciation ended approximately 10,000 years ago. We've been in an interglacial warm up ever since, with a mini-ice-age developing around 1300 and ending in 1850. (Ending about the time, in fact, that people started pumping large amounts of crap into the air via coal-powered factories.)
We're not due to cool down to a glacial level for another 50,000 years. So even if you don't believe that global warming is man made, we're still going to be heating up for some time!
Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 10:38pm by catwho
BUT you cannot simultaneously call the warming trend part of a "natural cycle" unless you accept:
- That during periods of glaciation, animals evolved the traits needed to survive, then went extinct when the earth suddenly warmed
- The earth is older than 6,000 years.
If you take the Bible as literal truth, the two arguments are contradictory. (Unless you believe that the warm up part of the "natural" -- more like supernatural -- cycle is just the prelude to the End Times like Palin and her friends do. God did it . . . such a convenient excuse.)
The last glaciation ended approximately 10,000 years ago. We've been in an interglacial warm up ever since, with a mini-ice-age developing around 1300 and ending in 1850. (Ending about the time, in fact, that people started pumping large amounts of crap into the air via coal-powered factories.)
We're not due to cool down to a glacial level for another 50,000 years. So even if you don't believe that global warming is man made, we're still going to be heating up for some time!
Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 10:38pm by catwho
#73REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 7:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You do know I'm atheist and I put my beliefs in scientific approach?
Quote:
You do know that the assumption that Humanity is causing the "rising temperature levels" is a theory, a hypothesis, not fact.
If you wern't such an moran, I'd quietly explain to you why I'm one of the more sceptical folk around here when it comes to the phrase 'man-made-global warming', but because you are an moran, I'll just settle for calling you a cnut.
Quote:
Sorry. It's a stupid idea. The only reason it's even entertained is because it sells well politically to people who don't realize just how stupid it is. It's one of those positions that is so monumentally dumb that even the guy using it to get elected knows he's just using it to get elected.
Thats the problem with politics! Stupid stuff gets you elected by the incurious voter. Works for both sides of the spectrum obviously.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Well, I know you misquoted Obama.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
You do know I'm atheist and I put my beliefs in scientific approach?
Then why do you sound like every over-religious, uneducated hick I've ever had the displeasure of arguing with?
Recent Visitors: 236
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama Bankrupting Coal Industry and more...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC