Post by: Desertdog on September 23, 2008, 07:42:40 AM
Video
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_No_coal_plants_here_in_America.html?showall
Biden: 'No coal plants here in America'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_No_coal_plants_here_in_America.html?showall
Some great rope line video from Joe Biden's recent Ohio swing, where he was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal -- a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary.
Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States.
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
"Were not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.
The answer seems to play into John McCain's case that Obama has been saying "no" to new sources of energy.
In the primary, Biden opposed Obama's push for clean coal, which is seen as a way of maintaining or expanding America's coal-burning power plants -- many of which are in rust belt swing states.
"I don't think there's much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there's a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change," he told Grist last year. "Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives," he said, but added that America should push for a "fundamental change in technology" to clean up China's plants.
Biden also was not shy on his own clean energy credentials.
"The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 20 years ago," he said, apparently referring to the 1986 Global Climate Protection.
Think Progress has some more context, and Jake Tapper reports that Obama this morning rebuked Biden on a separate issue, his quick opposition to a federal bailout.
Biden's remarks, and his apparent return to his primary position Tuesday, were striking because just three days ago, he praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Va.
You know we have enough coal in the United States of America to meet out needs domestically for the better part of the next hundred to 200 years, Biden said before launching into a critique of McCains energy priorities, slamming his support for billions in tax breaks for oil companies as the industry rakes in record profits.
Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion & and investing it in coal gasification, finding out what we can do with carbon sequestration, finding out how we can burn the coal that you dig that can free us from being dependent on foreign oil countries and at the same time not ruin the environment. Thats within our capacity to do it, if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer, Biden said.
He linked the tickets support for coal with their call to have U.S. automakers produce plug-in electric cars. Wheres that [electricity] come from? That comes from a utility. What do utilities burn? They burn coal mostly.
Post by: slingshot on September 23, 2008, 07:52:15 AM
Quote
if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer, Biden said.
That sure sounds fishy to me. He could buy his own island and never attempt to find an answer.
It's his money after all.I strongly support continued research into clean coal technology. Coal use generates about 50% or more of our county's electricity. We need to build more plants now.
We also need to develop our oil shale resources with price supports for the enegry produced that float with the price of oil.
Post by: Nick1911 on September 23, 2008, 08:07:25 AM
Post by: HankB on September 23, 2008, 08:15:57 AM
Quote
The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago . . . Imagine . . . finding out what we can do with carbon sequestration . . .
So the guy has been a fraudulent scammer for decades, and is still trying to scam us.
Post by: slingshot on September 23, 2008, 08:18:26 AM
Post by: FTA84 on September 23, 2008, 09:09:36 AM
After traditional religions, I would say the largest religion in the United States is the religion of science. The belief and the thought that science holds all the answers and with enough time and money we can find/get science to do anything.
Note that, generally, such statements and blind belief are only held by:
a) Weak/Arrogant scientists
b) People who don't understand science
Many of the so called 'hard' scientists I know (including myself) believe in a traditional religion. The reasons for this vary, some are simply following tradition, some are true believers, and some (like myself) see that what science has accomplished and will accomplish can be no such coincidence.
The people who believe in science are usually those who find it mystical. Like the ancient religions of middle east with their use of drugs/trickery to convince people that the altar upon which they stood was endowed with special powers.
In any event, I believe this is part of the Obama-Biden-Democrat Energy plan. They believe that their energy saviour is held in science and we just need to find it. That there must be some perfect way to make power which is:
1) Safe and Affordable
2) 100% Clean
3) Available within a few years
4) Comparable to today's energy
5) Large supply / Renewable
Though real scientists have to solve real problems. One has to make concessions to achieve solutions.
One such succession would be clean coal. This country has much coal. Since the fall of the steel industry in this country, it has little use but for power. It meets criteria 1, 3, 4, 5 but maybe falls short of 2. So they don't want it.
What about nuclear energy? 2, 3, 4, 5 but they don't think it fits #1.
Offshore drilling doesn't meet 2 or 5.
So we can't have anything. What if they never find a solution? By the very definition, the religion of science does not permit there to be problems which cannot be solved. Even though mathematics (a science) has shown that there must exist problems which cannot be solved.
Insanity.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 23, 2008, 09:54:01 AM
Hmm... The "NO" party says "NO" again. Surprise.
This time, they said "NO and give us billions to distribute to our friends."
Post by: Tallpine on September 23, 2008, 11:14:00 AM
Quote
That there must be some perfect way to make power which is:
1) Safe and Affordable
2) 100% Clean
3) Available within a few years
4) Comparable to today's energy
5) Large supply / Renewable
1) Safe and Affordable
2) 100% Clean
3) Available within a few years
4) Comparable to today's energy
5) Large supply / Renewable
#3 is the tough one
Post by: Physics on September 23, 2008, 12:46:37 PM
Tallpine, we could power the entire US with solar and wind. It would be very expensive (up front cost), but would be very possible in a reasonable amount of time. The problem with solar is it takes nasty chemicals to create photovoltaics, and the manufacture of them very expensive. Also the efficiency is still low. I've heard about some promising things but there is usually a delay from lab to industry.
Oh yeah, and Biden... wow that guy I think gets dumber with time. I can't even believe I'm hearing the idiotic things he's saying right now, every time he opens his mouth it seems. Oh well, brings us that much closer to the day we can celebrate the loss of Obama... hopefully.
Post by: Ben on September 23, 2008, 03:27:41 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on September 23, 2008, 03:48:37 PM
Was it another thread here, or elsewhere that I read about a Coal Mining union supporting Obama? Interesting given the Obama / Biden aversion to coal.
It is a union.
Hint: They tend to support the Democrats. The fact that they are supposedly there to support coal miners doesn't matter to them...
Post by: Crosshair on September 23, 2008, 04:15:04 PM
France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear.
We could have enough fuel for several hundred, if not thousands of years and, combined with reprocessing, have waste that is only radioactive for a few hundred years. We need to do what the French did, standardize on one or two designs, then mass produce them. Takes the cost of production, training, and maintenance way down.
Post by: Firethorn on September 23, 2008, 04:34:05 PM
McCain has called for 45 new nukes by 2030. Given that I was calling for '2 new plants a year, starting in 2 years', in my EO manifesto, I'd have had 40 built. I like how he thinks.
I've heard Obama waver between 'nuclear is not the answer' and 'I'll take nuclear to reduce CO2'.
Post by: taurusowner on September 23, 2008, 05:05:02 PM
Quote
McCain has called for 45 new nukes by 2030. Given that I was calling for '2 new plants a year, starting in 2 years', in my EO manifesto, I'd have had 40 built. I like how he thinks.
I've heard Obama waver between 'nuclear is not the answer' and 'I'll take nuclear to reduce CO2'.
I've heard Obama waver between 'nuclear is not the answer' and 'I'll take nuclear to reduce CO2'.
That's because McCain's beliefs, however misguided some of them are, are his own and he stands by them even when his own party hates him.
Obama's "beliefs" are those of whoever is pulling his strings and whatever crowd he is standing in front of that day.
Post by: HankB on September 24, 2008, 03:51:18 AM
Quote
I've also heard a lot about using algae to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which could be promising.
The only promise here would be to enrich algae farmers . . . unless the algae itself could be used to produce some sort of fuel, with a net energy gain. Quote
Tallpine, we could power the entire US with solar and wind.
Except at night on calm days. Or when it's cloudy. Don't get me wrong - wind and solar DO have merit to supplement other means of generating electric power, but unless some realistic means of storing the energy is developed, they're not dependable enough to be primary sources nationwide.
Post by: anygunanywhere on September 24, 2008, 04:24:12 AM
Tallpine, we could power the entire US with solar and wind.
Except for when it is dark and when the wind does not blow.
These two forms of alternative energy require backup from either fossil or nuclear when it is dark or the wind does not blow so you still have to have massive amounts of reserve generation capacity that can come online quickly. Peakers are very inefficient and combined cycle turbine plants require time for efficiency to peak once the steam cycle is stable.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 04:45:23 AM
Tallpine, we could power the entire US with solar and wind. It would be very expensive (up front cost), but would be very possible in a reasonable amount of time. The problem with solar is it takes nasty chemicals to create photovoltaics, and the manufacture of them very expensive. Also the efficiency is still low. I've heard about some promising things but there is usually a delay from lab to industry.
Yeah, that solar would work really well when the panels are covered with SNOW here.
Also, it has been estimated to power NYC with wind, you'd need to cover all of Connecticut with wind turbines. All of it.
Nuclear is good. Wind and solar are just wasting money for nothing in return.
Post by: TF_FH on September 24, 2008, 09:49:25 AM
I used to be one of those kids that got educated by the system of public schools and believed in the war on guns, drugs, pollution etc. But now I use my brain. Too bad the politicans don't.
Post by: Firethorn on September 24, 2008, 10:10:17 AM
For special purpose applications. Out in the middle of nowhere? Small solar panel for recharging batteries/weather radio is good.
Solar street construction signs make sense as well - running a generator is expensive and you don't always have access to a power socket.
I've always felt that the south should have a much larger investment in solar water heating. There are areas where you could overbuild the system a bit and heat in the winter with it.
But then, solar water heating tends to be 3X as efficient with panels that cost 1/10th as much.
Post by: Physics on September 24, 2008, 10:22:01 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on September 24, 2008, 10:29:18 AM
Solar thermal is better, but only works on a large enough scale. Due to the nature of heat engines, the system needs to be run as hot as possible, for as long as possible for the best efficiency. However heat losses increase exponentially at these higher temperatures, necessitating more expensive, vacuum based insulation.
Just sayin'
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 10:43:17 AM
Guys, you build your solar panels where it's sunny most of the year, and the wind farms where it is windy all the time. What is silly is how easy solar can be. It can be integrated into buildings. Think, if every rooftop in America was solar, do you really think we'd be worrying about coal? My point is that what I said is true, we CAN power the whole country with wind and solar. Like I said, it would just be expensive.
No, we cannot. Not unless we covered some OTHER countries with windmills and solar panels. Like Canada and Mexico, respectively.
Wind and solar = expensive kool-aid. Stop drinking it, please.
We need nuclear reactors, and LOTS of them. Now. Do you have any idea how much real estate would need to be covered with expensive turbines to equal the output of a single 1200MW reactor?
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 12:05:08 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 12:07:54 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 12:09:29 PM
They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.
Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.
Post by: Nick1911 on September 24, 2008, 01:00:58 PM
They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.
And that right there is the reason I have a profound dislike for environmentalist.
Whenever I hear one whining about how there needs to be subsidies for alt. energy, I want to slap them and ask; "What have you done for alternative energy? What sacrifices have you made? Why don't you support alternative energy buying expensive solar panels that will help fund research?"
Oh no, that's too expensive. Instead, they petition to make me share in the cost of their asinine, altruistic quest while maintaining a smug facade of righteousness.
I think the free market works, and that if there's enough demand for something, it will be built.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2008, 02:09:25 PM
They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.
Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.
I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...
...from about 1978.
Somehow, it's always just around the corner.
Post by: Nick1911 on September 24, 2008, 02:26:34 PM
They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.
Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.
I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...
...from about 1978.
Somehow, it's always just around the corner.
It's those big evil oil companies! They buy out viable solar panel companies one millisecond before they become economically viable. Clearly it's a conspiracy.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 02:28:14 PM
They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.
Put it this way: There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.
I can show you that same claim in Popular Mechanics...
...from about 1978.
Somehow, it's always just around the corner.
There's a variety of off-the-grid people that use solar or wind for their homes.
Post by: Firethorn on September 24, 2008, 02:46:23 PM
There's a company in SA that makes solar panels that can feed a small suburban home with its electric needs and fit on the home's roof. IIRC they're experimental now, but I for one would buy them when they're ready.
The metric of 'feed a home off of panels on the roof' of power density has been met for years, even decades, especially with highly power saving appliances like Sun Frost* and the old fashioned clothes line or a new heat pump dryer. The problem is the cost of manufacture. Nuclear power can be construction for $1-3 per watt. In a year a watt's capacity of nuclear will produce about 3 times as much power as a watt of capacity of solar or wind.
So call me back when the complete cost of a solar install, to include inverters and install costs, drop to $1/watt.
*They use about a tenth of the power of a conventional refrigerator, unfortunately they also cost almost ten times as much.
Post by: Art Eatman on September 24, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
Solar panels are cheaper, now. Batteries are nearly double (been to a car parts store, lately?) and the materials for an inverter are more than double the cost of 15 years ago.
Now, if you're off in the boonies and go with propane for your refrigerator, stove and water heater, you can get by with three or so panels, a small wind unit and good-used golf-cart batteries. But you're not gonna run an arc welder or an electric refrigerator or a big air compressor. IOW, it's a lifestyle thing.
Even coal is not that cheap any more. China's demand for imported coal is quite profitable for some of our coal mining companies, and the last I looked, it was more than double in price. Around $160/ton, IIRC.
Long term, if anybody really thinks homo sap's CO2 is doing the Globular Worming thing, nukes are the only way to go.
Oh: This "removal of the ban" on offshore drilling? That's only far enough out that the areas still banned are where some 90% of the oil actually is. And it's possible that the phrasing actually institutes a ban on the presently-unbanned areas offshore of Alaska.
Today's Evans/Novak newsletter had this link: http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/drillviiihe092408.html
Art
Post by: BridgeRunner on September 24, 2008, 02:50:25 PM
We need nuclear reactors, and LOTS of them. Now.
And it's cleaner than "clean coal".
And no massive new environmental effects to deal with, like we're already seeing with wind power, and would doubtless see with large-scale solar power.
Nuclear power: no one loses.
Post by: freedom lover on September 24, 2008, 03:07:16 PM
Cool stuff. American hydropower.
Edit: The USAF is testing syngas.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4283188.html?series=15
Post by: Nick1911 on September 24, 2008, 03:22:10 PM
We need nuclear reactors, and LOTS of them. Now.
And it's cleaner than "clean coal".
And no massive new environmental effects to deal with, like we're already seeing with wind power, and would doubtless see with large-scale solar power.
Nuclear power: no one loses.
Is there a solution for nuclear waste? What does one do with it? Isn't it radioactive for like, 50,000 years?
Post by: Firethorn on September 24, 2008, 05:41:41 PM
Is there a solution for nuclear waste? What does one do with it? Isn't it radioactive for like, 50,000 years?
And Arsenic's forever.
1. What's called 'High level nuclear waste' that needs to be stored for 'XX' Thousand years is actually 90-95% usable fuel.
2. A gigawatt nuclear reactor produces 1 or 2 traincars of waste a year. Note: That includes the shielding on the cars. Newer reactors are more efficient, thus produce less.
3. After recycling*, the remaining isotopes will cool to the more or less arbitrary standard of 'as radioactive as the ore it came from' in a few hundred years.
4. Not to mention that you just reduced the amount by a factor of 20
5. Breeder reactors don't even need the recycling, well, most of them. For a breeder, reprocessing is normally done on site.
6. After sitting in a cooling pool for 40 years, then another 40 in a cask on the nuclear site, it's substantially cooler, going from something like 200 hairdryers to less than 1. This reduces reprocessing costs, and reduces additional radioactive waste from contamination.
7. Your average coal plant releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant produces that's safely contained. This is because a gigawatt coal plant can go through 200 train cars of coal a day.
8. For that matter, more energy could be obtained from the transuranics in coal than burning the coal.
9. Besides reprocessing, there's also a technology under development to bombard the waste with an accelerator - artificially causing it to undergo fission faster, incidently producing enough power to be useful once more.
*Don't the greenies WANT that?
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 04:01:43 AM
Quote
*Don't the greenies WANT that?
No, they don't. They don't want any new construction or any new power plants. Nukes are radioactive and dangerous. Coal pollutes. Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution. Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.
Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it. When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it. Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 25, 2008, 04:35:34 AM
Quote
*Don't the greenies WANT that?
No, they don't. They don't want any new construction or any new power plants. Nukes are radioactive and dangerous. Coal pollutes. Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution. Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.
Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it. When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it. Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.
No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".
Post by: Intune on September 25, 2008, 05:53:32 AM
Quote
voluntary human extinction movement
Are we allowed to sign people up? 
When does Hale-Bopp come back around? I still have my ticket... 
Post by: Wildalaska on September 25, 2008, 09:58:34 AM
WildlederhosenAlaska "
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 25, 2008, 10:01:39 AM
Quote
*Don't the greenies WANT that?
No, they don't. They don't want any new construction or any new power plants. Nukes are radioactive and dangerous. Coal pollutes. Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution. Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.
Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it. When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it. Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.
No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".
I thought that was parody.
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 10:32:09 AM
No, the most extreme ones readily now say that they hate humanity. Look up "voluntary human extinction movement".
I thought that was parody.
[/quote]
I've heard them describe it as a real goal. Many of them believe that the only way the earth can be restored is if humanity (or the vast majority thereof) is wiped out. They don't off themselves because someone has got to spread the word and insure everyone else kills themselves first.
If they could pull off the activities in Rainbow Six (the novel not the game), they would.
Post by: Physics on September 25, 2008, 11:24:28 AM
Quote
*Don't the greenies WANT that?
No, they don't. They don't want any new construction or any new power plants. Nukes are radioactive and dangerous. Coal pollutes. Wind turbines require mountain top destruction and visual pollution. Solar panels cause visual pollution, destroy wild life habitats, and reflect too much light that could blind migratory birds.
Greenies are part time luddites without the guts to admit it. When it comes to their own use of technology, they are absolutely for it. Polluting the planet to save it is one of their thought processes.
You of course realize that solar panels absorb light, not reflect it. They're designed that way. Why you would reflect the light that you are trying to convert to electricity is beyond me.
I am an environmentalist, and I am all for nuclear power, as a supplement to wind and solar. I'm not for coal, nor oil, nor natural gas. I'd much rather have visual pollution (that's what cities are anyways) than air and water pollution. Visual pollution doesn't give me cancer. Regardless if you are a believer in greenhouse gases having an effect on climate (and humans' impact on greenhouse gases), I'm sure most of you will agree that smog sucks. So does cancer.
I like hydroelectric too, but that is pretty much tapped out already. ]
Post by: BridgeRunner on September 25, 2008, 11:29:10 AM
Sportsman (and I think I am the last person on the planet who thinks that in English, the term sportsmen does actually include women as well) are the original environmentalists, and are still the best and most effective at the job.
Post by: buzz_knox on September 25, 2008, 11:34:37 AM
I've had the "pleasure" of dealing with greenies on a professional level. At least, our side was professional. I don't think you can call a side that takes extreme liberties with the truth in court and in public as being professional.
Post by: Firethorn on September 26, 2008, 06:11:53 AM
You of course realize that solar panels absorb light, not reflect it. They're designed that way. Why you would reflect the light that you are trying to convert to electricity is beyond me.
Because the panels only absorb a fraction of the light, and tend to reflect the rest. I don't know if this is a result of the process, or a deliberate design in order to keep the heat of the panel down.
Quote
I'm sure most of you will agree that smog sucks. So does cancer.
And I think that most of us agree - where we differ is that we're looking for the cheapest, fastest, most effective method.
That's pretty much nuclear power. Coal spews so much crud into the enviroment, while nuclear power keeps what little waste it generates safely contained.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2008, 06:19:37 AM
There's some silent concrete structures, and around it, quiet, clean salt marshes. Sometimes a couple of bass boats drifting around, and the hiss of breezes through the marshgrass. Meanwhile, inside, 1400MW of power are being produced. If they finished Unit 2, it would be 2800MW produced.
Who in their right mind objects to that?
Post by: slingshot on September 26, 2008, 07:37:27 AM
More research needs to be done with biofuels. Using corn is not the answer. It has driven up prices and is probably not a good choice in the long run. There has to be a better souce material than sugar cane.
Post by: Desertdog on September 27, 2008, 06:30:42 PM
Post by: Firethorn on September 29, 2008, 07:43:52 AM
One thing that I wish the electric producers would look at all the roofs that are suitable for mounting solar panels and offer to mount panels at no cost to the consumer for maybe a 50% reduction in their electric bills.
Why would the power company want to do that? First, they create a maintenance nightmare of trying to keep the panels up and working, reasonably dust free. Second, solar panels cost too much, preventing any ROI in any decent timeframe, even with government subsidies paying 50-75% of the installation costs.
Quote
The benifits to the producers would be no outlay for land, no Enviormental Reports, just a building permit from the city/county. And I would think that they could probably get a reduced charge for the permits.
And instead end up in endless negotiations with homeowners, still pay 5X as much per kwh produced as building a new nuke plant, environmental reports included, and get sued everytime a roof with their panels on it experiences damage?
You know, I've had a thought. How about rather than charging real estate taxes on the value of the house, you charged on the value of the land and the square footage of the house? Maybe a modifier for energy efficiencyThat way you get fewer McMansions and more efficient/well constructed homes.
Post by: Antibubba on September 29, 2008, 07:45:15 PM
Quote
Quote
if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer, Biden said.
That sure sounds fishy to me. He could buy his own island and never attempt to find an answer. It's his money after all.
if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer, Biden said.
That sure sounds fishy to me. He could buy his own island and never attempt to find an answer. It's his money after all.
$4 Billion to sequester Biden on an island would be a good deal. Where do I contribute?