Biden: 'No coal plants here in America'

[Desertdog]

What we get if Obama - Biden wins.

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.

[slingshot]

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.

[Nick1911]

Hmm... The "NO" party says "NO" again.  Surprise. 

[HankB]

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.

[slingshot]

I can't understand why these bums don't get thrown out of office.  Maybe I do....  the SYSTEM protects it's OWN.

[FTA84]

There this a saying; Everyone has a religion.  Because, to some extent, a religion is a system of beliefs based upon facts that are neither confirmable or deniable.  Even atheism is a religion, you can neither confirm or deny that there is an afterlife.

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.

[Manedwolf]

Hmm... The "NO" party says "NO" again.  Surprise. 

This time, they said "NO and give us billions to distribute to our friends."

[Tallpine]

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

#3 is the tough one 

[Physics]

Coal is also non-renewable, and it pollutes, a lot, and it's more radioactive than nuclear plants.   However, the United States also has some of the largest coal resources in the world, and coal is cheap.  This does make coal desirable while more research is put into making solar and wind more efficient and cost effective.  I've also heard a lot about using algae to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which could be promising. 

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. 

[Ben]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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...

[Crosshair]

It's like nobody wants to mention nuclear it seems. Russia will have its first BN-800 class breeder reactor operational in 2012. Its predecessor, the BN-600, has been operating since 1980 with no serious accidents.

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.

[Firethorn]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/mccain-calls-for-ample-nuclear-reactor-construction/

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'.

[taurusowner]

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'.

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.

[HankB]

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.

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.

[anygunanywhere]

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

[Manedwolf]

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.

[TF_FH]

I've always thought solar was GREAT!  For special purpose applications.  Out in the middle of nowhere?  Small solar panel for recharging batteries/weather radio is good.  Out in space?  Solar panel is a hell of a lot more efficent and cheaper to put in orbit than other power sources.  But thats about it.

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.

[Firethorn]

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.

[Physics]

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. 

[Nick1911]

Photovoltaics aren't economically feasible at this point in time.

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'

[Manedwolf]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

Manedwolf, there are purposes for which solar and wind stuff, built by private individuals at their own expense, is useful.

[Manedwolf]

They don't want to build it at their own expense. They always want government subsidies.

[MicroBalrog]

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.