Coal Panderama In Kentucky
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 05.12.08
Obama is running a new ad in Kentucky, saying he supports investing $200 million in clean coal technology; the ad says Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs". He has also said previously, in Nevada, (below the fold) "If we can figure out a way to produce coal generated power cleanly, then we should be for it, but I am not going to license or encourage coal that’s dirty. The technology is going to have to prove itself, and right now we’re not quite there yet." Too bad he didn't have the nerve to say that in Kentucky.
Clinton is also bullish on coal. "We're sitting on a huge natural resource," she said, before pledging to invest more federal funds in sequestering carbon dioxide from coal power plants.
Obama downplaying coal in Nevada
He might have pointed out (as David Roberts does in Huffpo) that coal mining isn't exactly terrific for Kentucky these days, what with mountaintop mining and mechanization. Roberts suggests that Obama shoul have taken the high road like he did with the gas tax:
"Start by telling the truth: as president, he would stop the expansion of dirty coal. No new coal plants would be built unless they could fully sequester their greenhouse gas emissions. He would offer R&D money, loan guarantees, and subsidies to assist in the development of cost-effective carbon capture and sequestration, but it's likely to take at least 10-20 years, and when/if it exists, there's no guarantee it would be more than a small portion of our energy balance. In other words: there is going to be no coal boom in an Obama administration."
Roberts continues: "That's the truth politicians refuse to tell the people of WV and KY: the future is not in coal. Clinging to coal is clinging to a sinking ship."
Even the Wall Street Journal is asking "Clean Coal: Black Gold or Fool’s Gold?" and concludes "the sticky point is the same—whether it’s in 2020 or 2030, commercially-viable clean coal plants will take a long time to become a reality. Even then, they will be more expensive—and probably less efficient—than current coal-fired plants, which means even more power stations will be needed to make the same amount of juice. And permanently storing carbon requires a whole different bag of tricks than just capturing it at the plants."
Solar and WIND POWER are much better alternatives. With 10-20 years of research and money spent on research we could start by making sure our school buses were green and schools and universities were completely off grid. I came from WV and our schools were awful.
This makes me seriously rethink a vote for Obama. I am disappointed. I hope his campaign rethinks their stance on support for coal--we just can't afford to be investing in in as an energy source. There are so many benefits of leaving coal production behind--health, environmental, economic...
Clinton makes me queasy. :P
Yeah, hearing things about Obama and coal makes me disappointed, but are there ANY candidates who are good for the country on all counts? How do I prioritize things like environment and healthcare (to name only two issues), let alone everything else?
Who's the candidate that doesn't support coal or nuclear? Mike Gravel, Mike Gravel, Mike Gravel...
interesting how the two videos show a different side of obama. i hope he doesn't do the standard political bags of tricks where you tell each state what they want to hear to get their votes. we need a true and clear green candidate that will stand for keeping our planet clean...!
"Clean" coal is the stupid part of Obama s energy policy,the rest looks OK to me.The first good point in a vote for Obama is out of Iraq,the next is his energy policy minus the clean coal.My only comment is he must of recieved some very good contributions from the coal lobby.Coal was high tech in the 1800 s but now I do not belive this to be the case.
Clean-Coal:
the problem is Clean-coal hasn't been developed yet. Clean-ER coal yes, but thats not good enough. We need it to be entirely clean. However, We should be looking into completely clean coal because we have ridiculous amounts of it in this country, as do developing countries who will soon be industrializing en masse.
Wind and Solar:
Base loads people, base loads. I love wind and Solar, and with my desire to see electric cars floording American Highways, I want solar panels on every roof in the country. However, when the lights go out, unless you want to initiate a massive power storage infrastructure, and you are willing to trust the weather to not screw your wind turbines, you need a base load provider with no carbon footprint, which brings me to my favorite of the bunch:
NUCLEAR:
Love it or hate it people, if we do it like the French, waste is barely radioactive for a century (current national interim storage is holding about a half-century worth) and it's carbon safe, and clean NOW. When you need a FAST expansion of the grid's capacity to accomodate for electric cars, I think you have to go with nuclear. besides, it's only a hold-over for fusion...which is comming...any day now...right?
Clean-Coal:
the problem is Clean-coal hasn't been developed yet. Clean-ER coal yes, but thats not good enough. We need it to be entirely clean. However, We should be looking into completely clean coal because we have ridiculous amounts of it in this country, as do developing countries who will soon be industrializing en masse.
Wind and Solar:
Base loads people, base loads. I love wind and Solar, and with my desire to see electric cars floording American Highways, I want solar panels on every roof in the country. However, when the lights go out, unless you want to initiate a massive power storage infrastructure, and you are willing to trust the weather to not screw your wind turbines, you need a base load provider with no carbon footprint, which brings me to my favorite of the bunch:
NUCLEAR:
Love it or hate it people, if we do it like the French, waste is barely radioactive for a century (current national interim storage is holding about a half-century worth) and it's carbon safe, and clean NOW. When you need a FAST expansion of the grid's capacity to accomodate for electric cars, I think you have to go with nuclear. besides, it's only a hold-over for fusion...which is comming...any day now...right?