Nanker Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 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. Of course, that will create billions in wealth for the government that they can use for windmills, solar panels and gyroscopes to keep the earth from spinning off its axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 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. Of course, that will create billions in wealth for the government that they can use for windmills, solar panels and gyroscopes to keep the earth from spinning off its axis. he said the cost of operating a coal powered plant would bankrupt them (the plant) because the amount of emissions would cost big bucks. Not the coal industry and that's pretty much true of ANY cap and trade system, which, oh by the way, McCain supports. the reason is that coal fired power plants are the primary emitter of greenhouse gases, besides the millions of automobiles. but nice try on the propaganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...t-coal-industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...t-coal-industry same link as your comrade Nanker, does posting it twice make it more right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I heard Obama say he was in favor of clean coal technology. It still uses coal doesn't it.? Was Obama lying? Why of course he was. Obama is a lying communist fraud. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves to let the communists hijack thier party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I heard Obama say he was in favor of clean coal technology. It still uses coal doesn't it.? Was Obama lying? Why of course he was.Obama is a lying communist fraud. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves to let the communists hijack thier party. he is in favor of clean coal technology, do you even have a clue of what that means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 he is in favor of clean coal technology, do you even have a clue of what that means? No I do not, I just assumed it use coal in some form and he was pitching it in rural Pennsylvania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No I do not, I just assumed it use coal in some form and he was pitching it in rural Pennsylvania. it could involve chemical cleaning of the coal, using steam to remove sulfur dioxide from the flue gases, or carbon capture and storage to scrub CO2 from the smokestack. That totally changes the emission characteristics of coal burning plants, but (so far) costs big bucks. Obama wants to invest in this stuff to make it more cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 it could involve chemical cleaning of the coal, using steam to remove sulfur dioxide from the flue gases, or carbon capture and storage to scrub CO2 from the smokestack. That totally changes the emission characteristics of coal burning plants, but (so far) costs big bucks. Obama wants to invest in this stuff to make it more cost effective. Nothing wrong with that. While we are on the energy subject , how come he doesnt support Nuke power plants? That would signifacantly reduce the cost of electicity.I have been listen to cheaper oil , alternative energy etc. for the past 30 years and nothing has been done and both parties are responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Nothing wrong with that. While we are on the energy subject , how come he doesnt support Nuke power plants? That would signifacantly reduce the cost of electicity.I have been listen to cheaper oil , alternative energy etc. for the past 30 years and nothing has been done and both parties are responsible. you're right, nothing wrong with that, and he's taken some heat from environmentalists for his position on coal. He's in favor of nuclear power, but doesn't see it as the silver bullet for solving the energy problems. IMO, nuclear power is cheap and clean. The problem is getting rid of the spent fuel. It's probably the biggest NIMBY issue in the country. There used to be a deal for Russia to take a bunch of it off our hands, but that got killed, maybe because of Georgia, not sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 you're right, nothing wrong with that, and he's taken some heat from environmentalists for his position on coal. He's in favor of nuclear power, but doesn't see it as the silver bullet for solving the energy problems. IMO, nuclear power is cheap and clean. The problem is getting rid of the spent fuel. It's probably the biggest NIMBY issue in the country. There used to be a deal for Russia to take a bunch of it off our hands, but that got killed, maybe because of Georgia, not sure... Nuclear power is to answer to electricity also it appears that a large scale electric car is in the near future consuming yet more electricity. The lobbyists have thier foot full in the door in Washington and I really dont think either party will sove it .For instance the Democrats are against drilling is that because of the enviroment or one could say they are doing big oil a favorby keeping the price of oil up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 he said the cost of operating a coal powered plant would bankrupt them (the plant) because the amount of emissions would cost big bucks. Not the coal industry :wallbash: and that's pretty much true of ANY cap and trade system, which, oh by the way, McCain supports. the reason is that coal fired power plants are the primary emitter of greenhouse gases, besides the millions of automobiles. but nice try on the propaganda Just feeding back the other side. What did you think of Senator Hairplugs for Men's comments about clean coal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 he said the cost of operating a coal powered plant would bankrupt them (the plant) because the amount of emissions would cost big bucks. Not the coal industry :wallbash: and that's pretty much true of ANY cap and trade system, which, oh by the way, McCain supports. the reason is that coal fired power plants are the primary emitter of greenhouse gases, besides the millions of automobiles. but nice try on the propaganda Just who the fusk is "them" then? Does the newspaper industry build coal fired energy producing plants? And what the hell does this statement mean? "The only thing 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 a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." He speaks gibberish and stutters while doing so. He's a jug-eared double-speaking doofus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Just feeding back the other side.What did you think of Senator Hairplugs for Men's comments about clean coal? I think Mr Biden is struggling with his personal issues against coal which he has stated a lot in the past and the fact that he now has to support clean coal as part of Obama's platform. So he slips at times and says dumb things that the press and republicans pounce on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Just who the fusk is "them" then? Does the newspaper industry build coal fired energy producing plants?And what the hell does this statement mean? "The only thing 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 a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." He speaks gibberish and stutters while doing so. He's a jug-eared double-speaking doofus. Obama's quote is not about the coal industry; it is about the utility that operates the coal-fired power plant. He is saying it will cost more to operate the plant and pay the carbon dioxide emissions "cap" that it will generate in revenue from electricity. I listened to that recording a couple times and while it isn't real clear, what he is saying is that, rather than taking coal off the table, he is supporting coal if technology allows it to be burned without being a heavy emitter of pollutants, aka clean coal. This has always been his position, but I agree that it doesn't jump out at you from that tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Obama's quote is not about the coal industry; it is about the utility that operates the coal-fired power plant. He is saying it will cost more to operate the plant and pay the carbon dioxide emissions "cap" that it will generate in revenue from electricity. Because the cost will never be passed on to the consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Because the cost will never be passed on to the consumer. Obama's not only giving out 'free' lunches, he's giving three square away for 'free'. And the best thing is it'll only cost the 'rich'. I'm onboard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 he said the cost of operating a coal powered plant would bankrupt them (the plant) because the amount of emissions would cost big bucks. Not the coal industry and that's pretty much true of ANY cap and trade system, which, oh by the way, McCain supports. the reason is that coal fired power plants are the primary emitter of greenhouse gases, besides the millions of automobiles. but nice try on the propaganda So, how would getting rid of the sole use for coal... not bankrupt the industry? What if we banned cars, wouldn't that put gas stations out of business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 So, how would getting rid of the sole use for coal... not bankrupt the industry? What if we banned cars, wouldn't that put gas stations out of business? While coal fired electricity plants are the largest consumer of coal, they aren't the only ones. Coke to make steel, exports, etc. are some of them. Secondly, he didn't say, or even hint about getting rid of coal. What he said was "if someone wants to build a plant.." That means new plants that are not already in service will pay a high cap. It's much like pollution requirements on cars that were mandated starting in the 1970s; new cars had strict requirements to lower emissions and older cars were grandfathered in with lesser restrictions. Existing plants will still pay a cap, but a smaller one. If we want to start making progress on climate change, we absolutely have to focus on the heaviest emitters of greenhouse gases, which are the coal-fired power plants. It will force development in clean coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, as well as alternative energy sources and nuclear power plants. If we can develop clean coal and other alternatives through innovation, we make significant progress on energy independence and start reducing greenhouse gases at the same time. Will the cost of electricity go up? Most likely, but we have to start getting serious about climate change, and the only way to do that is to begin with the biggest offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 he is in favor of clean coal technology, do you even have a clue of what that means? You might not like this link, but I encourage you to search further for yourself. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/lippo.htm The quid pro quo delivered by the the Clintion adm. locking up U.S. low-sulfur coal in exchange for the Lippo Group's campaign contributions comes back to haunt... Don't forget to pay your energy bills this Winter. You might want to by an inefficient space heater from the Chinese built by factories using "dirty" coal, if that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts