There’s a lot of heated words on Memeorandum on Obama’s taped conversation with the SF Chronicle about coal, and I think they are unfair.
Here are some headlines:
Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO– Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!
OBAMA BRAGS ABOUT BANKRUPTING COAL POWER PLANT COMPANIES
…and so on.
They’re kind of full of it.
First of all, he’s talking about making it difficult to build new coal plants. not shutting down existing ones. No one gets “bankrupted” in that scenario.
I’m not sure that’s a wise approach, given new clean-coal technologies, and I don’t see how it fits into a broader energy policy that revolves around replacing oil imports, but I absolutely don’t think it merits the level of hysteria and hyperbole that’s presented.
Here’s what Obama’s latest policy paper on energy (pdf) has to say about coal:
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology. Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with
domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will
provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack
Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration.
So under cap-and-trade, you can build a “clean coal” plant – one with extremely low carbon outputs – but if you build a “dirty-coal” plant, the cost of the carbon output will be uneconomical.
I really don’t see this as exceptional; in the mid-term, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables are far more important.
having said that, I think his policy on nukes is hypocritical.
“Bankrupt” was the headlines’ reproduction of Obama’s own description, as to the effect of the proposal.
So, what’s unfair?
Because if you listen to his words, he says that the developer of a new coal plant that his a high carbon output would be bankrupted by the costs. Not that the owners of existing plants would be.
Subtle difference, but important.
A.L.
Obviously Obama needs to start reading his own policy papers, because he’s got himself all wrong.
His exact words:
Why do I believe this more than the wonk-droppings in the policy paper?
Uh,Glen – that’s what the policy paper says.
A.L.
It’s a little puzzling to imagine what people think McCain’s supported cap-and-trade policy involves if it isn’t this exact same scenario.
Actual head-worn caps ?
Seriously, what have you understood about these policies if this is surprising ? It’s THE WHOLE POINT.
It’s like saying you support McCain’s tax plan but Obama is going to make the IRS take a percentage of your wages OMG!
There are going to be alot of people with buyers remorse 6-12 months into Obama’s presidency.
Kilo: That’s a common confusion I’ve endured for a long time now. Just because I oppose something, doesn’t mean I support ‘the alternative’. I’ll just as happily blast McCain as being no real alternative at all.
A plague on all your houses. The price of energy if fungible (meaning interchangeable). So if Obama thinks he has the unilateral fiat power to stop new coal power plant production without Congress, and put new plants in bankruptcy he’s wildly ignorant of resource economics. Shifting to a greater proportion of higher cost natural gas or Green Power (wind, solar) will drive up the price of cheaper coal-fired energy and make existing coal plants more profitable. Shows you how much Obama knows about economics. If he wanted to put “Dirty Coal” out of business (say @$100/kW hour)he would build more dams and cheap hydropower (@$25-$50/kW hour), but that would be environmentally politically incorrect. Or he could get Congress to approve the new mini-nuke plants that will eliminate ugly, costly, and fire hazard prone transmission lines, that would generate clean energy and could put many utilities out of business (go to hyperionpowergeneration.com)
But again, that would be impolitic. What’s he know about power economics or new energy technologies? Apparently nothing.
There should be no taxes on coal plants.
There should be NO subsidies on corn ethanol just because Iowa is a state of political importance.
There should be NO tariffs on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, just to prop up corn ethanol.
See the trend here. NO government interference. Let the markets work!
A.L., Obama portrayed his cap & trade system as aggressive, in fact the most aggressive, using terms like “100% of pollution.” Yes, he did talk about new construction during his explication but I have no reason to believe that existing plants won’t be subject to the plan.
This becomes particularly clear during this part of his comments:
“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
Almost half of our electricity today comes from existing coal fired plants, this would be the place where the “skyrocket” effect he’s talking about comes in.
I don’t know nor do I care much about what his policy paper might say. We have it straight from the horse’s mouth as it were, where he is openly asserting his cap & trade program will bring real, widespread pain in an attempt to force structural change in our energy industries. He’s talking about necessary skyrocketing in consumer prices, industry player being driven to bankruptcy if they disagree, etc.
This is really some amazing stuff, A.L. Camp BO must be thanking their lucky stars the Republicans are so inept that his coming out so late in the game (look at the map of coal producing states! wow). It’s all rather incredible, really. I wouldn’t be believing it if I weren’t sitting here watching it with my own eyes!
PUMA + COALGATE = OBAMA RIP
[Ted, we try to encourage substantive posts here. This is only your second post here, and your batting average isn’t looking so hot. Please try to do better. Thanks.
–NM]
Obviously Obama isn’t interested in pushing this policy two days before the election, not with several states full of coal-industry workers and all.
But is this something he said months and months ago because, back then, he was running for the primary (and thus needed every vote he could get from the environmental wing of his party), and thus something he’ll abandon as a dead letter upon achieving office?
Or is this something he said because that’s he got caught off guard and that was his actual take on the issue, rather than the milquetoast campaign position paper that he’s displaying directly before the general election?
Either way, it’s amazingly stupid. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that power generation needs in the US are going to continue to increase. “Clean coal” power is not CO2-emission-free; it’s scrubbing the exhaust to remove actual pollutants like sulfur. The “zero CO2 emission” test plants that Obama would want to have constructed don’t exist; the technologies for total carbon sequestering don’t exist; and even if we manage to develop them, a liquid CO2 storage leak has serious potential to kill lots of people. Research there is certainly useful. It is NOT a replacement for an energy policy.
AL, I’m actually a bit disappointed in you. If you come out and say, “Hey, people can still build coal-fired power plants, so long as they only emit cute puppies,” what you’re actually saying is “there will be no building of new coal-fired power plants.” (If this were to be attended by a rise in nuclear generation, I’d feel better about it. But I’m going to wager that Obama hasn’t come out in favor of more nuclear generation, has he?)
Ah well. This is the sort of half-cocked idea that goes to die in the Senate. Sure, it’ll be full of Democrats, but is it that different from the Senate that killed Kyoto 95-0? At the end of the day, not really.
Suppose that I think that it’s a good idea to slow global warming by making the penalty for emitting CO2 so high as to bankrupt the owners of new coal-fired generating stations.
Why wouldn’t I want to apply the same logic to the owners of existing coal-fired stations?
I can see the key reason–it would be very disruptive to society. Sudden changes in fortunes of utility holding companies, bankruptcies, losers and winners among pension funds and other investors, pink slips to workers, abrupt hikes in electric rates with all its downstream consequences.
That said, a kilogram of coal turned into kilowatts of electricity is going to generate a certain amount of CO2. Whether it comes out of a new smokestack, or an old one.
So the challenge will be to craft a slower-unfolding policy for existing plants that is consistent with the Green doctrine that Obama expresses on the tape.
As always, the law of unintended consequences lurks in the background (e.g., see comment #7). To their eventual surprise, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will discover that they are no more immune to it than was S2BX President Bush.
avater: _Clean coal” power is not CO2-emission-free; it’s scrubbing the exhaust to remove actual pollutants like sulfur. The “zero CO2 emission” test plants that Obama would want to have constructed don’t exist; the technologies for total carbon sequestering don’t exist; and even if we manage to develop them, a liquid CO2 storage leak has serious potential to kill lots of people. Research there is certainly useful. It is NOT a replacement for an energy policy._
Yes, the big federal pilot project started in ’03, “FutureGen”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen was cancelled by DOE this year because the cost of carbon sequestering was busting the budget as an economically replicable concept. I also suspect from the site selection process that unique geological features for carbon sequestering limit the technology to specific areas of the country.
bq. it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
Question: has anyone checked out how much cost this would add to a biomass plant? Is anyone planning on capturing and charging for all the “greenhous gas” that goes into planting, irrigating, harvesting, and producing a gallon of ethanol?
How about charging a carbon tax on the disposal companies for hybrid batteries and fuel cells–how long will THAT remain economical?
We clearly need more specifics out of Obama on his energy policy. And McCain for that matter.
Note that Obama didnt necessarilly limit his remarks to new refineries, he spoke about them specifically, but not exclusively.
Cap and trade is going to affect existing plants. It has to, otherwise it will be pointless. It will certainly affect anyone that needs to refurbish or expand.
Obama’s plan is to subsidize clean energy (as we have been for a long time) and increase the price of ‘dirty’ energy to make clean competitive. At the end of the day, that’s what cap and trade IS. McCain has proposed something similar. I guess it really comes down to who is going to follow through with it most acutely and intensely.
The only evidence we really have is “McCain’s”:http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s139is.txt.pdf legislation, and Obama’s words. Obama is talking about making it impossible to open a new coal plant. I’ve never seen anythign to indicate McCain is that hard core.
We’ve seen how the nuclear industry has been affected by similar tactics. If we never want another power plant built in this country, we are certainly on the right path. At some point in the future, Obama is saying: No nuclear, and no coal. I would urge people to research just how much energy would need to be replaced barring those two technologies. The amount of windmills or solar stations required is HUGE, even if you take the technology to its maximum possible efficiency. We are talking land the size of entire states required.
The purpose of a cap-and-trade program is not to bankrupt an industry or preclude new construction. That is, it’s not unless that’s your intended purpose. It’s just like a tax is not intended to bankrupt an industry (it would stop raising revenues) unless that’s it’s intended purpose.
bq. _First of all, he’s talking about making it difficult to build new coal plants. not shutting down existing ones. No one gets “bankrupted” in that scenario._
Again, that’s not a legitimate use of cap-and-trade. Under a legitimate program, new plants
would be built, they would just need to be relatively more efficient (not simply more efficient in CO2 mind you).
For example, you have a relatively small auto parts manufacturer in Northern Indiana. It’s having hard time due to problems in the domestic auto industry. The new CO2 cap-and-trade program imposes new requirements to monitor and report CO2 requirements. In return the company gets an alotment of CO2 emissions equivalent to its current usage. It has a choice at that point, the new regulations can cause it to close shop or it can see the emissions trading system as a way to make some money if the industry doesn’t turn around. Meanwhile, a group in Texas wants to build a power plant to support the growing demand for electricity. In fact, the cap and trade program have increased demand on the grid as smaller industries find it less economical to generate their own electricity. The Texans want to build a standard coal plant, and all they need is enough small plants to sell their emissions rights and enough electricity demand to pay for them.
This process worked fairly well with SO2 trading because there was available, but expensive technology to work with (exhaust scrubbing), alternative feed (low sulfur Western coal) and the availability of China and other countries to pick up some of the industries. SO2 trading did not stop new plants from being built.
To any and all Obama supporters:
Could you please offer specifics that justify this quote (referenced above) from Obama’s latest policy paper on energy:
“As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized.”
Has he proposed or co-sponsored legislation that address this issue?
Nuclear, coal, and hydro are the three methods that can generate baseload electricity efficiently, i.e. cheaply.
Customers on a given grid will use a certain number of megawatts fairly predictably; this number will vary with the season, the weather, the day of the week, and the time of day. The utility tries to generate the power up to the low number of this graph with baseload generators, were operating costs are low. Since these plants run essentially all the time, the capital expenditure for them can be high. Some types of generating facilities can’t really be shut down; they have to run 24/7, e.g. coal and nuclear. For baseload, that’s fine.
For the extra demands that comes and goes, utilities use different methods. Turbines that run on natural gas are typical. They are comparatively cheap to build, but much more expensive on a MW/hr generated basis, since a BTU from natural gas costs more than one from coal or uranium.
All of this is relevant to this discussion because:
* At present, electricity can’t be stored. It has to be generated as it is used.
* Most Green power generation methods are unsuitable for baseline load generation.
(In addition, most Green technologies would be difficult or impossible to scale to the point where they’d contribute a third, say, of the electrical demand.)
To consider windmills: they produce power when the wind blows. Thus, ten 20-MW windmill farms could contribute some amount to episodic grid demand; if the wind’s blowing at 3/4s of them, that’s 150 MW worth of gas turbines that don’t have to be run, and that amount of natural gas not burned as fuel.
But to use windmills for baseload, you’d have to ask: what’s the lowest amount of power that these windmill farms can reliably be expected to generate? Some days, the wind may only blow at 1/4 of them, meaning that the baseload contribution of that nominal 200 MW would be only 50 MW.
Just one more factor to add to the mix…
Whatever horse trading you want to build into cap-and-trade, the bottom line is always going to be a tax on the cheapest technology, which _must_ raise prices somewhere. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The entire purpose is to make cleaner technologies competitive by making dirty technology more expensive.
A.L-
Didn’t Biden let the cat out of the bag with this comment about killing clean coal? People say that He is going to subsidize new energy sources. Is everyone here too young to remember the Synfuels Corp from the Carter Admin?
We are soooo screwed. Stupidity is making a strong comeback. If The One wins tomorrow, we can expect 4 years that makes the Carter Admin look like Reagan. Well, I guess this generation gets to learn about decline first-hand.
STOP THE OBAMANATION OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!
[…snip. Frank, your rant, while heartfelt, was pretty much 100% off-topic for this thread.
This thread is about “Obama and Coal”. If you’d like to try again with something substantive and on-topic, be our guest. –NM]
I’d like to use AMAC’s comment to make the point I was trying to make in the previous thread:
bq. _The utility tries to generate the power up to the low number of this graph with baseload generators, were operating costs are low._
For my local utility, there are about eight generators, the oldest dating back to the 60s. Depending on the time of the year, different generators serve the baseload. Others are always peaking generators. From a regulatory and industrial standpoint, each of these generators is a plant. This last year, the utility got approval to build a new generator (200 MW coal), which will replace two 60s turbine generators (total 76 MW coal).
So when Obama says he will bankrupt anyone who wants to build a new plant. He’s telling me that the utility would have been forced to keep using the 60s turbine generators that are no doubt huge pollution emitters and are no doubt energy inefficient. They could have done that, it just would have increased maintenance cost, but it’s in no way an environmental solution.
Alternatively, Obama meant that my utility could keep replacing and expanding old generators — which obviously wouldn’t reduce CO2 emisions, it would just introduce monopoly pricing.
All that said, I still don’t think Obama understands cap-and-trade because a legitimate cap-and-trade would allow the utility to build a new generator that emitted the same amount of CO2 as the old generator.
Just to make something clear- take wind power. The _theoretical_ limit of wind power is directly related to the length of the turbine
Lets assume a perfect world where the wind blew at 20 mph all the time and the turbines had their maximum theoretical efficiency. My cocktail napkining may be off here but if you wanted to produce all the USA electricity with wind power, rotor to rotor you could circle the equator twice.
Solar at the moment is worse but it has more potential for efficiency increases. The bottom line is that renewable aren’t a free lunch, even with maximum theoretical efficiency. By their nature they take up huge amounts of space relative to traditional power plants. That requires all sorts of expense and sacrifices to the environment in its own right. And ultimately its just not going to be politically realistic for current wind and solar to EVER produce a majority of our electricity (aside from a game changer like orbital solar collections beaming energy down). Yes, renewables have their place, but we are horrifically shooting ourselves in the feet by tying ourselves to these particular technologies at the expense of the ones that work brilliantly (particularly nuclear).
So yes, electricity is going to become much more expensive if we insist on phasing out coal and nuclear, and no scheme is going to change that. Renewables, even in theory can’t compete unless we get to a place where we are using far less energy and paying much more for it. I think Obama and McCain need to address this, the current policy proposals are dangerous feel good illusions that are going to get us on a path we may struggle to get off of.
Mark B: Isn’t a policy to stop construction of new coal-burning power plans, a _de facto_ policy of encouraging constructin new nuclear power plants?
bq. [U]ltimately its just not going to be politically realistic for current wind and solar to EVER produce a majority of our electricity
Oh, pshaw! You’re just not thinking grandly enough. Get the US population down to say 25 million or so, and Bob’s your uncle!
Mark B.
Yeah, and we need to stop leaving this stuff to the last minute, right?
This campaign has been going on since the Hapsburgs ruled Austria and we still know nothing, nor are we meant to because we’re a bunch of f–king serfs. But we’re all full of “hope” – there’s a euphemism for you.
Oops, slipped a decimal. I meant 2.5 million.
Mike: _Has he proposed or co-sponsored legislation that address this issue [clean coal technology]?_
Obama has been considered a solid ally to clean coal technology until last year when his positions became contradictory. “American Coal Council”:http://tinyurl.com/5cqkm8
Me: Clean coal technology does not currently exist. (Avatar #11) Optimists say its about 15 years out from some sort of viable technology. I think its worth exploring, but as a government budgetary priority, I don’t think so. At some point, it’s just pork. We need more investment in battery technology and the grid. Most of the other treats that get handed-out will probably be waste.
[Cross-posted sp*m. Deleted. We value original, substantive content here. If you’d care to provide some, it’ll be received differently. –NM]
_”Mark B: Isn’t a policy to stop construction of new coal-burning power plans, a de facto policy of encouraging constructin new nuclear power plants?”_
In a rational world, yes. But not in this world. This Congress and Obama (assuming he is true to his track record) would rather stick spiggots in baby seals and suck out their blubber than see another nuclear plant built in this country.
Yes, ultimately we are going to have to reinvest in nuclear or all live in huts again. But its going to take a long hard fight and probably some sort of infrastructure disaster to get us back to that reality. I don’t see it any time soon.
Let me say this about Obama- he’s a brilliant politician. Clinton had a reputation for brilliance, but he was a master of self-preservation. I don’t know that he advanced his ideological agendy much assuming he had one.
Obama has an agenda (which a president should). He has shown that he can take rhetorical stands on some issues mildly outside his party lines… safe in the knowledge that with a democratic majority he is in no danger of actually being called on it.
The nuclear issue is a perfect example. He has said its worth looking at and hasnt expressly ruled it out. He doesnt need to. He appoints some panel to explore the issue and then files the report in the circular file. Pelosi is _never_ going to send him a bill to cut the red tape that makes building nuke plants prohibitively expensive (see Obama/Coal). So its a free opportunity to look moderate and open minded while never actually _acting_ in a way that presents political courage.
Obama has shown he is a genius at molding perceptions. Negative tax cuts, not welfare. Explore nuclear power (as though we dont have 60 years of data), but dont build plants. Its fairly easy to do with the media in the tank for you, but Republicans are making it easier still. McCain has done a terrible job of _timely_ counterattacks to make Obama explain himself. Instead McCain chimes in a day late and a dollar short and the media immediately claims Obama was taken out of context. I’ve never heard a human being that required so much context to be understood.
AFAIK, Obama’s Illinois track record on energy and the environment culminates in one piece of legislation he sponsored.
By way of background there is a suburban county of Chicago where the highest user of electricity is the sewage treatment plant (nearly non-stop stirring and mixing of poo). After treatment, the sludge used to be trucked to a landfill on the other side of the county. Several years ago, the landfill capacity was being reached and the plant began to reweigh what to do with the waste. They investigated a technology that had been used in Europe and was being modified for the U.S.
This “technology”:http://www.minergy.com/technologies/aggregate.htm heated the sludge in a melter to produce a glass aggregate that could be used in making things like shingles. As a by-product, the heated sludge produced energy which could be recovered. In comparison with trucks driving through the community every hour taking sludge to the landfill, use of this technology would result in a shipment of glass aggregate every three days or so.
Everything would have been fine except that the plant was located in the harbor, along with a lot of other old industrial plants. Community leaders wanted the harbor to be green space and wanted the treatment plant and everything else gone. The new technology was seen as a means of prolonging the viability of the plant.
Obama sponsored legislation to ban use of the technology within a mile of the lake. So the plant was built across the county on the site of the old landfill. Today, heavy trucks bustle through the community laden with sludge hourly. The taxpayors pay the cost of the transportation and lose the value of the energy recovery. And the harbor is still the same.
In Obama’s defense, he joined sponsorship of the bill on the day it was voted out of the Illinois Senate. He had nothing to do with it; he just wanted the credit.
Mark A:
bq. We are soooo screwed. Stupidity is making a strong comeback.
Yes, and it’s promoted by people who loudly proclaim their opponents to be ignorant and hostile to science.
Sigh.
The “alternative energy” issue is a perfect example of fashion triumphing over common sense.
Wind power does not, cannot and will not ever compete as a source of electrical energy. Why not? Two reasons; unreliability and truly terrible power density. In addition, can anyone tell me where to find an analysis of the lifetime carbon footprint of a typical wind generator? The same applies to ground-based solar and for the same reasons. Wind power does have limited use, however, for applications where intermittent availability doesn’t matter – which are largely limited to the pumping of water.
There are many technologies that, for reasons I can’t fathom, haven’t had anything like enough effort (read money) put into them. Most of them already work at least on a pilot scale; two examples are wave power and ocean thermal. One might or might not work but is worth pursuing if only because the money involved is minimal; Polywell fusion.
There is also one that definitely will work and can be made safe; nuclear, probably using some sort of pebble-bed variant. It must be possible to design an inherently stable nuclear reactor; evidence for this is that on at least one site, a nuclear reactor ran for approximately a million years and all the fission products stayed on site. Google “Oklo”. Needless to say, there weren’t many engineers in charge.
And there is of course the power technology that gives minor side benefits (/sarc off). Space solar.
And none of it is being used or even tried. One might reasonably ask why not. My stab at the answer? Greed and cowardice. I won’t bore anyone by speculating on who are the sufferers of these two maladies.
Wind and solar are sexy. You can see a windmill and a solar farm. They look good in commercials and on campaign literature.
Digging holes in the earth or turbines in the waves isnt telegenic. Thats my theory.
If i had my way we’d be pouring money into a go for broke space elevator project. If we could build one (or more), there is no limit to the kinds of things we could do in orbit for pennies on today dollars. Space solar and microwave retransmition is our best alternative if fusion remains ellusive (and i’m on for pursuing polywell fusion). But it would probably fry a few birds and be tied up in court by the tree huggers for decades.
_One might reasonably ask why not. My stab at the answer? Greed and cowardice._
People simply want a cheap source of energy that is portable, is fully renewable, does not need to be imported, and has no possible negative public health or environmental impacts. I blame the I word.
I would really have liked the candidates to have been asked to prioritize those features.
This is the Chicago Way.
The local power company, Exelon, is largely nuclear and is shopping for further growth. They recently offered to buy, at a huge discount, NRG, which has the lead new nuclear plant in review with the NRC.
A carbon emission tax will hugely benefit Exelon’s nuclear portfolio. It will indeed place huge hurdles before new coal plants and will add a large excise tax on existing coal generation. These costs will be passed along to the customer with the revenues going to the federal government.
Note that Bill Ayers’ father was head of Exelon’s predecessor, Commonwealth Edison, and that Exelon excutives have contributed heavily to Obama’s campaign. Obama, Exelon, and Mayor Daley are all political allies in the Chicago political world.
“Clean coal” means to me zero carbon dioxide emissions. That doubles the coal consumption and more than doubles the costs of generation. It is thermodynamically ludicrous.
Hey, I make my living building nuclear power plants but I still think carbon taxes are terrible public policy.
I’m looking at the fuller context of Obama’s quote. Here is what else Obama said in the interview:
bq. _”I was the first to call for a *100 percent auction on the cap and trade system,* which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” Obama continued. “That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year._
“Link”:http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable
That’s different than the cap-and-trade system I discussed in #16. Most such proposals grandfather in existing emissions by giving them permission to emit what they currently emit. I understand a “100 percent auction” to mean that every emitter of carbon has to purchase the right to continue emitting carbon. Under that approach existing plants that can’t afford the auction will be forced to close. The rich and powerful will crush the small and undercapitalized.
bq. But to use windmills for baseload, you’d have to ask: what’s the lowest amount of power that these windmill farms can reliably be expected to generate? Some days, the wind may only blow at 1/4 of them, meaning that the baseload contribution of that nominal 200 MW would be only 50 MW.
A study by a German utility company (I believe they’re currently the largest users of wind power) found the ratio was 10:1. That is, to replace 100mW of coal/nuclear/hydroelectric power you’d need 1000mW of wind generation. I can’t remember the link to the study right now but I suspect someone who’s good at web searches can find it relatively easily.
OK, I’m pretty sure I found the study I was referring to. “Here”:http://www.countryguardian.net/eonwindreport2005.pdf is the link to the PDF.
“First of all, he’s talking about making it difficult to build new coal plants. not shutting down existing ones. No one gets “bankrupted” in that scenario.”
Excuse me, didn’t he say the proposed C02 penalties would bankrupt them?
Do you really believe he is going to Grandfather Clause existing plants?
[Duplicate post. Content deleted without prejudice. –NM]
AL — I realize that Obama fills some sort of need to show status/superior morality or whatever, but no, he said what he said.
It’s why the Chronicle buried that bit. They knew it was poison.
First, Obama said he would bankrupt new coal plants, and second he said he would phase out Coal as much as possible by putting tariffs on the “carbon output.” FWIW, that logically leads to breathing taxes since yeah, humans also output carbon dioxide.
Next, Obama says he knows his plan would “skyrocket” electricity prices and he believes that is good — since it will cause people to use very little electricity. This is part and parcel of his plan to make gasoline at $10 a gallon.
Teleprompter Jesus wants to make most Americans poor. Rich yuppies who feel guilty love this, working class people like me HATE it. Of course, Blacks consumed by racial hatred for Whites would cut off their nose to spite their face. So there’s that too.
Obama’s plan is insane, a “Great Leap Forward” and part and parcel of his “Dear Leader” idiocy consumed by a mixture of hatred towards the White working/middle class (shared by Upper Class White Yuppies) and Volk Marxist idiocy with a dose of stupid Gaia worship.
Hopefully God will look after Drunks, small children, and the United States and spare us this disaster. If He does not, then Teleprompter Jesus MUST be opposed by every working and middle class person, and his Jonestown plan for everyone to drink some Kool-Aide in “Revolutionary Suicide” stopped. Period.
All this “Global Warming” junk might be affordable in the margins during good times — in a recession Obama’s plans for Carbon Tax / Cap and Trade is INSANE.
It also shows what Dems are — Smug Rich Yuppies, White-hating Blacks, and deluded gaia worshippers in a post-Christian era. NOTHING of this is consistent with either the Great Society of LBJ or FDR’s New Deal. Obama is basically saying no cheap energy — a giant economic halt and brutal depression.
Bottom line — the US and all other economies run on cheap energy. Obama promises energy that is prohibitively expensive, will ruin the economy, and put over 200K out of work in coal producing states, to “save the Planet” from “Global Warming” and reduce temps by say, an average of 1/2 of 1 percent, and that’s if the Chinese don’t go crazy on coal themselves. What, Obama will give them a stern talking to if they don’t stop making electricity and starve in mud shacks?
You all can drink the Kool-Aide all you want. If this Clown is elected, I hope to join the Coal producers, workers, auto makers, auto workers, and every other working and middle class person to impeach this Clown for whatever reason can be found. His illegal “Plumbers unit” covering up Auntie Illegal would do nicely.
Unfortunately whiskey, we’re stuck with Jesus Christ Obama for the next four years. I agree with you that he will be precisely the kind of disaster you paint, but on the bright side, he’ll keep Republicans in power for the next fifty years. Hopefully the Republicans who take over Congress in ’10 can slow down or stop JCO’s worst excesses and the Republican president in ’12 can reverse the worst of them.