Obama says he will bankrupt new coal power plants

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
Exactly - we're not going backward. we are revisiting it... with addition of advanced technology and knowledge. We can work toward those green-friendly technologies but we have to be practical and realistic. Technology like solar power... hydrodam... those are far too inefficient for us and not readily available due to geographical disadvantage.

But if we are to just go ahead with it anyway... we would have to destroy a tremendous amount of natural environment to build those in order to meet the power demand that one coal power plant can easily meet especially for California. Solar Power technology would work for Nevada and a couple of desert states (but mind you - the efficiency rate of current solar power technology is rather mediocre). Wind Power would work well especially in west & mid-west. These takes decades and crapload of money to develop and research. Coal Power Plant is easily done cheaply. Until those green-friendly technology arrive.... I'm sure coal power plant will be phased out. It's just that Americans cannot wait any longer for green-friendly power plants to come.

Just gotta be practical and cost-efficient especially for metro-areas with population of over millions. Nuclear/Coal Power Plant can provide those with ease without harming environment.
Click to expand...

Revisiting for useful information, and continuing to rely on are two very different concepts.
 
I think we will have steam engines instead of diesel/unleaded-dependent engine.
 
Energy companies will be charged directly for the amount of carbon they release into the atmosphere, so it puts pressure on them to invest in clean coal technologies. The less carbon they produce, the less they pay. Very clever plan.
Sure, there will be job losses in the short term, but I imagine huge amounts of jobs being created for clean sources of energy and the production of these new technologies. We are going to have to build these electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels, etc.
It all seems like a very "scary" headline for something that isn't scary at all. It is just plain old common sense.
 
I wonder whether or not Obama would realize that it could affect his chances of winning U.S. Presidential Election when some coal-producing states such Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia might be affected in terms of economy, direct and indirect jobs, and taxes by the bankrupt coal companies.
 
Jiro said:
think long-term dude..... think long-term..... money will be there.
Click to expand...
I am thinking long term which is exactly why I'm afraid money will not be there. Right now, our federal debt is around $10.7 trillion. Our future entitlement obligations are $53 trillion. Our tax revenues are around $2.7 trillion. We're having to borrow money from countries like China and print new money. And we're about to elect a president who promises all sorts of goodies to add to all that. This is all according to David Walker, who is the former US Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). He resigned earlier this year and started the Peter G. Peterson Foundation whose purpose is to get this information out. The website is here: Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Actually, since I'm typing this, I think I'll start a new thread about it.
 
imdeafsowhat said:
I think we will have steam engines instead of diesel/unleaded-dependent engine.
Click to expand...

aka Steam Punk :cool2: exactly my point. Steam engines in past were very inefficient, requiring a large amount of coal/trees. Now with modern technology & knowledge, steam engine would be very efficient with combination of solar & others and it's possibly better than gas power plant. I believe it's already been done in Spain? I don't remember where but it was developed for cash-strapped country.

with this severe budget deficit, I don't see how can federal government aggressively funds green-friendly R&D projects.
 
Sarah Palin and McCain have twisted Obama's words into making it sound like Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. It isn't true. Obama's saying that he's ok with new coal plants but with all the caps imposed on them, he thinks that will bankrupt them. He supports clean coal technology.

What's incredible is that McCain co-sponsored a bill to put caps on coal plants!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Miners_union_McCain_camp_twisting_truth_1103.html
 
Reba said:
Even if you don't use coal power, if the price goes up for coal power it goes up for all energy users and for the goods you buy.
Click to expand...

That's because people are still bent on using it no matter how much it kills them or destroys the environment.
 
netrox said:
Sarah Palin and McCain have twisted Obama's words into making it sound like Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. It isn't true. Obama's saying that he's ok with new coal plants but with all the caps imposed on them, he thinks that will bankrupt them. He supports clean coal technology.

What's incredible is that McCain co-sponsored a bill to put caps on coal plants!
Click to expand...
As they say, the power to tax is the power to destroy. He basically said he wants to aim his power to destroy at new coal plants. It's unclear to me if his carbon taxes, being high enough to bankrupt new plants, would also bankrupt old plants. It seems to me like it would, but I could be missing something.

For a number of reasons, I'm against cap and trade no matter whose name is on the bill.
 
BradB08 said:
That's because people are still bent on using it no matter how much it kills them or destroys the environment.
Click to expand...
Exactly how much does it kill them or destroy the environment compared to other power sources?

What practical alternatives do you suggest for residential use and commercial manufacturing power plants?
 
Reba said:
No. Allowing the coal plants while still developing new and improved energy sources.
Click to expand...

So you are not in favor of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?
 
I wish we can do away with dependence on fossil fuels and invest in solar or hydrogen energy!
 
jillio said:
So you are not in favor of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

More importantly - it reduces our dependence on foreign oil which is probably American's highest priority. Meanwhile - we will be dependent on OUR own fuel and at the SAME time - it creates jobs for Americans and ALSO at the same time - we can develop alternative energy technology. There are always incentives so I'm sure the government will provide incentive for coal power plant corporation to invest in those as well. I suppose the government will be collecting tax from coal power plant and using that into green-friendly technology R&D.

That is very beneficial for America.
 
shel90 said:
I wish we can do away with dependence on fossil fuels and invest in solar or hydrogen energy!
Click to expand...

we are but solar/hydrogen power technology are far too inefficient to meet our power demand and those will be extremely harmful to our environment as it will consume more resources than the output. It will take couple decades of R&D for it to be practical and cost-effective to meet our power demand. Meanwhile..... Coal Power Plant with modern technology (to reduce its carbon footprint and to increase its efficiency rate) is a logical and cost-effective choice.
 
Reba said:
Exactly how much does it kill them or destroy the environment compared to other power sources?
Click to expand...

What kind of question is this? Is this how you put down people by asking stupid questions?

Hello? Black lung disease? cO2 pollution?
 
Jiro said:
we are but solar/hydrogen power technology are far too inefficient to meet our power demand and those will be extremely harmful to our environment as it will consume more resources than the output. It will take couple decades of R&D for it to be practical and cost-effective to meet our power demand. Meanwhile..... Coal Power Plant with modern technology (to reduce its carbon footprint and to increase its efficiency rate) is a logical and cost-effective choice.
Click to expand...

Solar power isn't more harmful to the environment. It draws energy from the sun. The only drawbacks are cost and what to do on cloudy days.

I still think that clean coal is an oxymoron BUT if they can find a way to trap the carbon to reduce its' emission into the atmosphere, then it would make sense.
 
BradB08 said:
Solar power isn't more harmful to the environment. It draws energy from the sun. The only drawbacks are cost and what to do on cloudy days.

I still think that clean coal is an oxymoron BUT if they can find a way to trap the carbon to reduce its' emission into the atmosphere, then it would make sense.
Click to expand...

No No - you need to clear a huge amount of land for solar power panels in order to meet the power demand. About cloudy days and the problems.... I believe I've already mentioned about concept of Spain's Solar Tower. It uses updraft tower with warm air.

This is in Mojave Desert - CA (inefficient)
SolarTowerMojaveDesert.jpg


This is Spain's concept - Seville's Power Tower (btw - this requires 0 maintenance crew)
04.jpg



Curious about how big is this Seville Power Tower?
SolarTowerSize.jpg



Now you see why this is a bad idea to provide power especially for metro-area? If I remember correctly, you need about 62 Seville Power Tower just for California alone. And yes they did figure out how to trap certain amount of carbon to limit its output by a huge margin. There's a HUGE storage facility for that and it will be compressed & deposited somewhere (probably undersea or underground). There are several ways to deal with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top