Sunday, November 02, 2008
Climate change activism in practice
The latest widely-publicized moment of Obamacandor is this bit from an interview last summer, in which he expresses, essentially, the intention to bankrupt the coal industry:
Of course, if you believe that anthropogenic global warming has the potential for global cataclysm, then perhaps this is a refreshing moment when a politician with a lot on the line speaks truth to power. Similarly, if you believe that the case for AGW or its consequences has not been made, much less proved, this video reveals the stakes. Policies designed to avert the predicted climate change will have massive consequences for very specific people, and, no, mythical "green collar" jobs will not make up the difference.
CWCID: Right-Wing Nuthouse.
10 Comments:
By 
SR, at
Sun Nov 02, 02:43:00 PM:
This should have been playing ad nauseum in PA, OH, and WVa for the last two months.
By Unknown, at
Sun Nov 02, 03:05:00 PM:
CO2 emissions have the same effect on the US whether they are produced domestically or overseas. Perhaps we should take out other countries' coal fired plants :-).
By 
, at
Sun Nov 02, 06:10:00 PM:
Coal is great if A) you don't mind 48 tons of mercury pollution annually (figure from 1999,) and B) are going totally disregard chemically washed ("clean") coal and nukes with safe storage, which are comparable or superior. Interestingly, neither candidate is willing to do B), and I suspect neither candidate is willing to either.
If mercury pollution is not unsettling to you, some background: the phrase "mad as a hatter" is derived from the nervous disorders that can arise through frequent exposure to mercury. However, even small amounts of mercury are sufficient to cause demyelination and nervous disorders. The stuff tends to accumulate in food chains (particularly aquatic ones) and thus can enter human systems via things like seafood.
Also, it is not a lack of coal plants that would make power expensive, it is a total lack of demand response in the power markets causing things like congestion. This is one of the big arguments in favor of a "smart grid".
By , at
Sun Nov 02, 08:28:00 PM:
Eric's last paragraph is quite misleading.
Congestion is frequently not caused by a lack of demand response (although "demand response" may have several definitions). Rather it is an effect of cheap generation being sited far away from large loads combined with insufficient transmission capacity between the two points.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Nov 02, 08:36:00 PM:
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see the end of coal as a source of energy. For starters, I'd love to go back to eating Adirondack fish, which is consider unsafe on account of mercury from coal combustion. But, I do not see how we can eliminate coal without building a lot more nuclear power plants, and Barack Obama is opposed to doing that, too.
By , at
Sun Nov 02, 10:01:00 PM:
Two things:
First, it makes no sense to bankrupt the coal industry. As Steve mentioned, other countries also make CO2.
China is bringing a lot of new coal based powerstations online:
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/importance-of-living-carbon-neutral.html
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/co2-emissions-are-accelerating.html
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-effective-is-kyoto-protocol.html
Two. This whole "carbon neutral" bull is, well, bull. It is nothing just a new way to make some money. A good example is the http://www.climatechocolate.com site. Yes, this is for real. I found it by ... looking at a chocolate bar at the Vancouver Aquarium.
Vilmos
By , at
Sun Nov 02, 10:18:00 PM:
@ nobrainer:
In my own defense, most electrical grids I am familiar with only experience periodic (ie noncontinuous) congestion, with factors such as outages, gas price, or load revealing insufficiencies in the grid via congestion. Smart grids could potentially mitigate the role that load plays in that equation, because it does matter if we can dial down air conditioning and such for even an hour. Admittedly, it would be great if we could site nukes right next to population centers and use the waste heat for residential heating, but that would require more than a few things not present in the status quo.
@TH: I seem to recall Obama listing nukes in a positive way in his convention speech, and his position paper lists nukes favorably provided we can control the waste. Also, nukes aren't the only option: the biggest generator in the US produces 7GW (the equivalent of 6 nuke units,) and is a dam in Washington. Geothermal is similarly fantastic. Siting these plants is also difficult, but not impossible.
One way to truly solve the problem would involve revolutionizing large-scale storage, which is at best 50% efficient by means of (I kid you not) pumping water uphill.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Nov 02, 10:24:00 PM:
By , at
Sun Nov 02, 10:32:00 PM:
The mercury issue is being addressed via the "Clear Skies Initiative", which stipulates Hg reduction programs in place or planned by implementation date of 2010. A lot of coal-fired generators are already deploying Hg reducing technologies, now.
There are over 400 coal burning power plants in the US. How do we replace the GIGAWATTs of power these generate in one generation?
What is the industrial base for building fission burning plants in the US?
What is the industrial base for building any of the other new "green" technologies for electrical generation?
Numbers mean something. Tossing around theoretical hypothesis for getting away from burning all that "icky" coal is just so much mental masturbation.
-David
By , at
Mon Nov 03, 07:00:00 AM:
The DC Circuit threw out the Clean Air Mercury Rule, so EPA is back to the drawing board on that one.
As for "Climate Change" legislation that will kill American industry, take a read of the Dingell - Boucher draft bill. It is over 400 pages long, so have plenty of caffeine available. Ask yourself, as you read, whether we can really afford to let the party that gave us subprime lending to "clean up" our environment.
