After almost losing WVA primary to a Texas prisoner Obama "evolves" into being pro Coal

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/226867-obama-campaign-adds-clean-coal-to-its-website-amid-gop-complaints

Obama campaign adds 'clean coal' to website after GOP complaints
By Andrew Restuccia - 05/11/12 09:52 AM ET

The Obama campaign added a section on “clean coal” to its website this week after House Republicans alleged that the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan neglected the fossil fuel.

“President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology,” the website now says.

“The Recovery Act invested substantially in carbon capture and sequestration research, including 22 projects across four different areas of carbon capture-and-storage research and development.”

As of Wednesday, the website did not include “clean coal” in a graphic outlining the president’s much-touted “all-of-the-above” energy plan. The graphic mentions oil, natural gas, biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear.

Asked about the change, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said "clean coal" has "been an essential part of the president’s all-of-the-above energy strategy."

Republicans, earlier this week, highlighted the website to bolster their longstanding allegations that Obama has “declared war on coal.”

“Coal is still a valuable resource … and yet this administration has been open in the business of putting coal out of business,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), a vocal proponent of the coal industry, said during a House hearing.

“To not even mention coal as an important energy sector is unbelievable to me,” he added.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), another advocate of coal-fired power, piled on, claiming that the administration has a “deep-seated hatred for coal and the electricity generated by coal.”

Coal-fired power releases into the atmosphere high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, which scientists say contributes to climate change and has been shown to harm public health.

The administration has said it supports the expansion of coal for electricity generation if companies install technology to reduce emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency has imposed a number of new regulations aimed at reducing pollution from coal plants, and proposed first-ever national standards to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants in March.

The regulations deal a blow to foundering efforts to build more coal-fired power plants in the United States. Many plans to build new coal plants have been shelved as a result of competition from inexpensive natural gas — which is undergoing a production boom — and other factors.

The regulations would require new power plants that burn fossil fuels to release no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt‐hour.

The agency said new natural-gas plants will be able to meet the standard without adding any additional technology. But new coal plants would need to add new technology like carbon capture and storage (CCS), in which carbon dioxide emissions are collected and sequestered in the ground rather than released into the atmosphere.

But EPA has worked to ensure the rules aren't overly burdensome to the coal industry. Instead of meeting the standard on an annual basis, new coal plants that install CCS technology can use a 30-year average of their carbon dioxide emissions.

**LoneLictor**

Not a shining moment for Obama, but hey, he's still better than Romney. Lesser of two evils.

**LordofHats**

I'm confused. It's West Virginia.

Who cares?

**Surtur**

There's been a war on coal? WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST TO FIND THINGS OUT?!?

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:I'm confused. It's West Virginia.

Who cares?

Anyone who likes electricity actually.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I'm confused. It's West Virginia.

Who cares?

Anyone who likes electricity actually.

Except this isn't actually about electricity so much as scoring points against political opponents. It isn't by chance that it the Republicans that are pointing out the policy change. While it is fair to say that politics played a part in the Administration changing their attitude, though probably not their overall stance, toward coal, it is also politics that has their opponents playing up the change by pandering to coal.

**Frazzled**

And?

**Melissia**

More political maneuvering on both sides. Yawn?

**Frazzled**

Yep. Good to see Obama continuing to evolve.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Yep. Good to see Obama continuing to evolve.

Yeah, I mean, this clearly just came out of left field.

**Monster Rain**

What's his stance on Coal Miners marrying each other?

**purplefood**

Monster Rain wrote:What's his stance on Coal Miners marrying each other?

Apparently the supports that too!

**KingCracker**

LoneLictor wrote:Not a shining moment for Obama, but hey, he's still better than Romney. Lesser of two evils.

Sadly, I will agree to that. Looks like this election Im going Independent again

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Yep. Good to see Obama continuing to evolve.

Yeah, I mean, this clearly just came out of left field.

Yes, but let's not let facts get in the way.

**Chowderhead**

Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Yep. Good to see Obama continuing to evolve.

Yeah, I mean, this clearly just came out of left field.
Yes, but let's not let facts get in the way.

Well, duh. This is an argument. Facts have nothing to do with it. It's a Dog eat Dogma world out there.

**CT GAMER**

Texas & WVA: making dumb chic since forever

**Orlanth**

Why did you have to go to the UK press for a rundown on what's happening?

**CptJake**

LoneLictor wrote:Not a shining moment for Obama, but hey, he's still better than Romney. Lesser of two evils.

**Nocturn**

Bah, I could do without coal.

When I lived in WNY, our power came from the Niagara Falls hydro plant. Nice and cheap.

Now that I live in Florida, my only option is coal powered electricity from Gulf Power. My bill has more than doubled, because not only do I have to pay "environmental recovery" fees, but I also have to pay for the coal itself, then pay for the company to burn it.

Two fees for the same thing is a shady piece of business.

**CptJake**

Nocturn wrote:Bah, I could do without coal.

When I lived in WNY, our power came from the Niagara Falls hydro plant. Nice and cheap.

Now that I live in Florida, my only option is coal powered electricity from Gulf Power. My bill has more than doubled, because not only do I have to pay "environmental recovery" fees, but I also have to pay for the coal itself, then pay for the company to burn it.

Two fees for the same thing is a shady piece of business.

Having lived in FL for several years in the 80s and 90s, I submit water fall powered generators are not gonna work there. Of course you do have the Turkey Point expansion which is gonna help South Florida...

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:Why did you have to go to the UK press for a rundown on what's happening?

It was the first story that came up on Google, there were others, but that was the first. Also, I was specifically looking for a story from 2008, since American news outlets tend to have more stories on American politics, its often easier to find older stories from foreign news outlets.

If you like, I could probably dig up one of the many stories from US environmentalist websites that were critical of Obama for endorsing clean coal.

**Nocturn**

CptJake wrote:
Nocturn wrote:Bah, I could do without coal.

When I lived in WNY, our power came from the Niagara Falls hydro plant. Nice and cheap.

Now that I live in Florida, my only option is coal powered electricity from Gulf Power. My bill has more than doubled, because not only do I have to pay "environmental recovery" fees, but I also have to pay for the coal itself, then pay for the company to burn it.

Two fees for the same thing is a shady piece of business.

Having lived in FL for several years in the 80s and 90s, I submit water fall powered generators are not gonna work there. Of course you do have the Turkey Point expansion which is gonna help South Florida...

Yes, but other options could be explored, such as harnessing wind energy to offset a small portion of the costs, and implementing solar energy. I wouldn't mind terribly if they used nuclear power either.

**CptJake**

Nocturn wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Nocturn wrote:Bah, I could do without coal.

When I lived in WNY, our power came from the Niagara Falls hydro plant. Nice and cheap.

Now that I live in Florida, my only option is coal powered electricity from Gulf Power. My bill has more than doubled, because not only do I have to pay "environmental recovery" fees, but I also have to pay for the coal itself, then pay for the company to burn it.

Two fees for the same thing is a shady piece of business.

Having lived in FL for several years in the 80s and 90s, I submit water fall powered generators are not gonna work there. Of course you do have the Turkey Point expansion which is gonna help South Florida...

Yes, but other options could be explored, such as harnessing wind energy to offset a small portion of the costs, and implementing solar energy. I wouldn't mind terribly if they used nuclear power either.

You may want to do some research on power generation and distribution. Wind and solar are no where near ready to come online and provide the necessary power at a cost that can compete with coal. If your gripe is cost, you don't want to go that route.

**Melissia**

Actually once installed, solar power generation can make up for its cost in just a few years, a decade at most, especially when installed on buildings that use a lot of power to begin with.

Keep in mind that we have a lot of unused roof space in most of America, which can be used to generate electricity-- even residential areas can benefit from this, as in some states there are rules about getting credit on future power or even money back if you are able to actually put power back in to the grid.

**CptJake**

Solar cannot be collected and distributed efficiently enough to come close to powering a city more cheaply than coal. It just can't.

Look at the cost per KWH chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Solar is 2-3 times what conventional coal costs.

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/ocean_policy/documents/te_workshop_cost_compare.pdf has some different numbers but still shows that AFTEr you take into account societal costs for coal, it is still cheaper than solar (and note they did not take societal costs into solar, which is telling since the manufacturing and disposal processes are not very environmentally nice).

**rubiksnoob**

Obama reached level 36! Obama is evolving!

**Melissia**

CptJake wrote:Solar cannot be collected and distributed efficiently enough to come close to powering a city more cheaply than coal. It just can't.

It doesn't need to be able to do that. There is a long-term economic benefit to individuals and companies who put solar panels on roofs of buildings to supply power directly to those buildings. Coincidently (or not), this is probably the most popular use of solar panels at the moment.

Isn't capitalism grand when it works?

**Nocturn**

It's not really the overall cost that gets me, but the double charging.

And I know about the start-up delays and costs of the alternative power generation methods, I just think it would be nice to see an attempt at something better for the environment.

After re-reading my original post, I can see how unclear it's intent was.

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:Solar cannot be collected and distributed efficiently enough to come close to powering a city more cheaply than coal. It just can't.
It doesn't need to be able to do that. There is a long-term economic benefit to individuals and companies who put solar panels on roofs of buildings to supply power directly to those buildings. Coincidently (or not), this is probably the most popular use of solar panels at the moment.

Isn't capitalism grand when it works?

You chose to ignore the links I provided showing that solar is more than twice as expensive as coal, and that includes taking into account 'long term benefits'. If it wasn't for Gov't subsidies solar would be even less viable. You show me a building with solar panels and I'll show you someone who sucked down subsidies in the form of either direct cash and/or some tax break. It only works economically in austere environments where energy needs are few and alternate sources cost to much to transport in. Even then you end up with the societal costs of the manufacturing and disposal of both the panels and the batteries required to put a workable system in place. Once you have any decent level of infrastructure solar doesn't cut it. The very simple fact is that cost per KWH is very high for solar, no matter how badly you want to not think it true.

Then there is the tiny thing that there are places, like say Florida, the specific state I was talking about when you chimed in, where hurricanes mean that roofs full of expensive glass solar panels are dangerous and expensive to replace.

**Alexzandvar**

CptJake wrote:
Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:Solar cannot be collected and distributed efficiently enough to come close to powering a city more cheaply than coal. It just can't.
It doesn't need to be able to do that. There is a long-term economic benefit to individuals and companies who put solar panels on roofs of buildings to supply power directly to those buildings. Coincidently (or not), this is probably the most popular use of solar panels at the moment.

Isn't capitalism grand when it works?

You chose to ignore the links I provided showing that solar is more than twice as expensive as coal, and that includes taking into account 'long term benefits'. If it wasn't for Gov't subsidies solar would be even less viable. You show me a building with solar panels and I'll show you someone who sucked down subsidies in the form of either direct cash and/or some tax break. It only works economically in austere environments where energy needs are few and alternate sources cost to much to transport in. Even then you end up with the societal costs of the manufacturing and disposal of both the panels and the batteries required to put a workable system in place. Once you have any decent level of infrastructure solar doesn't cut it. The very simple fact is that cost per KWH is very high for solar, no matter how badly you want to not think it true.

Then there is the tiny thing that there are places, like say Florida, the specific state I was talking about when you chimed in, where hurricanes mean that roofs full of expensive glass solar panels are dangerous and expensive to replace.

Yeah! The sun will be gone in 10 Billion years! It's not a sustainable resource to replace our rapidly dwindling amounts of coal!