There is no such thing as clean coal technology. /nt

[still_one]

[LSparkle]

1. Yeah, but he wants to win West Virginia ...

:sarcasm:

[still_one]

3. I am well aware of the pragmatism. /nt

[NewEngland4Obama]

6. We have clean coal technologies

Clean coal is a term used to describe methods and technologies intended to reduce the environmental impact of using coal as an energy source. These efforts can include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, Gasification, treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and other proposed technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas. The coal industry uses the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use, with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

[madokie]

22. gasification is the word

our coal plants should be converted to using gasifier technology. Right now

[yellowdogintexas]

34. not only that, there are different types of coal some of which are in fact less

polluting than others.

[AbbeyRoad]

46. Illinois has a long tradition of coal mining

especially in the Southern part of the state

http://www.sicbcc.org/local/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=24&sc_id=1127162573

[Gregorian]

2. Yes. But he's playing diplomat. He's good.

He knows.

[originalpckelly]

4. There is a lot of this stuff in this speech...

Let's see:
Nuclear
Clean Coal
Need fathers, what about lesbians raising children alone?
Iran
Russian Aggression

Oh I'm getting mad.

[apocalypsehow]

8. First KO, and now the Democratic nominee. Are there any progressive Democrats you actually like? n/t

[originalpckelly]

10. Well, Kucinich to start.

I haven't heard him BS about clean coal, or nuclear, or forget about women raising children. To you lesbians may be some type of abstract notion, but I know mothers in that situation. And yet again they've been forgotten by society.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

15. Somehow I doubt even that. I am starting to wonder about you, with your

ENDLESS anti-Obama crap.

[originalpckelly]

17. Really?

:P

Really? Wow, well, back in the primaries I was anti-Hillary and pro-Obama, so now I guess it's different.

[undeterred]

9. He's a democrat, not a radical.

And for a democrat he's damn good.

[originalpckelly]

13. Is it radical to want someone to not be a sucker for the nuclear energy interests?

Pelosi also got bought off by these assholes, she came to the US Congress opposing nuclear energy, but at the global climate change hearing she seemed to be all for it.

[undeterred]

20. Lets get him elected first, ok?

[originalpckelly]

21. How can you support PDA and still be OK with a progressive candidate...

pandering to dirty energy interests?

How can a candidate even be considered progressive supporting that type of thing?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[undeterred]

28. He wasn't my first choice or PDA's first choice

and I don't consider him a progressive candidate. PDA is onsite at the convention holding a "Progressive Central" convention and intends to be a force in holding Obama and the Democratic Congress accountable to progressive values. But we have to get him elected first.

The largest number of PDA members were Kucinich supporters to begin with.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Well-said, and exactly right.

:thumbsup:

[Lorien]

27. No, he's a centrist and plainly made that statement tonight

but we'll vote for him because he's not a neo-con.

[sandyd921]

35. You've got it right

In my ideal world we'd have a candidate with positions that are consistently left-of-center and progressive. However that's not the real world at this time in American history. We have to go for what is realistic and a candidate who is far more palatable than what the cons offer. At least with Obama we have a greater possibility that our voices will be heard on the issues. With the alternative we can be certain that we will not be heard and in fact, we may be silenced by them. Oh, and we also have the real possibility that this candidate can win!

[dysfunctional press]

5. there is no god either, but look how often that gets mentioned.

nt

[ileus]

7. Get the vote now, ban mining later.

He knows how to play the vote game...

[Lorien]

49. He'll never "ban mining", and he will kiss up to the fossil fuel corps to

some degree no matter what; the corporations own America. If they didn't we might be looking at a Kucinich/ Paul match up right now, but the corporations control the media and have armies of lobbyists and piles of cash to donate, so no candidate who would really stand up to them in office has a chance.

[kestrel91316]

11. Oh, ok. Well then, I'll just vote for the POW.

[endless october]

16. maybe

... but then again, we are America. we got to the moon in less than ten years with much less technology than we have now.

maybe we can improve clean coal technology.

[Vincardog]

18. There is no such thing as clean coal period. /nt

[amuse bouche]

19. That;s what I heard too

[1]

24. ok. i'll play teh stoopid...

what is the answer?

if its not developing clean coal technology, not looking at nuclear, abandoning bio fuels, giving up on oil, denouncing speculators that promote wind technology...

how do we move forward? what can we turn to?

what is the answer?

we need energy. it sustains life. without it we die. it must come from somewhere. where is this somewhere? this somewhere that we can implement, like... now?

what is the answer?

[originalpckelly]

29. SOLAR!

[1]

30. i like you. the one that is at least constant...

but how do furnaces run on solar? air conditioners? stoves? cars? mass transit (busses, subways?) radios, tv's, medical equipment, ambulances, airplanes...


i get the whole "green" thing. i do.


but is it truly possible?


without the contributions of these other "non-green" ways of producing energy?


hook me up! originalpckelly.

how does this work? i am stupid...

[still_one]

31. I am pragmatic enough to realize why it was said, but there is no such then as clean coal period

there is nothing to develop

I did not say anything about not looking at nuclear, or other technologies, I was just stating a fact

I never said we didn't need energy as you are characterizing it, I just said there is NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

In your response you have already provided some of the answers.

I will get slammed for it, but nuclear power is not the evil many state. I also do NOT denouce speculators that promote wind and solar

However, I am against drilling in Anwar.

There are plenty of answer actually

[1]

37. i am like you, friend. i am looking for all that say, "this isn't the answer" to tell me...

what is the answer?

coal, nuclear, wind, solar, burning timber...

everybody has an objection to any particular source of energy.

ok. fine.

then what is your idea (not your objection)...

how do we provide the energy?


you know that the energy is needed. necessary. what do we do?

what is the answer?

[avaistheone1]

40. Yes, there is a good alternative answer today!!!!!!!!!!

Last week, I was privileged to attend a lecture by Dr. Stacey F. Bent, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Stanford University. Her department conducts research on new solar cell technology.
She said that if the state of California would dedicate a 30 miles by 30 miles area for solar panels it would supply ALL the energy needs for California. Dr. Bent also said if the U.S. would dedicate an area 100 miles by 100 miles for solar panels ALL the country's energy needs can be supplied.

BTW This link shows how far the government will go to put a stop on our energy independence.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/new-solar-project-moritorium-us-public-lands.php

[Solon]

41. The true answer is really conservation...

Frankly all fossil fuels are going to be uneconomical as primary sources of power by the end of this coming century. We will have to replace them with a VARIETY of other sources of energy, but for a while, we will not be able to replace them all. That means we need to find a way to get by with using less energy than we do now, there is no other way around it.

[avaistheone1]

42. The solar technology is here today.

Yes solar will keep getting better and cheaper. But we could do the conversion today with existing solar technology.

It would be alot cheaper than the war in Iraq.

[Solon]

43. I can understand your advocacy for solar technology...

But frankly I don't view is as a total solution, all to itself, there are drawbacks to all forms of energy capture and production, and we need to acknowledge that. I think the most practical use of solar technology may be using low intensity microwave transmission from orbital solar panels. That would be the most environmentally friendly way to produce power from solar panels and would be immune from the weather and the 12 hour day/night cycle of Earth.

But, we should also acknowledge that the idea of putting all of our energy in one "basket" in any event, is simply stupid. We have relied on so few sources of energy(Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) for so long, we should at least learn by now to diversify our energy sources as much as possible, to prevent calamities like the one I fear we are heading towards now.

[avaistheone1]

45. That is the beauty of solar. The sun will not be going away even the distant future.

In addition, there have been recent solar storage breakthroughs too.

When the basket of new energy alternatives is put together it should be dominated by solar in my opinion.

Got to go to bed now. I will resume my soapbox tomorrow. lol

[alarimer]

25. No there isn't.

It is simply more dependence on dirty fossil fuels. After all they still have to mine the coal, which, if it involves mountain top removal is a non-starter for the environment.

[Lorien]

26. Yep. We need innovation, not more mountaintop removal, polluted air

and an increase in global warming. I know Obama hates the "tired old politics" of the 1960s. but I'm sick (literally) of depending on the "tired old fossil fuels" that are killing our planet and destroying our economy. The technology exists NOW to wean ourselves off of them, but the political will is still lacking.We shouldn't be investing a single penny in coal OR "biofuels" (unless we're talking hemp-a fast growing non-food crop).

[avaistheone1]

36. You are 100% on the money.

[avaistheone1]

32. There is no such thing as safe nuclear power either.

We need to work on Obama on those issues.

[Stellabella]

33. Yep.

I didn't like hearing that, but I guess he had to say it.

[XemaSab]

38. There sort of is, but it's not developed well enough to be commercially applicable

n/t

[EFerrari]

39. I know.

[AbbeyRoad]

44. We hear about clean coal and the Futuregen project quite often in Illinois

There's a longstanding coal mining tradition especially in the southern part of the state. There was supposed to be a large clean coal plant built in Mattoon and there's been some contention over the fact that the DOE pulled the plug on it after several years of planning. I must confess I don't know much about clean coal, but I hear about the Futurgen project from time to time when I'm listening to the local public radio. Here are some links on it:

http://www.futuregenforillinois.com/

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-30-01.asp

[Solon]

47. Basically clean coal involves "washing" the coal before burning it...

Usually in smaller and more energy efficient quantities. The problem is where the waste goes after the washing, usually it ends up in the water table and soil, lots of mercury and other toxins end up in the hydrological cycle, and damages the environment. Clean coal is a misnomer, it simply doesn't exist.

[NobleCynic]

48. Well... sort of... Carbon Sequestration isn't possible

but scrubbers to remove sulfur and other incredibly dangerous pollutants can mitigate the other damages from coal. So... Sort of clean coal?

Yeah, not too happy with this part of the speech either.