Obama joins Illinois legislators pushing to revive FutureGen 14

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Sean Casten Posted 8:05 am
   30 Jan 2008

   When all is said and done...It all comes down to jobs in your district to get elected.  And as crazy as FutureGen is, it will create jobs in Illinois.  Bogus, make-work jobs that compromise the long term health of the economy I will grant you, but jobs nonetheless.
   Bottom line - I'm with you.  Neither surprised, nor particularly disappointed.

   Permalink

2. 

   Tim Hurst Posted 10:01 am
   30 Jan 2008

   Obama is making it difficult...for me to support him fully. Now that my Johnny E. has gone the way of Mike Gravel (has Gravel gone away yet?), I will be supporting another candidate.
   I've said it a hundred times before. If Obama wants to win in the purple states of the American West next Tuesday, he needs to speak directly to our big issues (i.e. climate, energy, environment).
   Although Colorado certainly has a strong presence in the coal industry, there are just as many people here who want to move away from coal - clean or otherwise
   
   Tim Hurst
   
   
   
   ecopolitology.org

   Permalink

3. 

   ce1907 Posted 10:58 am
   30 Jan 2008

   according to FOEObama is for 100% auction
   and will accept nothing less
   (until elected)

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:44 pm
   30 Jan 2008

   Get him Hillary!He's really vulnerable on his support for this boondoggle.  Barack the lobbyist friendliest candidate.
   He had a dream.  A million dollar home.  He couldn't afford it so his indicted friend and former employer got him a deal.
   I bet he has other dreams.  A 10 million dollar home, or two, or three?  Take care of that ethanol, nuclear, and clean coal lobbies.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:10 pm
   30 Jan 2008

   HehWell, it was nice while it lasted.
   
   DOE Restructures Its Approach to FutureGen
   
   Under the new plan, DOE's investment would provide funding for no more than the CCS component of the power plant--not the entire plant construction, compared with the original FutureGen concept in which the federal government would incur 74% of rising costs....(more)

   Permalink

6. 

   JohnMashey Posted 3:38 pm
   30 Jan 2008

   IllinoisWell, this is probably a dumb way to give money to Illinois, but according to:
   
   http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2001/1211balance.htm
   if you look at balance of payments btetween Ilinois and the Federal Government, in fiscal 2000:
   IL sent $100B to Washington (#3 after CA & NY) and got $66B back, i.e., 66%. , making them #5 on the wrong end of the scale (CT (60%), NV (61%), NH (63%), NJ (64%).  CA (where I am) of course sends the most $$ to DC that doesn't come back, but percentage-wise, it's 75%.
   Of course, all this begs the question of why it's a good idea to send as much money to DC as we do, so it can go through a political earmarked meatgrinder before it comes back.  Put another , maybe they can give $1.8B back to IL, and let them decide whether this is the best use of it or not...
   Anyway, I find it hard to be too hard on Obama for this one, he is an IL Senator first.
   Local politicians usually fight for their local constituencies.  The real question is, if they take office at a higher level, do they try to take care of the whole entity they now represent/manage, or do they continue to represent a narrow constituency?  it is not alwasy easy to determine this about someone, except in hindsight...
   
   -John Mashey

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:37 pm
   30 Jan 2008

   2015 to 2016 operationalThey will be commisioned, according to the update article.  It's about the same for nukes started up now.  That leaves eight years to beat them.
   Renewable distributed smart grid technology, including affordable solar PV and wind, plugin hybrids, biogas waste recycling/organic farming,and geo heat exchange heating/cooling is ready now.
   An administration that will back these over coal, nukes, and fuel farming would be helpfull.
   And a democratic house and senate.  These political types must be baraged with our schpeil, 'til it blocks out the lobyyist's cash wagging braying.
   Divert subsidies for big energy and ag to this new energy, transportation, and farm policy.  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   davidconnell Posted 10:49 pm
   30 Jan 2008

   Pot, Kettle, BlackSeriously? You're going to try to bring some fairy tale of a scandal into this debate. Given the Clinton's history (whitewater, travelgate, rose law firm, just off the top of my head) I don't think that's wise. By the way, the Clinton's two homes (New York and DC) come in at a combined total of $4.55 million, so they're getting a bit closer to you're fabled 10 million figure.
   If you want to talk about lobbyists, check out the first sentence of this report from The Hill:
   "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has a network of lobbyists and political insiders three times the size of her closest Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."
   My suggestion is to stick to the facts of this debate.

   Permalink

9. 

   ids Posted 12:24 am
   31 Jan 2008

   Obama's conJohn,
   
   If coal is good for coalbama's Ill constituency, then it'd be good for his con as potus.  It's clear he has his head in a hole and what L-W stands for.
   
   Americanism (Perfect by Fred Holland)
   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_8STEFrSY&feature=re ...

   Permalink

10. 

    sindark Posted 2:07 am
    31 Jan 2008

    CCSSome environmentalists are cheering the failure of FutureGen, which might make sense if it's just an example of a big taxpayer handout to industry being averted. Others, however, seem keen to see CCS undermined completely. It is true that it is an untested technology; only four installations in the world use anything like it. It is also true that it could perpetuate fossil fuel usage and slow the development of renewables. At the same time, it must be recognized that building renewables isn't a purpose in its own right. It is a means to low-carbon and reliable energy. If that can be achieved through a combination of coal and CCS, we should probably be happy - especially given the strong likelihood that many coal rich countries (the United States, China, etc) are likely to burn as much of the stuff as they can get out of the ground for the foreseable future, with potentially ruinous climatic effects.
    
    a sibilant intake of breath

    Permalink

11. 

    JohnMashey Posted 2:25 am
    31 Jan 2008

    IllinoisI have no idea whether coal is good for Obama's constituency, [I rather doubt it, if it were me, I'd spend it on supporting more things like efficiency improvements, encouraging investments in industries like wind-turbines, etc.]
    I simply point out that if there's a pot of "free" Federal money to be had, then it is very hard for state legislators to resist competing for it, even if the usage of it is to build bridges to nowhere or even pyramid-equivalents. (jobs! bring home the bacon for the district!)
    The general idea of CCS is less bad than those, after all, even James Hansen says it's important.
    The issue is whether or not this particular CCS example is a good usage of money.  R&D is supposed to follow "progressive commitment":
    
    
    
    research
    
    applied research
    
    exploratory development
    
    development
    
    scaleup and deployment
    
    
    [At least, when I was at Bell Labs, that's what we did, usually; when we didn't (occasionally) we wasted a lo of money.]
    
    In general, it is a bad idea to go to 5 until you've done the others.  I can't tell offhand where this plant falls in that scale.  Maybe Sean Casten can comment?
    
    
    
    -John Mashey

    Permalink

12. 

    amazingdrx Posted 2:27 am
    31 Jan 2008

    Fund raisingFund raising is corrupt.  All across the spectrum of US politics.  The Clintons have been thoroughly investigated already.  
    Barack's missteps are just coming out.  They must be exposed during the primary so that they aren't swiftboat fodder in the general election.
    Look what happened to Sen Kerry.  We really need to win this time around.  McCain wants an indefinite commitment in Iraq.  Will that entail an ongoing cold war with Iran and the rest of the ME countries?
    What about the rest of the potential jihad spawning areas?  Only one fifth of the muslim world lives in the ME.  This corporate christian crusade (for oil and minerals)needs to be qwelled, not expanded.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

13. 

    ids Posted 4:29 am
    31 Jan 2008

    f genSindark is right, the apparent death of F Gen is nothing to cheer about, it's not like the money won't go to other coal projects.  Funny the Ill legislators are complaining polititx is trumping science in this particular coal matter (for TX sake), as if it isn't always the case.  Mattoon will get over it.  
    A BO POTUS will likely split the difference and give both TX and ILL more coal subsidies.  Illinois is about the most corrupt pay-to-play state in the union with a lot of nuke and coal $ around, that is BO's constituency.  Protecting the health of the planet and those on it and preserving its resources is secondary.

    Permalink

14. 

    Nucbuddy Posted 2:55 pm
    31 Jan 2008

    Subsidies flowing to solar from coal and nuclearAmazingdrx wrote: affordable solar PV and wind
    If there would be anything affordable about solar PV and wind, it would be partly the fault of subsidization by coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and oil. Eliminate the latter, and any affordability of the former likewise vanishes.

    Permalink