So, lots to talk about, but for now: I'm in a candidate forum with Barack Obama and he was just asked directly about coal. He dodged and weaved, said there would have to be a "transition," and that there would need to be "investments," etc. etc.
Unsatisfying.
He did, however, very strongly back the 80 percent by 2050 target, and backed a 20% national RPS. So there's that.
Comments
View as Threaded
ac5p Posted 11:19 pm
04 Aug 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:17 am
05 Aug 2007
Yes, this is all very unsatisfying, but I don't think we are going to be hearing anything really visionary from any of the presidential candidates. The vision is going to have to come from the bottom.
Power down.
Permalink
ids Posted 8:04 am
05 Aug 2007
The Illinois Sierra Club new burning plant in Springfield IL is something they are happy with. The Clean Air Task Force is supporting a new 620mw plant in Taylorville. This on top of giving Peabody Energy rights for its first plant ever, on the Prairie State Energy campus, by the corrupt Governor Blagojevich (D), who was endorsed by Ill Sierra Club after this. No surprise there was one state Senate vote against giving FutureGen immunity from any unanticipated results in IL, and all else for, in a Democratic veto proof senate. Corruption is at its roots.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:16 am
05 Aug 2007
What's that "cynically optimistic?"
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:29 am
05 Aug 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:31 am
05 Aug 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:30 am
05 Aug 2007
And the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, which he co-sponsored with Senate heavyweights Lugar, Dorgan and Biden, looks pretty serious. It would mandate: for calendar year 2010, at least 10,000,000,000 gallons of renewable fuel;
for calendar year 2020, at least 30,000,000,000 gallons of renewable fuel; and
for calendar year 2030, at least 60,000,000,000 gallons of renewable fuel.
For "renewable fuel", read ethanol, or ethanol plus a bit of biodiesel.
Senator Obama also co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (latest status: read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources) and the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (latest status: read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance).
Permalink
justlou Posted 1:35 am
06 Aug 2007
Sierra Club objects to Taylorville plant
Coal-gasification facility designed to be less polluting
http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/11813.asp
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 3:33 am
06 Aug 2007
This may not be answerable, but by "clean coal", does he mean coal gasification (IGCC) plus sequestration, or either one individually? Does he know the difference?
Does he understand it isn't necessarily possible to retrofit IGCC? Does he understand that sequestration isn't geographically possible everywhere?
Does he really think either option is likely to be viable on a large scale any time soon?
It doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the state of his knowledge that he is still dancing around nuclear power either, just from a practical point of view...doesn't he know that making a dent in climate change with nuclear would require billions of dollars and god knows how many new plants...
Oy vey.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:38 am
06 Aug 2007
As long as coal remains as powerful as it is -- and gets so little concerted pushback -- I'm not sure he's wrong.
grist.org
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 6:23 am
06 Aug 2007
Maybe so...though isn't it the utilities that will pay for sequestration, not Big Coal...not that they aren't intertwined. I do take your point.
Permalink
WKB Posted 7:25 am
08 Aug 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:51 pm
08 Aug 2007
As well as "Celwasik" Ethanol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOAE38havfw
All I have to say about that is:
http://greyfalcon.net/ccs
Permalink