The point is that McCain wants to create energy independence, push alternatives, make energy cleaner and reduce waste.   The fact that he is not willing to force feed particular technologies or impose draconian taxes on the populace who cannot respond in any meaningful way seems to speak more to common sense.

The Democrats are left with the detritus of a failed dictatorial energy plan already.   The path to cutting CO2 is fairly simple.   We can do it now if we could shut down the most egregiously old coal plants and replace them with Clean Coal.   Yes, I know you want to get rid of coal entirely, but a sensible plan might be to get rid of Dirty Coal first, but make sure we have the replacement energy from Clean Coal, and then spend 30 years getting our new technologies like wind, solar, hydrogen into place without rushing around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.

The path to cutting CO2 is fairly simple.   We can do it now if we could shut down the most egregiously old coal plants and replace them with Clean Coal.   Yes, I know you want to get rid of coal entirely, but a sensible plan might be to get rid of Dirty Coal first

While that sentiment is nice, if a bill like this came up in Congress, do ya honestly believe that the Republicans in general would support it?

'Cause I get the feeling that they'd just say that implementation of clean/filter technology on older coal plants would just raise energy prices and be an unfair burden on taxpayers.

In other words, they'd label it a draconian tax just like they have every other time clean air/technology was implemented.

Remember the whole low-sulfur coal debate back in the 1970's?

While that sentiment is nice, if a bill like this came up in Congress, do ya honestly believe that the Republicans in general would support it?

Yes, because bills "like that" have come up in state government to build clean coal plants and they've been shot down by the Greens.

It's known that a few very, very bad Dirty Coal plants are producing nearly half if not more of the CO2.   Instead of having a gazillion different plans for charging home owners for their measley puffs of dioxide, we can take care of Kyoto in one fell swoop -- get rid of Dirty Coal...and the fastest way to do it is with Clean Coal.

And we don't have to replace every plant -- it's a few plants, some very, very large, that have to go.   After that we're halfway there...

Jabailo,

That's all very well, but can you point to a functioning clean coal power station anywhere. Or for that matter a functioning prototype - functioning or planned? Here in Victoria, Australia the power company's definition of clean coal is taking extra dirty brown coal and treating it so it is only as polluting as black coal. The definition of 'clean coal' seems to be very loose. They admit that the cost of making any coal truly clean - whether brown or black - is prohibitively expensive. What is the total emissions of the plants that you are suggesting be replaced? What proportion of emissions do they account for? What will the emissions be of the plants that you suggest they be replaced with. What will the net emissions savings be. And what will the electricity cost be compared to solar thermal, geothermal, wind or other alternatives.

Yes, get rid of the most polluting generators first, but clean coal plants are by no means the best replacement.

When asked to point to clean plants, it is instructive that Jaballo points to the DIRTIEST plants and says 'not these'.

Too bad, though, that less dirty than dirtiest is still very dirty.  All of these coal plants create more than 1800 pounds of CO2 per mWH generated, by far the dirtiest source of electricity generated in this country.

The equation is COAL = HIGH GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION.  

Jabailo, you definitely have your numbers mixed up.  Certainly most of the NOx and SO2 pollution comes from a bunch of really dirty old coal plants, because they got grandfathered credits under the 1990 CAA to keep them afloat, whereas new ones have to buy permits.  But the difference in CO2 is pretty minimal.  The NOx and SO2 targets were reached (and what the coal industry calls 'clean coal') by burning lower sulphur coal, or installing 'scrubbers,' or a couple of other things.  But none of these really affect CO2 emissions.  I don't even know how to respond to your contention that replacing a few old coal plants with current technology coal plants will get us to Kyoto targets, other than that's completely ludicrous.  Unless you're talking CCS, which is prohibitively expensive, even more so than nuclear, none of this 'clean coal' nonsense really has anything to do with CO2.  

It hurts me to say this, but I have read the same info elsewhere(NRDC, Sierra?)regarding the dirty coal plants that J has posted for our perusal, and I can't disagree with him: clean these plants up or shut them down first, and we make large strides in reducing carbon emissions. Having said that, that would be only the first step. Step Two(To run concurrently): a Manhattan Project-like endeavor to wean ourselves off of the carbon teat.

The mellotron is your friend.

Jabilo,

What a nice touch.  I cite facts about rates of CO2 pollution - which has not, and cannot, be cleaned up.  And you respond, without citing which pollutant you are addressing, with a quote from page 10 that discusses SO2 pollution, which everyone agrees has and can be cleaned up.

No wonder the coal and utility companies have no credibility in this argument.  They have a lot of resources to sell the fantasy mantra of "clean coal" - but they lack credibility on the CO2 arguments, and with this kind of deception it should  continue to sink further.

Yes, because bills "like that" have come up in state government to build clean coal plants and they've been shot down by the Greens.

Question: Was there a provision in these "bills" that would've dismantled the older coal plants once the newer ones were online?

Or was it just a bill to allow new coal plants while still keeping the old ones operative?