Doesn't look like it would go very far anyway:
Posted on 12/12/2008 8:49:37 AM PST by CedarDave
So Steven Chu, President-elect Obama’s likely choice to head the Department of Energy, is a proponent of energy efficiency and conservation as the first step in rejigging America’s energy mix. But since conservation alone won’t do it, what are his ideas about finding new supplies of energy?
Dr. Chu’s marquee work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the Helios Project. ... Helios has focused largely on biofuels ... is looking to make second-generation biofuels more viable. ...
What about other energy sources? Big Coal won’t be very happy if Dr. Chu gets confirmed as head of the DOE—he’s really, really not a big fan. “Coal is my worst nightmare,” he said repeatedly in a speech earlier this year outlining his lab’s alternative-energy approaches.
If coal is to stay part of the world’s energy mix, he says, clean-coal technologies must be developed. But he’s not very optimistic ... given the sheer scope of the challenge of economically storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions underground.
Worried about radioactivity? Coal’s still your bogeyman. Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.
That doesn’t mean nuclear power is much better. ... the Obama campaign made clear that increased reliance on nuclear power will require finding a “safe” way to dispose of radioactive waste.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Looks like Chu may be the United States worst nightmare. Ethanol was the last big political solution: 12 gallons of gas per acre of corn. Now we are going to replace the energy from a large coal fired generation power plant sited on 800 acres of land. Well that will require a 200,000 acre wind farm or a 8,000 acre solar farm, assuming the wind is blowing and sun is shining. Now I understand the derivation of the term political science.
One that will jump out at you:
Here’s where our electric power comes from: Coal 49%, Nat. Gas 20%, Nuclear 19%, Hydro 7%, Fuel Oil 2%, Renewables 2%. So, Coal may be a “nightmare” for Chu but its keeping the lights on for over 150,000,000 Americans. Nothing, repeat NOTHING, that the greenies are pursueing will in any way significantly change this makeup of energy sources in the foreseeable future. That’s the reality, everything else is la-la.
Clearly, the “Doctor” is a GENUIS!!!
We are in for destruction of our country of epic proportions. No energy, lots of government control = disaster. I predict the Obama admin will be worse than the Carter admin.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html
Let’s tell our Republicans politicians they better stand up and fight this with everything they have.
Memo to the dumbasses in Pennsylvania who voted for Obama even knowing he planned to doom the coal industry there ... enjoy the fruits of your labor.
great! lets shut down our most abundant resource, at least after hot political air (sarc)
He intends to power the U.S. with rainbow auras and unicorn farts.
And another to the dumbasses in California who elect Democrat majorities... enjoy your $5.00 loaves of bread when the diesel emission laws are enacted.
I expect in four years we will either be shivering in the dark waiting for the wind to turn the windmills and the sun to heat the solar collectors so we can get our daily ration of electricity or living the Amish lifestyle.
Steven Chu, In an interview with The Post last year, said that the cost of electricity was “anomalously low” in the United States, that a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gases “is an absolutely non-partisan issue,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121103380.html
<>
James Hansen wants Obama to just come out and admit that it is an energy tax that he wants to impose on Americans and stop beating around the bushes by calling it “cap and trade”. He says that Americans will “understand”: Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/05/some-on-left-join-fight-to-expose-the-lie-that-is-cap-and-trade/
<>
Dr. Higgs reminds us as to just who is, and who is not qualified to speak on various scientific and economic matters:
Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
Robert Higgs
<>
Europe Puts Hurdles in Obama’s Climate Path
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington D.C.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,595644,00.html
<>
231-Page Report Now Available
Scientists Continue to Debunk ?Consensus? in 2008 Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
<>
Google news search: Cizik resigns - Result:
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=cizik%20resigns
Cizik resigns (a global warming kook)
World Magazine, NC - 2 hours ago
Longtime evangelical leader in Washington Richard Cizik resigned from the National Association of Evangelicals Wednesday night, Christianity Today reports, ...
Cizik resigns as top Evangelical lobbyist (Rod) Beliefnet.com
Richard Cizik Resigns from the National Association of Evangelicals ChristianityToday.com
Richard Cizik Resigns from National Association of Evangelicals Christian News Wire (press release)
The Associated Press - Dallas Morning News
all 161 news articles ?
Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions
Herald News Daily, ND - 3 hours ago
Richard Cizik (SIGH-zik) quit Thursday as the group?s representative in Washington. Cizik had already made enemies of some evangelical leaders because of ...YHOO
So, let me get this straight. We are to get rid of coal, nuclear, and now rely on technology that hasn’t even been developed substantially yet.........yes he’s a genius all right............
no coal, no electricity, no electric car
Coal production at a mine in Monongalia County came to a halt today when every union miner stayed home, as part of a political protest. [...]More than 440 workers who are members of the United Mine Workers of America took what's called a Memorial Day instead of going to work.
Union officials say they took the day to protest after a film crew from the National Rifle Assocation showed up at the Consol mine last week to interview union workers.
They say the crew tried to get union coal miners to speak out against Barack Obama.
The UMW doesn’t care if anyone actually burns the stuff, just as long as they get paid. Its not too different from Chrysler workers...
Looks like the Obamamessiah selected someone very reminscent of his party’s zoomorphic emblem for this post.
Great.
Bad news for America and GREAT news for the Wahhbaist lunatics who need our money to destroy us.
“Coal is my worst nightmare,”
#####
“Credentialed”, arrogant, grossly non-productive, academic bureaucrats are my worst nightmare.
I’ll tell you what should be this moron’s worst nightmare, that’s me when I can’t heat water for a shower in the morning.
I think there needs to be government intervention.
“Mr. Oil company executive. The government gives your industry x number of billions of dollars in tax credits each year. Either you produce 15% more electricity domestically within three years or we will take your tax credit away.”
Then get out of the way.
***Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.****
That is strange. I just retired after 31 years in coal fired power plants. No mention of radioactivity was ever mentioned and the only radioactive elements were in the “see-coal” monitoring equipment which were removed years ago.
I and many others have shoveled and wallowed in fly ash, bottom ash precipitator ash and at no time was radioactivity ever a concern.
Thanks for posting...not surprising as this is what O promised for the coal industry :(
Where’s that satellite photo of North Korea in the dark? That’s what we’ll look like, except Mexico will be the well lit country to the south.
The solution is simple - just reduce electricity consumption to 2% of what it is today, so that it can be supplied by “renewables.” None of those nasty coal plants, or nuclear or dams that make life difficult for fish.
We could make a start by cutting off all electricity to all government office buildings, federal, state and local, and to the residences of all government employees for a couple of years to see how this idea works in practice. If it works for them, we can think about extending the trial period for another 10 or 12 years to be extra certain that it is a good idea for wide scale implementation.
Jack
Doesn't look like it would go very far anyway:
Good summary of articles. Thanks.
I have a very nice trace element reference standard for neutron activation that is based on fly ash. The old NBS (NIST) put it out some years ago. It is great for trace elements like U and Th, but for some reason is full of scandium.
More likely, it wasn't that the radiation exposure wasn't problem, but that it was ever checked (or known about) and the immediate problems of dust and dirt inhalation would far override any long-term, very low radiation exposure issues.
A little of that (radioactive emissions per ton of coal burned) is based on where the source coal is from (there are difference between western lignite, TX lignite, western bitum. and eastern bitum. And of course, the old Appalachian anthracite sources.
But - on average - yes, a coal plant puts out more net radiation than a nuclear plant does; and none of that radiation is monitored or reported or advertised. You were getting exposed - like a resident of Denver gets much more radiation from cosmic rays and radon exposure than a resident of lower-elevation states with less natural uranium in their rocks, but it is not monitored.
Then again, some of the latest theories on physical exposure and health show very convincingly that low levels of exposure are better for the immune system than total abstinence, and some of the reason for increased asthma and childhood illnesses is that kids are NOT being exposed to LOW_LEVEL common bacteria and food particles. Perhaps a sterile life with sterile hands on a sterile playroom in a sterile indoors carpet can kill as well.
Has anyone seen those anti-clean coal commercials put out by “thisisreality.org” on TV? Their claim is “clean coal” is a fallacy.
Here are their “facts” and who they quote for them. I’d like to know who funds them.
The Facts
Burning coal is a leading source of global warming pollution.
“GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990–2006,” US EPA 2008
Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity.
“Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States,” US DOE 2000.; “GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006,” US EPA 2008
There are no homes in America powered by “clean” coal.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database; Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database
CO2 emissions from US coal-based electricity are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America.
“GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006,” US EPA 2008
The coal industry is spending millions advertising “clean” coal, but not a single “clean” coal power plant exists in the US today.
“Big Coal Campaigning to Keep Its Industry on Candidates’ Minds,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008 (link); IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database (link);
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database (link)
“While you might have heard the phrase ‘clean’ coal during the presidential campaign, it’s actually an oxymoron.”
Brian Williams, NBC News, Nov 18, 2008 (link)
There are roughly 600 coal plants producing electricity in the US. Not one of them captures and stores its global warming pollution.
“Electricity Facts,” US DOE 2008 (link); IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database (link); Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database (link)
“’Clean’ coal is like a healthy cigarette.”
Blan Holman, attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleson, S.C. (link)
There is not a single large-scale demonstration “clean” coal plant in the US today.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database (link); Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database (link)
Virtually all the new coal plants that have been proposed will, just like their predecessors, release 100 percent of the CO2 they produce into the atmosphere, where it will linger—and contribute to global warming.
“Coal Power in a Warming World: A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options,” Union of Concerned Scientists. Oct. 2008.
Although carbon sequestration has been the subject of considerable research and analysis, it has yet to be demonstrated in the form of commercial-scale, fully integrated projects at coal-fired power plants.
“Coal Power in a Warming World: A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options,” Union of Concerned Scientists. Oct. 2008.
An investment in wind power produces almost three times as many jobs as the same investment in coal power. And an investment in solar power produces almost four times as many jobs, and energy efficiency, almost thirty times as many jobs as coal power.
Based on analysis of the new energy economy released by Earth Policy Institute, Nov. 2008
“We don’t have a plant here in the United States today that has commercially installed carbon capture technology.”
Joe Lucas, Vice President of Communications, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). From: “Can Coal Be Clean? A Debate Between Michael Brune of Rainforest Action Network and Joe Lucas of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.” Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report, Oct. 2008
“Without the price on greenhouse gas emissions that is delivered by cap-and-trade mechanisms, CO2 capture and storage will remain a daydream.”
Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Shell. July 2008 Madrid. Shell, “Delivering Energy for Sustainable Growth. The European Perspective,” The 19th World Petroleum Congress Plenary Session, Madrid, June 30, 2008. (pdf link)
What is the reality about “clean” coal? How does coal contribute to global warming? Can coal be part of the solution? The details about these and other coal questions can be found here.
Sorry about the format.
»
http://action.thisisreality.org/facts
I don't think they plan to waste any time in trying to prove it.
No, this really is true in many coal-producing areas. For example where I live, there’s enough uranium in the ground (and coal) to make radon a serious problem, but not enough uranium to separate or mine. This fact is often mentioned by nuclear-power proponents.
Where do they come up with these numbers?? Tell me that once you have put up the towers you have all those folks to check they are spinning and pick up the dead birds at the base? A coal powered plant has jobs starting at the mine then transportation then at the plant. Of course, my main problem with these so-called renewables are the visual footprint on the landscape. Drive up by Tehachapi or Altamont passes in California and you will see hundreds of the gosh-awful ugly windmills.
All aboard the new Chu Chu train.
I saw him once speak here at the University of Chicago about the technology of using laser tweezers to manipulate DNA.
Drive up by Tehachapi or Altamont passes in California and you will see hundreds of the gosh-awful ugly windmills.
Take a drive between Odessa and Abeline. You will see lots of them. They are all around Dalhart, TX and north of Fort Supply OK, also.
We were promised flying cars. I don't care if it is powered by unicon farts, but GM has been a great disappointment on the flying car so far.
Yep, I just started seeing these. Just lining up behind the Zero/Biden train.
I hope people like paying more for their electricity or enjoy brown-outs. The only kind of power plant that will be legal to build, is one that runs on moon-beams and unicorn farts.
Calif. set to adopt expensive "global warming" plan
Economic Slowdown Could Complicate ‘Cap and Trade’ Plans, Policy Analysts Say
Lack of Snow in NYC Due to You Know What
Kernen: Energy Czar Browner is 'Scary' during 'Once in a Lifetime Recession'
The Trouble With Obama's Energy Czar
Global Warming on Free Republic
I guess people are not getting the message that the UN has decided that global warming isn’t an issue any more.
Leastways, we haven’t seen much warming since early Nov. We’ve had over a month of cold and snow already and winter hasn’t even technically started.
It’s going to be a long one.
Instead of coal, we should stoke the boilers with Liberals.
That's because it isn't. The nuclear power people only use the statistic because it puts nuclear power in perspective: ultra-low radiation and ultra safe. Coal is very low radiation and very safe.
“European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?_r=1
Yep!
And Biden really put his foot in his mouth about it, too:
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,800 for biden said let other countries build coal plants
No doubt BO will deprive us of our coal and ship it off to other countries since he’s vowed to bankrupt any coal companies who dare to build any plants in America.
We’re going to get to see just how dumb people in this county really are if they just sit back and let the BO squirrel jack up their costs to use energy here.
Look for BO to bring “The Chicago Way” (pay to play) right along with him to the White House: “If you want to live in a big house, drive a big car, turn your air down, turn your heat up, etc., etc., go ahead - you’re just gonna have to pay to play.”
So ... when can we expect our 400 nuclear reactors to get built?
Something even the Europeons know.
What a travesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
