"Clean Coal?!?"

[Randolphkeys]

The Palin vs. Obama interactions on this board have become nothing but red herrings and personal attacks. I want to hear more about an actual issue that the two parties disagree upon.

"Clean coal" is of great interest to me, especially since Palin seems to have received her nomination for the McCain ticket most centrally on her stance on fuel. She bandied about the controversial "clean coal" statement with forceful pronunciation, practically begging people to look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

Germany has been at the forefront of researching the technology, but from many accounts, it is years away and results as of now remain anything but clean for the environment.

Discuss... and please, keep the discussions of pregnant kids and personal slander out of this thread. Just for me.

 

[TheAdmin]

I could have sworn that Obama was touting clean coal as well.

 

[RonG]

Ben he was, so was Bush back in 06 and 07 I believe. It has been brought up on several different occasions and in several political speeches. The idea is to give WV and the other coal heavy states hope that they may be able to increase minning again, and it be cleaner for consumption.

 

[Maximus]

I want to hear more about an actual issue that the two parties disagree upon.

Then you are going to need to come with another issue. :chuckles: I don't think you will find any politician that isn't in favor of exploring the feasibility of clean coal...the only difference might be the amount of resources to throw at it. It's been proven it can work, the problem is after the cleaning/CO2 capturing, it would go from being one of our cheapest forms of energy to one of our most expensive. It has promise, but as with any technology it will take a lot of money and time to develop.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Then you are going to need to come with another issue. :chuckles: I don't think you will find any politician that isn't in favor of exploring the feasibility of clean coal...the only difference might be the amount of resources to throw at it. It's been proven it can work, the problem is after the cleaning/CO2 capturing, it would go from being one of our cheapest forms of energy to one of our most expensive. It has promise, but as with any technology it will take a lot of money and time to develop.

Drats... and that was one thing I took from Palin's speech that I found interesting. Now its a de-politicized agreement that is almost rendered a non-issue. Well, I'm still interested in the topic regardless. I'm of the belief that the key to the U.S. fixing the economy is developing a technology like this one faster than any other country.

The medical research field has become a major money-maker for our international economy... but it has been at the cost of those of us who spend a large chunk of our paychecks to medical insurance.

I think the U.S. is in need of another technological breakthrough for our long-term economic health, but is this a big one? Anyone who lived in Pittsburgh or Cleveland in the 70s knows coal cannot continue to burn on a grand scale without technological advancement.

 

[-Akronite-]

If she can't keep her daughter clean, how do we expect her to keep our coal clean? JK of course.

I don't really care that much about "clean coal" because I'm far too focused on getting off of oil when it comes to energy. McCain/Palin seem to think that drilling more will solve something. I don't get it.

But that was one thing that kind of made me wonder too, just not enough to care lqtm.

 

[Dungong]

Energy is a funny topic. I don't think anyone would care if gas didn't hit $4, but since it has, it seems we're talking about air powered cars and running the nation on solar and wind power and finding an alternative source of energy in 10 years that will free our nation from its dependence on foriegn oil.

First, how dependent is the nation on oil? This should give you an idea. Basically, we use about 20.6 million barrels of oil a day and produce 8.3 according to that chart, that is we use 2.5X more than we make. So will drilling offshore make up that difference? Naw. Do you want a solar powered car? Naw. Even with $4 a gallon gas, is that hybrid cheaper? Nope.

Would any of that stuff make gas cheaper? I doubt it. China has 1.alot billion people running around, who not so long ago just biked everywhere. Did you see the smog cloud over Beijing? That put anything LA has had to shame, they hadn't had a blue sky over there in MONTHS before about a week into the Olympics. India has a bunch of people who are now doing what used to be an American job (damn tax breaks to companies that make telemarketers move overseas) and are now buying cars and adding to the worldwide demand for oil. Basically, worldwide demand is a big part of the reason that gas prices are going up, and yeah, the friendly folks at places like Exxon-Mobil will make money regardless, they're selling the stuff and people are buying.

So $4 gas makes people change their habits, already Americans are driving less, carpooling more, SUV sales are down, heck, some places went to a 4 day work week, etc. This is all stuff that is generally agreed that people should do because its good for the environment, but if gas were 50 cents a gallon, we'd be saying eff that. Until worldwide demand makes gas more expensive than the alternatives like clean coal, whatever that is, which it has yet to do, then we're going to keep buying oil and having to pay more to do so. Will gas be cheaper if we elect Obama vs McCain? I dont think so, unless the government does something stupid like subsidize gas prices like Mexico. By the way, for those of you on the border, go there, its cheaper.