Re: Question I'd ask Obama

In article <2pfvf49a5qckrfur8s8t8lh06qjc9lqqnf@xxxxxxx>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:28:29 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Of course this is a reminder of all the secondary CO2 savings nukes
could bring. Think of all the energy used mining the coal and
bringing it to the plants.

clean coal burning WAS prohibitively expensive, but as prices for other
energy has increased, it now is not too expensive.

There are plans that would bring clean coal tech to the masses as soon
as someone gets off the dime.

The FutureGen project was just one such
method and was ready to start building when GWB & co stopped it.

Actually it was GWB who started it.

Yep, that is true. But he (his admin) stopped it after the pick of a
site in Illinois over one in Texas. Or at least that is what it appears
to be.

One of the big problems with CO2 storage is safety. Let's say that
you're storing billions of tons of CO2 underground over the years and
then there's a small earthquake and the gas is released into the
atmosphere and thousands (or more) of people suffocate. This is one
of the reasons that the cost has risen so much and the project was
cancelled.

Nope. Political reasons.

A similar project in Florida, which liquefies coal and captures the
CO2, was cancelled because the state did not want to protect the
company from potential lawsuits if the CO2 eventually escaped and
killed people. The additional insurance to protect the company made
the project too expensive.

I'm all for clean coal, but overall nuclear is the better option. Even
if they made coal clean at the generation level, you still have a very
energy intensive and environmentally unfriendly industry in coal
mining and you have to transport it to the plant.

That's where mine mouth plants are supposed to help. But they are
having trouble getting them off the ground.

I'm also in favor of building as many wind turbines, especially
offshore, as possible. Solar is fine as well. Add in nuclear power
and the US could generate all the power it needs and do it with very
little CO2 emissions.

Then if they could come up with a really good electric car you could
use all this extra electric power to run cars and trucks. Then it
would start to impact oil use.

Coal can do that right now, and for less than nuclear. We have a
shitload of coal in the ground in the US in case you didn't know.
.

Loading