So…, instead…, the Climate Bill channels BILLIONS of dollars to the fantasy that is called Clean Coal, such that King Coal makes out like a bandit, while the consumer pays and pays…

Here Read:

+ The illusion of clean coal / The Economist:

–“The world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage.”

+ Trouble in store—Carbon capture and storage / The Economist,

+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,

+ The Dirt on Clean Coal / The Nation

+ King Coal’s Latest Con Job—Clean Coal is Not Clean / CommonDreams,

+ The ‘Clean Coal’ Lobbying Blitz / The Center for Public Integrity:

+Clean Coal / Wikipedia:
“… scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases: Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO2 , Hg(2+) , and SO3 – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.”

–“They’re the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a collection of 48 mining, rail, manufacturing, and power-generating companies with an annual budget of more than $45 million — almost three times larger than the coal industry’s old lobbying and public relations groups combined.”

+ Clean Coal or Dirty Coal? / Alternative Energy Blog:

–“… Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent. In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.”

+Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track / NY Times:

–“The allocation of $3.4 billion in the federal stimulus bill for carbon capture and sequestration, as carbon storage is often called, however, has allowed Duke Energy and other companies to consider mounting full-scale projects.”

+ Climate Change Protection, or Climate Change Assurance? / Bloggers for Change:

–“… the 1,200-page bill would also devote $60 billion to making sure clean coal isn’t a loser.”

+ The Case Against Carbon Trading / Transnational Institute:

–”… Citigroup’s Peter Atherton confessed that the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme had ‘done nothing to curb emissions.’ He admitted, … Prices up, emissions up, profits up …’ Who wins and loses? Coal and nuclear-based generators–biggest winners. Hedge funds and energy traders–even bigger winners. Losers … Consumers!”

+ Why China Could Blame Its CO2 on West / WSJ, 11/12/07:

–”If you have emission constraints, it’s become very attractive to relocate dirty production to developing countries … You import the finished goods, and leave the pollution in China.”

+ Nuclear Saviors: How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry / CounterPunch:

–the financial stakes are staggering—“American companies, such as GE, CBS Corp (formerly Westinghouse) and Bechtel, desperately crave those multi-billion dollar contracts.”

+ Nuclear’s CO2 cost ‘will climb’ / BBC News, 04/30/08.

–”The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.”

+ Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore’s Record On the Environment / CorpWatch:

“Terri Swearingen has heard enough of Al Gore’s promises on the environment. “There may be some that believe he is a premier environmentalist, but not me,” says the forty-three year old registered nurse and mother.”

“For nearly a decade, Swearingen has watched as the children of her quaint, working-class town in the Ohio river valley grow sicker and sicker. ‘It seems like every day we hear of a new cancer,’ she says. ‘Our children are getting cancer at a rate forty percent above the national average. In the past six months we’ve had two children develop a rare form of eye cancer. Do you know how unlikely that is for a town of our size?’
“In a campaign stop in Ohio, then-vice presidential candidate Al Gore blasted the incinerator as an “unbelievable” idea and promised outraged environmentalists that the Clinton/Gore team would ‘be on your side for a change.’”

“He followed up his pledge with an official press release calling for ‘a thorough investigation’ because ‘too many questions remain unanswered about the impact of this incinerator and the process by which it was approved.’”

“But that was Al Gore the candidate. And in those heady days of the election campaign, he probably didn’t realize that one of the financiers of the incinerator was none other than an investment banker from Little Rock, Arkansas, named Jack Stephens. Not only does Stephens finance incinerators, he finances politicians, including the Clinton/Gore campaign to the tune of $100,000 in 1992.”

“A bank subsidiary of his company even extended the campaign a $3.5 million credit line. Not surprisingly after the election, Gore quickly dropped the incinerator issue-and the plant continues to operate despite repeated failures of quality control tests. Gore has also remained silent on an on-going grand jury investigation into allegations that employees of the North Ohio Valley Air Authority accepted bribes to find the plant in compliance with environmental restrictions.”

In fact, the Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine simply uses PERMANENT MAGNETS to provide power equal to a small Nuclear Power Plant—at a tiny fraction of the price-tag…

The MagLev’s low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7!!!

And the MagLev’s low friction = operates off of wind as slow as 3 mph!!!

Here Read:

+ Popular Science’s 20th Annual Best of What’s New Awards / Nanosolar Homepage:

–This honor goes to the remarkably designed PowerSheet flexible solar cells. Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Nanosolar has created an ink that takes sunlight and converts it into electricity. The ink is coated onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil with a printing-press-like device. The sheets are lighter, inexpensive and as efficient as traditional solar panels. The editors of PopSci believe that eventually every commercial rooftop could be carpeted with PowerSheet solar cells.”

Wind/Solar could make very clean Hydrogen for “rainy days.”

Of course, the distribution problem with Hydrogen Cars is not a problem with Hydrogen Power plants, nor with Hydrogen Jumbo Jets…

June 28th, 2009
9:02 am

Thanks.

It’s their disease.

That they want to keep stuffing the wallets of the Venezuelans, Saudis, Nigerians, Angolans, Iraqis, Colombians, Russians, Algerians and Kuwaitis tells one pretty much all they need to know.

And like the pollution they so love, they keep belching the same noxious fumes and toxins…

We, as a country, operate as if oil is an infinite resource. The right howls at the noonday sun that if we can only drill offshore we can eliminate oil imports, yet they cannot offer anything to substantiate that claim. I’ve even hear people claim that oil deposits are continually “replenishing themselves” sort of like a bog or something. What a bunch of poppycock.

The sad truth is that the United States (and, yes, the world) is very close to running into a crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. Last summer’s $4.25 gas was just a foretaste of things to come. Our ONLY hope is to get off of oil or at least drastically reduce our use of it.

Many of the world’s largest oil fields are reaching the end of their useful life (Google Cantarell). There has not been a major find since the 70s. There is a day of reckoning coming and $4.25 gas will seem like a Sunday pic-nic. There are encouraging signs though. Electric vehicles for one. We are at a turning point in world history. We can adapt and survive or fail and perish.

Some facts might be useful. There are many posts here about China, India and the rest of the developing world “continuing to belch pollution” while we try to clean up. The fact is that China and India combined use about the same total amount of energy as the US, and have a combined 8 times our population…so we’re using about 8 times as much energy/person.

These are developing countries, wealth is rising, and energy use/person is growing…meaning they’ll demand more oil in the future, meaning more competition for oil and higher prices. That is, unless you assume that the recession will continue to reduce demand forever. The markets have already made a bet that emerging economies will rebound faster than we will (emerging markets are up about 62% this year, hope that’s where you invested your 201K). Incremental demand for oil historically drives prices exponentially…so it’s reasonable to bet on much higher prices for oil than we’re seeing today.

I admit to not getting into the nuts and bolts of the Petroleum Institute study, but will bet my nest paycheck that $150-$250/barrel oil was not factored into their “cost per person” calculations. Nor was the impact of a continued $1 BILLION PER DAY trade deficit for oil imports.

Investing in alternative energy sources won’t be cheap, there’s no doubt that we’ll all pay. Carbon tax is probably not the right solution. And it won’t get out of the Senate. But we’d better get real on looking at the whole problem, environment, trade deficit, and competitive impacts of our heavy reliance on imported oil, and think about making lemonade…which in our capitalistic society means figuring out how to make products that either save oil or replace it with something that we, not the Saudi and Iranians, make a profit on.

You didn’t bother to read it, did you Bosch? I’m not surprised.

Time and time again I’ve watched you choose blind ignorance over knowledge.

Yes! the article was two years old but the question remains — have they improved on it since then or have they simply beat the consumers into submission.

Bosch, the thing I’ve noticed about you is that you’re ready to surrender BEFORE even putting up a fight.

Is there a brain behind those rolling eyes of yours?

BTW, the reason I’m responding now instead of immediately after your response is because I hit the comment submission and headed out the door for an anniversary party. Didn’t get home until after midnight.

I’m not trying to make you look bad…..

June 28th, 2009
7:25 am

Don’t worry, it ain’t gonna happen. It will never get out of the Senate.

But does anyone really know what it would cost? What is it going to cost to do nothing, other than lives?

June 28th, 2009
7:14 am

Morons?

http://indoors.pricegrabber.com/carry-ons-totes/WARNING-YOU-THOUGHT-REAGAN-WAS/m712907585.html

Maybe that should be “start again.” Jimmy was going on what he was being told at the time by the experts. There is not an infinite supply of oil and natural gas.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/index.html

Uhhhh… it’s really none of our business to be quite honest, other than a passing world event of some interest, it’s just simply none of our business… If it were up to us to take out tyrants in the world, which it is not, then we’ve got a long list of tyrants to take out…

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

She hates gays more than I do!

Be sure to come to Westboro Baptist this morning, sweetheart, I got something for ya!