Coal Industry Sponsoring Tonight’s CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Coal Industry Sponsoring Tonight’s CNN Democratic Presidential Debate
Tonight at 8 pm EST, CNN will air a Democratic presidential debate, live from Las Vegas, Nevada. A full-page advertisement in today’s New York Times states that the debate is being sponsored by the “clean coal” industry:
See the full page ad here.
Here’s a closer look at the coal industry’s “clean” agenda:
• Expand coal production via the promotion of government funded “coal to liquid” technology to convert coal to vehicle fuels, which would produce twice as much global warming pollution as ordinary gasoline production, while consuming huge amounts of water too.
• Build as many new power plants as possible before limits on greenhouse gas pollution take effect to evade such safeguards. There are nearly 150 coal fired power plants on the drawing board.
• Delay and weaken any limits on carbon dioxide pollution for as long as possible, even though scientists tell us we need a 20% reduction by 2020, and an 80% reduction in 2050.
• Under any “cap and trade” global warming plan, convince Congress to give them free “allowances” to emit greenhouse gases rather than force coal fired power plants to buy them in an auction.
The coal industry has been engaged in an intense lobbying campaign to persuade coal-state lawmakers to adopt their backwards ideas. Fortunately, it’s not working. Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a key coal-state senator, killed a coal-to-liquid amendment in May.
The coal industry’s sponsorship of tonight’s CNN debate in Las Vegas appears to be an attempt to pressure Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has stood firmly against the construction of three proposed major coal-fired power plants in his home state:
REID: “I want to help Nevada become the national leader in renewable energy and energy independence. We have vast wind, solar and geothermal resources and we’re wasting energy every day we’re not tapping into those free, clean, and reliable power sources. … As proposed, these coal plants are old news, the way of the increasingly distant past.”
Because their pressure tactics are failing, the coal industry appears to think they can buy off a victory by sponsoring a presidential debate.
Contact debate moderator Wolf Blitzer here, and urge him to ask the Democratic candidates whether they endorse clean coal as the solution to our dependence on foreign oil.
UPDATE: The coal industry also has ads on CNN’s debate website:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think sponshorship by Doritos would have been a much better choice.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThey could run Budweiser add’s to go with the Doritos….Wonder if this debate will allow equal time to all or just more time for the top 3…
November 15th, 2007 at 12:18 pmYa gotta love the audacity of having lobbyists sponsor the debates. We live in strange times.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pmCNN with Wolf airing a Democratic presidential debate.
That should be very informative.
Why do I think the whole purpose will be to discredit the participants ?
When will the Dems learn that they’re going have to get their own television station and their own moderator if they want to be able to ‘catapult their own propaganda’ ?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
I guess using solar steam power is completely out of the question – way to clean and its already proven and in use. We just HAVE TO cut coal out fo the ground and act like 18th century idiots.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pmYou can scream “NO COAL†all you want, but you won’t get anywhere until you come up with an alternative. As usual, the liberal “anti-everything†crowd is long on complaining, short on realistic ideas.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 15, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
answer above dreammusher
November 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWe have vast wind, solar and geothermal resources….those free, clean, and reliable power sources. And don’t forget Tide Generators, which never stop.
You forgot to mention those DumbCrusher.
Coal = Dirty Alternative = Clean
Buck Fush
November 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pmclean coal…lol!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pmoh and thebobh…we are going to run out of coal a lot faster than you think…and your liberal generalizing is as usual…wrong.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:26 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6681113.stm
wave energy – wow – 55 of the UK’s need sprovided by ONE project
November 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pm5% that is
November 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pmoh and thebobh…we are going to run out of coal a lot faster than you think…and your liberal generalizing is as usual…wrong.
Comment by Freakaloin — November 15, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
your an idiot – read closer
November 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pmI’m buying an electric car and am fully aware of the challanges involved in producing the energy needed to power it . Solar and wind have their own drawbacks ,but I’m convinced that ceasing to use the oil companies commodities is the best thing I can do for both the enviorment and our democracy !
November 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pmFor under 10 grand the GEM car is an excellent choice ,for 13 grand the ZENN is even better and MILES puts out a great mini van as well as an auto for about 19 grand .The problem remains that at present all of these vehicles are only usable for replacing in town transportation needs ,although by the end of 08 or early the following year Miles plans to introduce a car capable of 80 MPH and has a radius of 120 miles per charge ,selling at between 28 and 32 grand .
The car I want is the latter but I feel compelled to buy one that isn’t optimal because I believe our democracy may not have a year to wait !
Anyone interested in making a contribution ?
http://www.theaircar.com/
you mean liek this freeman?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
November 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pmIf move on can generate 100’s of thousand to by newspaper space isn’t it possible the blogging community can put several of these cleavehicles on the road in every major city ?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pmTalk is cheap ,DO THE WALK !!
thebobh…wow what a comeback. i read closer and it’s confirmed…your an idiot…sry.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pmDamn those air powered cars that use compressed air will be hard to build – luckily the french are already doing it – were being passed by …. and we’ll be laughed at by the europeans of all people in a little under three years.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pmthebobh…wow what a comeback. i read closer and it’s confirmed…your an idiot…sry.
Comment by Freakaloin — November 15, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
its sarcasm assbandit – you failed to understand it so you indeed ARE an idiot
November 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pmBOB thanx for the links ..SUPER. SCREW BIG OIL don’t wait ,do it now !!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:32 pmno it wasn’t…read closer…
November 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pmheres another one from austrailia freeman
http://www.engineair.com.au/
probably the better fo the two but the euro one is closer to mass production.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pmoh shit i read closer…i thought u were dreamchaser bob…sry…lol i am an idiot…
November 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pmMILES ,ZENN ,and GEM cars are on the road now and since 75 % of the average CITIZENS DRIVING IS WITHIN 5 MILES OF THEIR Home so 75% of the average citizens gas usage can be reduced thru a 9000 $ invesment. Insurance runs about 200 $ a year .
November 15th, 2007 at 12:36 pmTexas is fighting this Great Satan called Coal.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI can remember listening to NASA scientists on the radio back in the early 1970s, over 35 years ago, saying that even then there was technology available to put giant solar panels into space in a high orbit around the earth, that could convert the sun’s light to microwave energy and beam it down to earth. That in turn could be converted to electricity. The microwave beam could be made diffuse enough so that it doesn’t pose a danger. They said the only obstacle was the will of the Congress.
And I also recently heard another scientist who claimed that we could build a giant solar array in the desert and that with one only one square mile in size, it would capture enough solar energy to power the entire United States and leave us energy-independent. The estimated cost of about $100 billion is about half of Bush’s Iraq budget for one year and it would leave us more secure than any mis-guided military adventures in an oil war.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmHey how about a move on style fund raising scheme to put these on the road in every major market bin the US . Hey TP I’m talking to U !
November 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmoh shit i read closer…i thought u were dreamchaser bob…sry…lol i am an idiot…
Comment by Freakaloin — November 15, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
cool – its quite alright – ive made an utter fool of myself a few time for the same thing :)
November 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pmJust a thought: If we had the $800 billion Bush spent on his vanity invasion, maybe – just maybe – we could make some headway into alternative fuels.
Kennedy got us to the moon in +/- ten years, why not a governement challenge to create and develop energy sources capable of seeing us into the distant future? America used to be innovative, not anymore.
If we don’t turn away from 19th century evergy sources, we are surely doomed.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pmGovernment will do nothing for a scheme that cuts profits for their corporate overlords .Its up to FREEMEN and women to take control of their own lives and stand up to big oil !
November 15th, 2007 at 12:41 pmBefore it’s too late !
Just a thought: If we had the $800 billion Bush spent on his vanity invasion, maybe – just maybe – we could make some headway into alternative fuels.
we really dont need the fuel at all – just clean energy like solar wind and wave – even geothermal
November 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pmMoney where your mouth is .
November 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIt’s even a good investment if you live in a major city it will reduce your fuel cost 95 % (?) and you will save 100’s a year on car insurance .
Clean coal is achievable, but the technology isn’t there yet. A fraction of what we are spending to create enemies in Iraq would be sufficient to develop the technology.
I am a fcking rabid environmentalist and could be doing jail time for some of the shit I did as a kid to stop logging, so please don’t dismiss me as a troll, but we are going to need both clean coal and nuclear plants to provide the energy we need.
In addition to wind, wave, solar and especially CONSERVATION.
We have 300 years of coal in Montana and Wyoming alone, in the PRB Basin, and the mining there isn’t intrusive. The energy in the coal can be converted to natural gas for electricity generation, diesel, gasoline…even jet fuel, and the all the bad actors are captured. CO2, SO2, NOx….
And we would wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, get the hell out of their countries and their faces, and stop throwing our dollars and soldiers to steal their oil. But Bush doesn’t do coal. His family background is oil and $3 or $4 gasoline works out rather well for the Bush and Bandar Brothers.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pmhttp://www.solardeathray.com/
the above mentioned solar steam powerplant works on the exact same principle as the solar death ray – only on a larger scale:
http://www.solardeathray.com/
November 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pmHow about a little help here folks !!!!!!!!!!!!! If you walk away from a 10 000 expenditure ,knowing what you now know YOU ARE AS QUILT AS DICK CHENEY and the blood from this war is on ALL our hands .
November 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pmwould capture enough solar energy to power the entire United States
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver
But our government has been bought and paid for by Corportations that don’t want that, they would lose profits and maybe be put out of business all together. Which is the whole problem, we need public funding for elections and NO MORE LOBBYIST.
Buck Fush
November 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 6616651.stm
I guess using solar steam power is completely out of the question – way to clean and its already proven and in use. We just HAVE TO cut coal out fo the ground and act like 18th century idiots.
Comment by thebobh — November 15, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Wow – that thing is awesome. Do you happen to know if it generates excess heat, i.e., will it lead to greater ambient air temperature? That seems like the only negative by-product there wouuld be.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pmof course the OPEC nations are already threatening to quash any massive turn away from oil…..perhaps we shoudl just nuke them and solve two of our problems.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:47 pmIf nanlichi lives in a major city ,I’ll contribute a hundred $ today to help him drive a no emmissions gas free vehicle , HOW ABOUT U ?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWow – that thing is awesome. Do you happen to know if it generates excess heat, i.e., will it lead to greater ambient air temperature? That seems like the only negative by-product there wouuld be.
Comment by Keltoi — November 15, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
the heat is already here on earth so i cant see how it woudl create more heat – the steam is used to power turbines and the steam is created by redirecting heat that woudl otherwise hit the ground.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThe sum is worth more than the whole of it’s parts ,what are vwe waiting for , an edict from the king ?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pmYou can scream “NO COAL†all you want, but you won’t get anywhere until you come up with an alternative. As usual, the liberal “anti-everything†crowd is long on complaining, short on realistic ideas.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 15, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
I see you are REALLY up on the latest in alternative energy. Now read slowly, and gather in all of the facts. NO carbon dioxide, NO using Hydrocarbons to generate. Poor Oil companies. What will they do?
“New Method Uses Bacteria to Generate Hydrogen Gas”
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2007/11/hydrogen_bacteria
November 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pmIsn’t “clean coal” an oxymoron? Like “compassionate conservative”?
But seriously, if coal CAN be made “clean”, and if it’s possible to use it as an energy source without sucking up huge amounts of our water or hastening the global warming process, I’m all for it. We need to explore petroleum alternatives, and it doesn’t make sense to wait until the last drop of oil is consumed before we do so. This doesn’t mean coal is our only alternative. There’s also wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, landfill gases, and conservation of the energy we have.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pmMaybe TP will take donations toward bob’s new car ?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pmUltimately the issue here isn’t whether the sponsor is “clean coal”– these debates should not be sponsored by ANY lobbying organization, be it clean coal or PETA. Before long we’ll have the swift boat veterans sponsoring the ‘Democrat’ debates so that they can run their spots in the breaks. And do you believe that Wolfie won’t take the money guys’ calls when they “suggest” questions and follow-ups? Yeah, Sure.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:51 pmI agree America is not nearly as innovative as we have been historically. Seems the innovation has been used to maintain status quo nowadays.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:51 pmYeah i want a new aircar!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:52 pmCoal is clean as long as its combustion products are stored, which is the whole purpose of the carbon sequestration. It can be done and it is done, the thing is that is costly and energy intensive.
Dreamcrusher, there are dozens of alternative.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pmGosh, I just gotta say that it is sooooo nice today on the threads with that scum (s)hits kicked out.
DreamCrusher is even a welcome poster compaired to that disruptive idiot.
Thank You TP for Kicking “hits” out, it is much more civil without him spamming every thread.
Buck Fush
November 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pmSequestered coal plants are already emerging in Montana. The Jury is still out on long term viability. Essentially, the noxious byproducts are driven by air into deep pockets underground. The don’t eliminate the toxins, they just ‘hide them’.
Solar collectors have to become more efficient. I’ve seen some now that incorporate a hyperbolic ‘antenna like’ dish with a focal point bridged from dish rim to center. All solar energy collected is condensed into this focal point, where it’s converted to photovoltaic energy & transmitted down the power grid to the end user.
These devices could be made the size of current satellite dishes and power most or more than one households needs. This is where we need to start. The idea of a central power plant many miles from the end user dramatically reduces effeciency and increases costs.
Coupled with a small wind turbine, which are being made in Scotland now for about $750.00, this array could easily meet most private homes power consumption needs.
It’s not rocket science holding this back, folks, it’s corporate greed looking to monopolize energy sources.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pmSOLD .where do I contribute !!!!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pmJudging from the responses I think there is very little hope for our species . Thanx for ignoring me , talk has been elevated by the blogosphere but IT ISN”T ENOUGH ! DO THE WALK !
November 15th, 2007 at 12:56 pmZimzone,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
Read this – supplies 600,000 peoples power in Seville Spain.
it exists – it needs no more tweaking – its as clean as a babies butt.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pmF@ck annonimity
November 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pmnorthstar@gorge.net
Lets get personal !
Freeman, it seems like the topic of this thread is about a special interest group sponsoring the debate. Everybody here has been pretty patient with your self promotion. But it has taken up half the thread.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm50,
November 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pmShould be ‘parabolic’, not hyperbolic’…
Okay dudes, that picture up top…
Wolf Blitzer or Dr Zeus?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pmmy apologies but self aggrandizement is entirely inaccurate , My only agenda here is stopping all this killing and averting the demise of our species ,now back to our regularly scheduled programming .
November 15th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI defer.
Why aren’t Democratic candidates making energy a major campaign issue? Weaning our country away from Middle Eastern oil is an important matter of national security. If we could develop sources of cheap energy such as solar power by developing more efficient solar arrays, we could change the world. Even the immigration issue could be addressed, as cheap energy in other countries would improve their economies and make people less likely to uproot themselves looking for work. And decentralizing energy sources through personal solar and wind technology would also mean increased freedom for people throughout the world. The key to many important issues beyond just global warming or the economy could be found in the development of alternative energy sources. Since energy is connected to so many other issues, why isn’t this a major topic among Democrats running for office?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe democrats will save us ?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pmCoal and oil own the government and both sides of the aisle and both parties are responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in !
The best democracy money can buy !
53,
Thanks so much! Wow!
I tried to design what I described above in the late ’70’s, but the math converting heat to photovoltaic energy was over my head.
Thanks again, thebobh.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThis a topic especially close to Mr. Obama, since he teamed up with Sen. Bunning on coal to liquid fuel technology legislation:
“The bill, which I re-introduced in the 110th Congress with Senator Barrack Obama as the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (S. 155), would create a program, to be led by the Department of Energy and Department of Defense, to plan, finance, test, and purchase coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels in America . A combination of tax incentives, loan guarantees and long-term purchasing contracts will reduce the risk associated with these multi-billion dollar plants and stimulate private investment, creating a vibrant domestic marketplace for alternative fuels.”
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueStatements.View&Issue_id=b6a39eed-802a-23ad-4fd6-fd2ddd89091b
November 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe comments above reflect the usual liberal vs conservative debate. First, we have conservatives denying that any sort of energy or environmental problem exists. Second, the impacts predicted by the liberals start to come to fruition. Conservatives argue that traditional industries can adapt. Liberal ideas are decried as pie in the sky. Third, as the public realized that the liberals were correct, Conservatives argue for tax incentives and funds for private industry (mostly those who caused the problem with little for true innovators) to tackle the problem. After the fate of the earth hangs in the balance, conservatives argue that we still really cannot change from current technologies since the liberals have no alternative.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThat’s my e mail address.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pmI don’t have a web site to promote and I’m sick of watching helplessly while Iraqi’s pay the price for my lifestyle !
The 2 party system is bought and payed for ,but in truth the responsibility for all this suffering and misery lies on the shoulders of the apathetic . DEMOCRACY NOW .
be free now and change the world thru your own actions , you are the responsible party , and so am I .Don’t wait for the next election or expect help from the elitists running our government .
Insults are easy but a look at bthe last year of democratic majorities i both houses speaks volumes . I don’t mind taking the heat for my beliefs they are’nt always convenient ,but if thats the price I must [pay then there it is .
November 15th, 2007 at 1:28 pmThe democrats have rolled over endlessly and I’m not the only blogger here who thinks so .
I maintain your command of the facts is weak on the 2 party system .
Democrats attempted to bury letters of impeachment , and gave Bush more than he asked for in terms of domestic spying ! Feinstein will attempt to grant the telecom’s retroactive immunity and democrats on the judiciary approved a AG who can’t say if torture is criminal .
Your excellent in your use of insults and expletives yto demonize any whom you disagree with but your command of the FACTS leave s a bit to be desired .
#42 ~ Hydrogen is where we should spend the most R&D money , but solar, tide and wind should also be encouraged. Coal should be used in transition, I don’t feel that nukes should be continued indefinitely, as their byproducts last hundreds of thousands of years…
November 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pmJust sayin.
Because freedom isn’t represented it’s lived and democracy is rule by the people not multi national corporations .
November 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pmTake it to a higher authority ? You are the higher authority !
self be your guide
self be your leader
do not look for any other leader .
gautama buddha
this dog and pony show only goes on as long as we continue to support it ,gulliver.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:33 pmFreeman, thanks for your concern. I do live in good sized city of about 1M and I ride a bike to work three days a week. Send the $100 anyway though.
JMOHR, I am saying that we need a Manhattan Project for energy. Spend a lot of tax money on research on all levels, clean coal and nuke for the intermediate term, and alternative energy for the long term. The technology just isn’t there yet to switch entirely to renewables, much as we would like to.
There is a HUGE problem associated with energy production and the impact on the environment, and missmolly hits on one area that is typically overlooked, the water consumption of these plants.
It would be ironic if America’s efforts to wean ourselves from oil by developing small scale renewable solutions instead of centralized power plants also fueled our economy as we sold those technologies to the rest of the world.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:34 pmLets not forget how “the clean coal industry” has laid waste to thousands of acres and thousands of mile of stream beds in the beautiful Appalachian hills of West Virginia with mountain top distruction and vile cess pools of chemical waste.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:37 pmRUCerious,
Right on. Hydrogen also provides the energy storage coupled with the other renewables to produce the energy when it is needed. I like my beer cold all times of the day, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines.
Agreed on the nuclear too waste comment too.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHydrogen is where we should spend the most R&D money , but solar, tide and wind should also be encouraged. Coal should be used in transition, I don’t feel that nukes should be continued indefinitely, as their byproducts last hundreds of thousands of years…
Just sayin.
Comment by RUCerious — November 15, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Oh, I agree 100%. For instance the Tesla Motors Roadster is a good start. I understand they will be coming out with a $15,000 version of this.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
The “Lithium Ion Revolution”
Solar is also feasible. Subsidize the entire Middle East to construct collectors. Geo-Thermal has potential. Tide and Wave generators. Wind Power with screen to protect the birds. And of course, hydroelectric.
Coal, Nuclear, and Fossil should be phased out for environmental as well as political reasons
November 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pmAs long as we’re talking about solar power, why not space-based solar power?
In space, one can build a collector as large as one wished, for a fraction of the cost of building it dirtside. The light is also undimmed by atmosphere, unobstructed by clouds and inclement weather, and available around 95% of the time.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pmIf you want to elevate the ’species’, start with yourself
facts
good advice bro let me tell you about it .I make my living thrugh art and music promoting enviormentalism and untill a year and a half ago lived with solar energy off the grid on 50 acres ajoining a wildlife area and a land trust .Tommorow I’ll be test driving an electric car which I’m debating about buying despite the inconvenience it will cause for me and the fact that the car I want really though more expensive will not be out for another year.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI do not need a lawyer to instruct me on ethics or a priest or politician to save me .
Washington will not save us ,but I will vote most likely for a third party candidate unless the democrats grow a spine immediately !
insults and expletives turn off potential sympathizers and are being used by the right wing to dismiss your beliefs , stick to facts they should be all you need if you believe in the strength of your arguments .
November 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pmdecentalize energy and take back our democracy .
November 15th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIt would be ironic if America’s efforts to wean ourselves from oil by developing small scale renewable solutions instead of centralized power plants also fueled our economy as we sold those technologies to the rest of the world.
Comment by nanlichi — November 15, 2007
November 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
okay maybe there is hope .
In space, one can build a collector as large as one wished, for a fraction of the cost of building it dirtside. The light is also undimmed by atmosphere, unobstructed by clouds and inclement weather, and available around 95% of the time.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 15, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Yes, but then you waste most of that power broadcasting it to Earth.
And satellites are not in perpetual sunlight. Unless your satellites are in a sun-synchronous polar orbit, and then they can only broadcast to Earth when the target is near sunrise or sunset.
Interesting idea, but it seems far more like science fiction than feasible solution at this point.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:02 pmSmall is beautiful . I want free decentalized energy and a car that runs on it without polluting . Without the involvement of multi national corporations !
November 15th, 2007 at 2:05 pmBut our government has been bought and paid for by Corporations that don’t want that, they would lose profits and maybe be put out of business all together. Which is the whole problem, we need public funding for elections and NO MORE LOBBYIST.
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy
To have a true democracy our elections can not be bought as they are today. The fact our congress has not passed as you put it:
is corrupt and they won’t vote it in because they are bought.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:05 pmJust as frightening as terrorist Bush is the strength and power corporations have gained within the past 7 years. B. Clinton helped with that too with NAFTA and Hillary is also for it.
The corporate media is picking our primary candidate – Hillary. I know of no one, any talk show host or audience for her, in fact I hear many can not stand her. And yet the polls from corporate media, which I do not believe, put her as a front runner – because she is the most corporate friendly and they know the dems will win.
I do not get too excited about the democratic debates on corporate media sponsored by big corporations. Will Kucinich get a word in this time? Or will they set him up to look as a fool to many? And if Kucinich or another the corporations perceived as a threat became a front runner, would we see a plane crash? Oh those stopped when the thugs brought in the cheating electronic voting machines.
nader / kucinich in 08 !
November 15th, 2007 at 2:08 pmor anyone else not allowed in their debate.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:09 pm76, TMM,
Thanks, that is a great article & well worth reading.
Obviously, I was thinking ’small’.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pmAnd if Kucinich or another the corporations perceived as a threat became a front runner, would we see a plane crash? Oh those stopped when the thugs brought in the cheating electronic voting machines.
-Comment by had enough
Not exactly, Paul Wellstone’s plane ‘crash’ was just 3 years ago this month…
November 15th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSmall is beautiful . I want free decentalized energy and a car that runs on it without polluting . Without the involvement of multi national corporations !
Comment by freeman — November 15, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Agreed. These folks have some interesting technology for distributed generation, storage, and load-balancing.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:22 pmSun-powered homes defy a cool housing market
Builders say buyers are seeking them out, and solar industry officials say growth is going through the roof.
By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, Sept. 25, 2007
With foreclosures rising and home prices diving, there is a bright spot in California’s residential real estate market: Solar-powered homes are starting to outsell traditionally electrified new homes in several markets, and developers are stepping up their use of the technology.
…”Those builders are seeing that they’ll get more buyers coming to their developments when they have solar. They sell like hot cakes,” said Bernadette del Chiaro, energy specialist at the advocacy group Environment California.
Full story:
November 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pmhttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar25sep25,0,1478542.story
JMOHR, I am saying that we need a Manhattan Project for energy. Spend a lot of tax money on research on all levels, clean coal and nuke for the intermediate term, and alternative energy for the long term. The technology just isn’t there yet to switch entirely to renewables, much as we would like to.
There is a HUGE problem associated with energy production and the impact on the environment, and missmolly hits on one area that is typically overlooked, the water consumption of these plants.
It would be ironic if America’s efforts to wean ourselves from oil by developing small scale renewable solutions instead of centralized power plants also fueled our economy as we sold those technologies to the rest of the world.
Comment by nanlichi — November 15, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Nanlichi, A Manhattan Project idea is good but today’s governments are far too free market to go with this idea. They would rather continue to give tax breaks to known energies.
The real irony is that other countries ARE developing renewable solutions and ARE fueling their economies. The corporate take over of the government must stop – this topic is more proof of this.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:35 pmNot exactly, Paul Wellstone’s plane ‘crash’ was just 3 years ago this month…
Comment by Zimzone —
How about 5 years ago last month? He died:
October, 2002.
http://www.alternet.org/story/14384/
November 15th, 2007 at 2:38 pmthe links on this thread have been fantastic and I’ll be using them to further educate myself . But I still believe if we were to actually cooperate to acheive personal energy independence we would have a far greater impact . I’ll back up my words with actions and donate to another blogger in a major city toward the purchase of an alternative vehicle . We are capable of putting an electric or air ( ? ) vehicle on the road by the end of this thread if we were to co operate . Perhaps our hosts would lend a hand to keep it honest .
November 15th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI live in a small town and ride my bicycle everywhere so I am not really the best candidate although just to make a point I will probably be buying one anyway !
Need a new car toast ?
DOes the staff at TP need a new car ?
November 15th, 2007 at 2:42 pmI’ll share the expense and walk away from the investment if it will put a dent in the armour of big oil ! Please help me !
November 15th, 2007 at 2:44 pmPaul wellstone never landed ,he’s still flying .
November 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pmComment by nanlichi — November 15, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Even if you could recapture the CO2, etc. while production, there’s still huge amounts released into the atmosphere when it’s burnt as fuel. So it cannot be an environmentally positive replacement for oil. In addition, it is not renewable. Eventually, the coal would be gone as well. And while you may consider the mining of coal “non-intrusive” in the areas you mentioned, West Virginia and other states could give you pictures of whole mountain tops blown off, streams and rivers full of the debris. In the states that I’ve been in where coal has been strip mined, I don’t consider that “non-intrusive.” And considering the kind of subsidies and price guarantees that coal producers are asking for, it’s just another “pigs at the trough” scenario. Just because something is there, doesn’t mean we HAVE to use it!! The huge subsidies, etc. being requested by ‘big coal” and that have always been given to oil companies could fund massive research and development of truly renewable and non-harmful alternative energy sources. Like solar, geo and wind. And including ethanol, IF the techniques for using non-food “feedstocks” were developed. That takes money and research.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pmNeed a new car toast ?
Comment by freeman — November 15, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
I use flexcar, but thank you!
Speaking of interesting links – the Center for Global Development has put out an online database of power plants and companies around the world and their MWh generation vs. CO2 production:
http://carma.org/dig/show/world+company
Not surprisingly, three of the top five are in China.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pmthe point is that the debate has a furshlugginer SPONSOR!
how lame is that? what’s next? all the candidates in Nikes or eating Chiquita Bananas?
League of Women Voters, come home!
November 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pmtoast your my hero !Any other takers ?
November 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWolf Blitzer is an AIPAC man….what do you expect from these debates anyway.
How come in all these debates you don’t hear a word about AIPAC influence and Necons,or about the PNAC plans for the Middle East.
The moment television networks begin to ask questions AIPAC,Neocns,PNAC plans,then there is a hope..until then all these debates are nothing but an empty shows,regardless who the sponser is.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pmimpeachcheneythenbush,
Can’t argue with you on any point. There is still CO2 emitted when the gas is burned, but only 1/4 of the amount currently emitted by pulverized coal combustion. But that would be a huge step in the right direction for an interim solution.
“Mr. Peabody’s coal train done hauled it away.” Mountain top mining and valley fill should have been outlawed long ago. That destruction is sick.
My point is that in addition to investing lots of money in small scale renewables (the number one priority) we need to push for clean coal as a stopgap.
I guess the argument against a stopgap, is that it may be considered to be good enough and take momentum away from the research and investment in renewables.
Why don’t I see more arguments for conservation here? Or is that so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pmCoal is NOT a clean energy source. It’s very dirty business to mine the coal and puts out pollution in burning the damn stuff too.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pmComment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — November 15, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I think one of the issues (other than the greed) stopping a ready adoptment of alternative energy is that it is and will not be for some time, “cheap.” It will be more expensive until it’s funded through investment, etc. adequately. I have a small retirement IRA, and every penny is invested in alternative energy stocks. I could have chosen to increase the value of my holdings tremendously if I have chosen to invest in oil and defense stocks. But I’m putting my money where my mouth is.
The focus should be on that so-called “cheap” energy that is fossil-fuel based is NOT truly cheap, because of 1) the cost (both money and lives) of wars fought over control of it and 2) the environmental degradation and possible extinction of species it results in over time, including humans.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pmMIKE GRAVEL WILL BE HAVING ANOTHER ALT DEBATE RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS DEBATE STREAMED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH CNN’S
tune in and watch him tear them apart as always but from across the street cuz they’re all to corrupt and chicken shit to face him head on!
http://www.gravel08.us
November 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI guess the argument against a stopgap, is that it may be considered to be good enough and take momentum away from the research and investment in renewables.
Why don’t I see more arguments for conservation here? Or is that so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated?
Comment by nanlichi — November 15, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I think that IS THE major argument about not encouraging it as a stopgap.
As for conservation not being brought up, I think most of us already see that as a given. But acknowledge that conservation, alone, is not going to solve the problem. Obviously, there is no single “silver bullet” to kill the werewolf of global warming, but multiples of different options. All of these options are within our reach, if the will is there!
November 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pmAmazing job on this thread by so many of you of providing great information on the current progress of so many forms of alternative energy. I was aware of some, but hardly all, of them. Thanks! Today, this website “Think Progress” has lived up 100% to what that means!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmfreeman: “stick to facts they should be all you need if you believe in the strength of your arguments…”
says the phony who’s selling the fact-free idea that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pmRemember the size and cost of the pocket calculator ?
November 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pmThe batteries are still the weak point agreed but I’ll dipute your figures on life and cost .
Production of the energy acquired in a decentralized fashion through solar and wind have the same drawbacks ,the batteries ,admittedly.
However …
a journey of a million miles begins with a single step .
In the universe great acts are made up of small deeds.
oh I agree that there are differences but not in their coporate sponsors
November 15th, 2007 at 6:27 pmBlack and white it isn’t but intention is key . I surely hope your right about our 2 party system but I feel my skepticism is not unwarranted and in either case I still believe action NOW in our own lives is a far more powerful thing than waiting for an answer from the lawyers in washington.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pmPolitics seeks to change the world by changing others . Spirituality places the responsibility on the individual . You and I are both the problem and the solution in this view.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pmi AM responsible .
There’s no cleaner coal than no coal. Get some sun panels already.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:33 pmsouthern man and dreamcursher,
while you guys are dicking around here playing with yourselves house minority leader john “bonie” boehner (r-oh) is getting his ass kicked at a tp post entitled:
Weepy Boehner breaks down again on House floor.
why aren’t you two ass clowns over there posting comments and protecting the man? don’t you love america?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pmYeah, solar and wind power is going to replace coal. Let me know when you guys get back from Imagination Land.
VS.
As usual, the liberal “anti-everything†crowd is long on complaining, short on realistic ideas.
Hmmm. Can you say hypocrite? I can! I can! DreamCrusher is such a strong name, yet your arguments cancel each other out rendering you irrelevent. You’ve been given a few different alternatives. Even in the opening of the blog by Faiz. Did you read that before making your comments? Didn’t think so. Yet you poo-poo every viable idea. How convenient for you. You’re an embarrassment. Coal is bad news man. It’s the 21st century my wit-less chum.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:24 pmSomeone help me here because I’m in no way defending polluting coal but there is a modern, huge coal fired plant nearby and all I can see coming from it is steam.
Do they have clean plants?
It was completed in about 1987-88
November 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pmFutureGen is a project of the US government to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant that intends to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage.
-wikipedia
my area in illinois is in a strong position to get this new plant… and jobs…
i’m sure obama is a proponent…
…
also, did anyone know that campbell brown’s husband it a
ROMNEY guy???
yea… that girl’s gonna be unbiased…
November 16th, 2007 at 7:52 pm…