Under Obama: Electricity Prices Will Skyrocket

[Kulindahr]

Nick, building nuclear plants will drive up the price of electricity; it's more expensive than coal, and definitely more expensive than hydro or wind. Add to that the cap and trade system, and electric rates will "skyrocket" under any attempt to significantly reduce our carbon emissions in a short period of time.

And I notice that you still haven't admitted that you added to what Obama said when you said he would bankrupt an entire industry.

 

[Kulindahr]

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that there is no way of building a coal fired plant that is economically feasible that won't have unacceptable co2 emissions. There really is no such thing as clean coal and many of do not want any more coal burning plants.

McCain's energy policy, drilling and nuclear, is probably more realistic than Obama's, but the Democratic environmental left is not particulary realistic and Obama won't alienate them before the election. Energy policy will have to be determined politically after the election and I give Obama a pass on his vagueness at this point.

I read an article that described a method of clean coal power, with some name like turbo-plasma-injection. It runs with coal dust burning at plasma temperatures to drive a turbine. The process would cost "significantly more" than any coal technology in existence -- and when a scientist says "significantly more", I assume he's talking about orders of magnitude, not mere percentages.

But anyway, apparently there is a clean coal technology, but yes, it isn't economically feasible.

 

[NickCole]

And I notice that you still haven't admitted that you added to what Obama said when you said he would bankrupt an entire industry.

That's not quite what I said. I said a "sector of the energy industry ... will be bankrupted if it tries to expand." But regardless, I did concede that "sector of the energy industry" was too all encompassing and that I worded it badly:

Post # 41: "But you are right that I could have better said "individual companies" rather than a "sector of the energy industry." I stand corrected on that wording."

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not quite what I said. I said a "sector of the energy industry ... will be bankrupted if it tries to expand." But regardless, I did concede that "sector of the energy industry" was too all encompassing and that I worded it badly:

Post # 41: "But you are right that I could have better said "individual companies" rather than a "sector of the energy industry." I stand corrected on that wording."

Oops -- sorry.
Though in context, I think he meant the project to do a new plant, not a whole company just for building it.

This reminds me once again of something that bugs me about Obama: he has what I think of as "professorial moments", when he forgets he's not talking to grad students who have a conceptual framework in common with him, so he makes statements that either don't make sense to people or are easily misunderstood -- sometimes more easily misunderstood than correctly.

I think he's gotten better, but I still think that if you sat him down with a bunch of folks down on the fishing docks up the bay, they'd end up talking past each other, because he doesn't really speak that kind of American.

 

[HenryReardon]

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that there is no way of building a coal fired plant that is economically feasible that won't have unacceptable co2 emissions. There really is no such thing as clean coal and many of do not want any more coal burning plants.

.

The real point that is being missed is the fact that co2 follows warming and isn't a factor in causing it.

Google the term co2 follows warming and read the articles. Here's one:

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/5/6/19282

 

[NickCole]

Oops -- sorry.

No problem.

Though in context, I think he meant the project to do a new plant, not a whole company just for building it.

I disagree. And it's certainly not what he said. But I won't argue what he meant because neither of us knows that.

This reminds me once again of something that bugs me about Obama: he has what I think of as "professorial moments", when he forgets he's not talking to grad students who have a conceptual framework in common with him, so he makes statements that either don't make sense to people or are easily misunderstood -- sometimes more easily misunderstood than correctly.

I think he's gotten better, but I still think that if you sat him down with a bunch of folks down on the fishing docks up the bay, they'd end up talking past each other, because he doesn't really speak that kind of American.

Hmm. That doesn't bother me about him at all. In fact I enjoy listening to him when he's like that, not pandering to a lower common denominator.

The only thing that really bothers me about Obama is his disingenuousness. Unfortunately it's a thing that shadows everything.

 

[Spensed]

That's not quite what I said. I said a "sector of the energy industry ... will be bankrupted if it tries to expand." But regardless, I did concede that "sector of the energy industry" was too all encompassing and that I worded it badly:

Post # 41: "But you are right that I could have better said "individual companies" rather than a "sector of the energy industry." I stand corrected on that wording."

Yes, indeed, you stand corrected.

 

[Kulindahr]

The real point that is being missed is the fact that co2 follows warming and isn't a factor in causing it.

Google the term co2 follows warming and read the articles. Here's one:

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/5/6/19282

Interesting.

But, then why in the lab do increases in CO2 in a sample atmosphere result in an increase in heat retention?