If Obama is going to kill coal, he has to hide the body

Photobucket

Guest post by Alec Rawls

The graphics were changed in the last two days, but Conn Carroll at the Washington Examiner took a screenshot of Obama’s “All of the Above” energy policy page on Tuesday. “Notice anything missing?” he asks:

Photobucket

The updated graphics actually retain the same omission. They still omit the source of almost half of all U.S. electricity generation (coal), and only add the non-existent eco-unicorn called “clean coal”:

Photobucket

Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean. The only difference is that it produces CO2—that most healthful gas, the beginning of the food chain for all life on earth—which remains alarmingly close to the minimum levels needed to sustain life.

To rid coal-burning emissions of this eco-villain the going cost is $761 per ton of sequestered carbon: “staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.” So still no coal in Obama’s plan. Our existing energy infrastructure is to be jettisoned, as Obama promised in 2008:

If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Obama’s EPA rules already block all new coal plant construction, so his graphics are just looking forward to his true objectives: all-but-coal for now, with oil and nuclear to disappear next.

That slick “clean coal” logo indicates that the coal omission was not a mistake

The Obamatons had the clean-coal stupidity all ready to go, indicating a conscious decision to leave it out. This is reinforced by the absence of the clean-coal logo, not just from their pick-a-topic selector, but also from their header logo. Another of Obama’s eco-pages still has the original header:

Photobucket

That page now includes a clean coal section but the Google cache from May 3rd shows that it was recently added. The people who put these pages together are so anti-coal that they couldn’t even bring themselves to include the utterly phony “clean coal” in their proclaimed “All of the Above” energy strategy. That shows a extraordinary level of zealotry.

Kinda fits with the longstanding “climate denier” smear (recently on display), where people who don’t buy CO2 alarmism are likened to those who deny the holocaust of the Jews during WWII. The alarmists are all projection all the time. Their supposed scientists at the IPCc are omitting virtually all of the evidence for a solar driver of climate from AR5, and here their political leaders are trying to disappear the primary energy source upon which modern society currently relies, yet it is supposedly the rest of us who are conspiring to cover stuff up.

The conniving mind cannot conceive of another mode of being.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ally E.

That is so bloody scary. And I don’t even live in the USA.

onlyme

I guess we can forget the 54.5 MPG fleet average CAFE standard now since FUEL EFFICIENCY is no longer part of the all of the above mix.

RACookPE1978

Well, heavier cars will save lives …….

Walt

The back door destruction of the US energy base will not cut global carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide emissions from China, India and the rest of the world will exceed our reductions.

bsk

Your post ignores that Obama, both as a Senator and as President, was a huge supporter of coal and clean coal in particular so the coal in southern IL (his home state) could be exploited.

jefftfred

If POTUS Obama doesn’t want the US to use coal, for sure China will take it of their hands if the price is cheap enough.
As China has planned for the consumption of one gigaton of coal in energy production per annum, any little bit will be a help.
But China has recently discovered a massive new coal field, and with the coal from Mongolia, Russia and Chinese coal mining, the price would have to be competitive with the Chinese labour.
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=142229&sn=Detail
And also Google – Winsway to see the infrastructure for coal handling and transport across the Sino-Russian border.

jonathan frodsham

“yet it is supposedly the rest of us who are conspiring to cover stuff up.”
Yes it is called flipping; they do it all the time. It is just one of the tactics used, another is the consensus meeting and of course: paid to say by big/oil coal, huge amounts of money from big oil/coal and creationist/liar/flat eather, bla, bla, bla. The list goes on. But remember “Flipping”

bsk

onlyme-
Ya, that CAFE standard is working out terribly. The 8 speed transmissions, lighter materials and better engines are going to improve fuel efficiency the 2013 Ram trucks and the coming 2014 Chevy’s by at least 20% in efficiency. Great vehicles, I might get one:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/04/2013-ram-1500-powertrain-deep-dive.html
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/04/2013-ram-1500-frame-suspension-deep-dive.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sns-2013-ram-1500-safety-uconnect-deep-dive-20120412,0,4560496.story?page=1

RACookPE1978 says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:23 am
Well, heavier cars will save lives …….

Gezackly. Since Ehrlich’s prediction that most of us would have died of starvation and disease in the ’70s (and when that didn’t happen, the ’90s, and when that didn’t happen, etc.), they have to find other alternatives to help them achieve that result.
I almost wrote “…find another vehicle to help…” but decided it would be trite…

SandyInDerby

I was listening to a programme on BBC Radio 4 (Costing the Earth) on Wednesday night. It raises the spectre of Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Whatever whenever possible. This week it concentrated on Coal/Carbon Capture.
One expert was quite blase about carbon capture adding £150-£200/ $300 annually (more if electricity is used for heating replacing gas because electricity then greener) annually to electricity bills, apparently the “middle classes” wouldn’t notice and the government (middle classes again but not mentioned) could help those in fuel poverty.
Despite referring to coal as old Sooty it was admitted that Europe would have had very serious problems in electricity supply last winter without it (even France was importing power!)

Baa Humbug

The US, nay, the World, will get another 4 years of this dangerously incompetent man.
We so desperately need a strong willed person who can purge our institutions of the huggy kissy econut infestation. Perhaps a Ronald Reagan mark 2

John

Elections are coming, so you guys know what to do.

Philip Bradley

The ‘dirty coal’ meme was all about implanting in the public mind that so called carbon pollution is the same as the soot and other pollutants that come from burning coal in home hearths and stoves, which only a few million Chinese peasants still do.
The reality is that wood is a much more polluting fuel than coal, because a much higher proportion is burned in domestic stoves. Whereas almost all coal is burned in power stations.
I don’t whether I should be disturbed or amused that the EPA buys into the patent nonsense of ‘dirty coal’.
Note the basis of the ‘dirty coal’ meme is that electricity from coal produces more CO2.

Bloke down the pub

RACookPE1978 says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:23 am
Well, heavier cars will save lives …….
Not if you’re hit by one.

Peter Stroud

Staggering! We have warmist alarmists in our UK government, but none of these equate to the position of President of the USA. The man seems completely stupid.
I listened to his 2008 promise. But, like most sensible people, thought he would learn how stupid it was when he actually walked into the White House.

Ulrich Elkmann

The solution is simple as dirt (ahem…): If we put our minds together, we might come up with a Rube Goldberg procedure that is even more costly, ineffective, unworkable, counterproductive and requires gargantuan bureaucratic overheads, not to mention violating several scores of natural laws and every ounce of amassed economic experience. If you hand that to them, no one will ever mention Clean Coal again.

Otter

bsk~ good on you for 20% more efficient! That will save on the $3-4 in federal taxes added to each gallon of gas…

cedarhill

Which is why the energy sector is a good investment whenever the market catches up with the spin and the QE’s of Bernanke. Either way one plays it. For example, look at the price charts for uranium now that everyone seems to be afraid the ocean will flood every nuke power plant on the planet. If you’re a religious sort, pray that methane is not “anti-fracked” to oblivion by the EPA.

ryt, heavier cars will save lives …….

eyesonu

Baa Humbug says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:46 am
The US, nay, the World, will get another 4 years of this dangerously incompetent man.
We so desperately need a strong willed person who can purge our institutions of the huggy kissy econut infestation. Perhaps a Ronald Reagan mark 2.
=====================
Ronald Reagan mark 2 may happen. Take a very close look at Virgil Goode. virgilgoode2012@gmail.com

Steve C

Actually, living in what used, pre-Thatcher, to be a major coal producing area, I rather like “dirty coal”. But I hate the dirty lies that have replaced it.

c777

Determined to destroy the last vestiges of the US economy ,it’s completely insane.

ConfusedPhoton

Obama stupid? I think not
US has about a quarter of the world’s coal reserves
US is the second largest producer of coal
Can a Democrat president ever be elected by taking an anti-coal stance? Given that many in the coal industry are Democrat voters, I would doubt he is doing much behind the scenes to get rid of coal.

Steve

I guess this is a good example of the difference between what someone will *say* to get votes versus what someone will *do* when running a country.
P.S.
How come realclimate is not under the Tools section?

B.O.B.

Someone should tell them that “fuel efficiency” is not a source of power.

Wijnand

Alec Rawls writes:

To rid coal-burning emissions of this eco-villain the going cost is $761 per ton of sequestered carbon: “staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Mr Rawls (and others) might want to check the linked article behind the “$761 per ton” statement. The numbers in the linked article do not make any sense. It states a one time investment of $1.6 billion (not a monthly or yearly cost, but a one time amount). Next it states that the CCS equipment bought with this one time investment sequesters 2.1 million tons of CO2, but does not specifically states if this amount is annually. The text further down the article leads me to believe this is the annual amount of CO2 sequestration.
Then the article simply divides $1.6 Billion by 2.1 million tons to come up with a cost of $761 per ton.
?????????
Either the writer of the article needs to go back to school, or I need reading comprehension lessons….
Don’t get me wrong, CCS is ridiculously expensive. I have professional experience with CCS technology (by way of a possible CCS pilot plant on a coal filred power station), and it is a disaster of a technology. Besides the huge CAPEX it will require enormous OPEX and it will drag down the efficiency of a powerplant by 15-20% at least, meaning one has to burn 15-20% more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of power.
But mr. Rawls, please do not diminish the impact/quality of your article by referencing nonsense like the Globe and Mail column!
I would suggest you delete the reference to it.
All the best,
Wijnand
The Netherlands

handjive

In Australia, the watermelons have let the truth slip out:
IF The Greens have their way there will be no future growth in coal fired electricity generation in NSW-
“The new power stations would flood the state with cheap electricity and undermine the viability of renewable energy and energy efficiency,” Greens Upper House spokesman Jon Kaye said.
http://www.lithgowmercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/legislation-has-grave-implications/2545133.aspx

techgm

The graphic gives the impression that the various sources are equal contributors to energy consumption and are equal in cost. The “Clean Coal” icon also shows what most will interpret as smoke (rather than steam) coming from the chimneys. Can you say “propaganda”?

Ulrich Elkmann says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:20 am
The solution is simple as dirt (ahem…): If we put our minds together, we might come up with a Rube Goldberg procedure that is even more costly, ineffective, unworkable, counterproductive and requires gargantuan bureaucratic overheads, not to mention violating several scores of natural laws and every ounce of amassed economic experience.
=================================================================
But that’s exactly what the current plan is !!!!
And they still want to do it !!!

Nerd

bsk says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:38 am
That’s nothing. Overseas, MPG is significantly better. If we were to match theirs overnight, gov’t would lose a lot of tax revenues because it’s based on per gallon tax. And big oil business will lose a lot of money too.

My screen name says it all.

elftone

This is only to do with the upcoming election, nothing else, after which he (if elected) – just like a president from any political party – will continue to do what he’s been doing since 2009: business as usual. Not that sceptics should be complacent regarding the apparent message, but this is simply spin.

polistra

Obama isn’t dumb, nor is he the wild ideologue you imagine. He’s a pragmatic and rather weak politician who knows where the money comes from. He uses propaganda to keep his Green buddies in line, but he also knows that American manufacturing is coming back to life because of natural gas. And those manufacturing jobs are the best source of future Democrat power, not the Greenies.

Curiousgeorge

And while they’re at it let’s put even more people on the soup line. When did the lunatics start running things?:
**************************************************************************
“Last year at this time, we were looking for 2,000 coal miners to go to work. Now there’s 2,000 laid off,” Maloney said. “We’ve got six coal-fired power plants that are being shut. We’re losing our competitive edge, and it’s wrong.”
As one measure of the disdain in West Virginia for the Obama administration’s crackdown on coal, a federal prisoner doing 17 years for extortion got 41 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primary to President Obama’s 59 percent.
Administration supporters are banking on cheap, clean and abundant natural gas as a substitute for coal-fired power, but critics say there are problems with its transportation and storage — problems which have lead to price hikes in the past.
Craig Jennings, president of the Preston County, W.Va., Commission, says his constituents are bracing for big spikes in their electricity bills.
“They’re telling us that you’re going to see at least a 30 percent increase in your electric bill now,” he said. “For an older person on a fixed income in an older home who’s used to paying $300 a month for an electric bill they’re going to be pushing $400 a month now on that same electric bill.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/10/coal-industry-warns-proposed-epa-rule-could-force-fourth-plants-to-close/#ixzz1uZ1UJrEB

Latitude

“If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them,”
This makes as much sense as saying we need to stop eating today….because sometime in the future we’re going to run out of food because of Romm’s permanent drought

trbixler

What is interesting is that WUWT is the only ‘news’ carrier not infected with the green deceit. I now read WUWT for political news as well as things on scientific interest. Thank You Anthony we are very lucky to have your creation WUWT.

hunter

The madness that Obama is part is already hurting America- and the world- a lot before it winds its course. Any coal producing or coal power consuming state that votes to re-elect this President or anyone who backs him is voting against their best interests.

spen

Just remember that half the coal currentlyproduced in the World is burnt in china and that proportion is increasing.year by year. without a block on that all other reduction exercises are futile.

The human portion of this natural, benign, life-giving, three atom molecule is so dangerous that we must waste energy to hide it or destroy it !
Queen of Hearts: “First the sentence, and then the evidence !”

Pull My Finger

I notice they omitted “Clean Dung” as well.

schnurrp

Not much from the Romney camp lately re: AGW. I find his formerly stated position affecting my opinion of his general competence. Would like to see him “evolve” on this issue.

Affizzyfist

CT looking really suspicious havent moved for 12 days now!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
DMI back to normal and possibly crossed the verboten line!
DMI ice extent

Robert Clemenzi

What about hydroelectric? Low carbon footprint and all that.
Shouldn’t that icon also be there?
Since Global Warming causes more rain (wink), that should produce more free energy. Therefore, we should encourage other countries to burn coal so we get free energy.

Juice

Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean.
Um.
They’ve largely solved the SOx and NOx emissions problems that lead to acid rain, but not at all plants by far. They’ve largely eliminated the fly ash emissions at most plants, but not all. Lots of plants still emit carbon particles into the surrounding areas. The bodies of people living near coal plants have higher levels of radionuclides in them than those living around nuclear power plants. The ash waste is stored in landfills or lagoons that leach arsenic and radionuclides into the soil and water.
When it comes to combusting coal and oil, CO2 is the least of your worries. These are dirty processes. Measures have been taken over the decades that have greatly reduced pollution from these power sources, but to say that burning coal is “perfectly clean” is simply delusional.

Pull My Finger

Can’t have hyrdroelectric in there.. it actually works.

Berényi Péter

The obvious winner is Big Oil (fracking for natural gas included), who else? Burning coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide for the same energy output than hydrocarbons do. That’s because hydrocarbons also contain Hydrogen which burns to water, a simple fact of physics & chemistry.
Now, the coal market is much more fragmented than that of hydrocarbons, so the only way to introduce monopolistic prices is through regulation. On the other hand, for hydrocarbons simple background cartels will do the job perfectly, but only if no close substitute is available.
Therefore, as soon as coal is regulated out of the market, there will be no practical limit to hydrocarbon price increases, that is, Big Oil can make huge extra profits with no additional investment whatsoever. To serve this purpose the peak hydrocarbon hype will surely come back in full force.
Based on cui prodest or follow the money things we can conclude that current hijacking of the environmental movement by anti-CO₂ agents is financed by no one else, but hydrocarbon interests. That’s the dirty secret warmistas are so reluctant to reveal.

Darrin

In Oregon they’ve listed Hydro as not green, of course they had to do this so we could meet the goal of 40% renewable energy use by 2040. Hydro produces ~50% of our power already… Their excuse is Hydro can’t be green because it clogs up rivers and kills salmon.

Luther Wu

Hey! Obama is just fulfilling a campaign promise!
He said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry- remember?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-aLcbr63ME&w=640&h=360]

OssQss

Ah yes, the promise was made and one of the few kept by the POTUS for certain. Even though Cap and Tax did not make it, the EPA was available to back fill the bill. And some say the POTUS cannot impact energy prices?
If you voted for him, you are the one to blame.

ferdberple

Big Oil loves the Obama energy policy. By eliminating competition from coal, oil prices can only go higher. Now if we can just get rid of natural gas and fracking…