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:
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”:
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:
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.
Alec Rawls writes:
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
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
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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
“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
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.
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.
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 !”
I notice they omitted “Clean Dung” as well.
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.
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
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.
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.
Can’t have hyrdroelectric in there.. it actually works.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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…