Kerry Voices Support For Gun Rights, Clean-Coal Technologies As Lead Widen

[UpInArms]

http://www.mywisecounty.com/news/080204-5.htm

Wheeling, W.Va. --- In the nation's coalfield's Saturday afternoon, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry touted his support for a $2-billion dollar clean-coal technology plan as a part of the nation's energy independence from Middle East oil while at the same time noting his support for hunter gun owner rights to an estimated 15,000-plus audience.

Kerry said he would be a president who "believes in science," and will pour $2 billion directly into developing clean coal technology as a part of his strategy for energy independence. "I want a nation that depends on its own ingenuity, not the Saudi royal family," the Democratic party nominee said.

<snip>

The first national poll since gaining the Democratic presidential nomination showed Kerry getting a 5% bounce coming out of the Democratic National Convention, according to Newsweek magazine. In a survey of registered voters Thursday and Friday, Kerry led Bush 52 percent to 44 percent. Adding independent Ralph Nader, Kerry gets 49 percent, Bush 42 percent and Nader 3 percent. Virginia has also been indentified as a toss-up state between the two presidential camps.

<huge snip>

(and just because the last line is the best)

Rasmussen Reports indicate that Virginia has moved into a toss-up state for its 13-electoral votes giving Democrats a chance to win the state for the first time in 40-years.

...more at link...

[Frances]

1. GREAT article

Thanks for the link

If the people of West Virginia hear Kerry/Edwards themselves, I think West Virgnia will go Dem.

[KittyWampus]

2. Don't Know About Clean Coal Tech. Will Be Interested To Learn More

isn't coal mined in the mountainous areas around Virginia?

[trogdor]

23. Yes it is.

For all its faults, the coal found in North America is the bituminous type. It's reasonably pure, packs lots and lots of BTU's per unit of volume, can be made to burn reasonably clean, and (unlike the oil in ANWR) it's VERY plentiful, more than the oil in the Middle East. We'd be foolish not to try using it while looking for something else.

OK, before you all get the idea I've been drinking the Cheney koolaid, my priorities are thus:

1. Get the Arab monkey off our backs. If that means burning more of the world's best coal, then so be it.
2. Develop sustainable energy sources that we can use without fucking up the planet.

#1 is about 25% more important than #2, IMO. You are all free to disagree.

[Lorien]

25. #1 causes human conflicts, while #2 is

destoying the entire planet (see the "seas turn to acid" thread in LBN)and not just in the nebulous future, but RIGHT NOW. No contest; address number #2 ASAP, or none of us have any possibility of a future.

[maxsolomon]

3. Gee, USA today said Kerry LOST poll points

"The first national poll since gaining the Democratic presidential nomination showed Kerry getting a 5% bounce coming out of the Democratic National Convention, according to Newsweek magazine."

i'm so confused now, i think i'll become undecided!

[Ernesto]

4. USA Today = toilet paper

[frylock]

5. usa today = multi-colored fishwrap

[johnfunk]

6. Hey, let's not put down USA Today that way...

... it's a versatile rag, also terrific for puppy training and lining the birdcage!

[RazzoDazzo]

27. If I had a choice between toilet paper: Weekly Standard or USA Today

"Weakly" Standard no question.

[jgardner]

7. I'm confused, too...

CNN said this morning that Bush is leading with "likely voters", but Kerry is leading with "registered voters". Can anyone clue me in on the difference???

[Johnyawl]

17. It's pretty simple really...

"likely voters" are voters who voted in the last presidential election.
"registered voters" is everybody registered to vote. This includes those who were registered, but did not vote in 2000; and all the new registers since the 2000 election.

[Terran]

20. And Cokie Roberts said "no bounce" this AM on NPR

and she MUST be right, right?

[tlcandie]

8. Clean coal technology ... isn't that a fancied up version for

corporations to make more $$$ by selling "washed" coal or some idiot scheme?

I seem to recall an article in DU somewhere regarding this legalized fraud on the American people.

If my recollection is correct then I'm NOT impressed with Kerry's first steps in improving our environmental policies.

Off to see what I can find on clean coal because I know you will want links which.. I'm rather busy in real life atm....but will see what can find.

EDIT:
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

<snip>
No other source of pollution causes as many adverse health impacts as coal-burning power plants. Coal is America's dirtiest energy source and also our largest, generating 52 percent of the nation's electricity. Coal-burning power plants are the single biggest source of industrial air pollution. Increasing dependence on any type of coal technology is not a true move towards a cleaner energy policy, as coal produces pollution when it is mined, transported, burned and when the waste from burning is disposed. Clearly, the term clean coal is a misnomer."
<snip>

<snip>
For example in Lakeland, Fla., DOE poured millions of dollars into what it called in 1996 "the world's most advanced coal combustion power plant." But last year the city of Lakeland abandoned the plant after its price ballooned from $300 million to $450 million. The former manager of the Lakeland project called it "out of touch with reality." Both Des Moines, Iowa and Calvert City, Ky., recently bailed out of the same 50 percent federally funded power plant design. The maker of an essential plant component also refused to guarantee the design would work.
<snip>

<snip>
A sampling by U.S. Public Interest Research Group of 10 companies benefiting from the CCT programs showed that for the nearly $3.9 million the companies donated from 1993 to 1999 to Congress through soft money gifts and PAC contributions, they got back more than $787 million in subsidies, or a return on investment ratio of 202:1.
<snip>

[TahitiNut]

9. "Clean-Coal Technologies" are just part of the story.

How about environmentally-friendly and labor-friendly extraction technologies? Coal miners have historically been the most under-compensated workers since the Emancipation Proclamation. Not only have they been undercompensated for their labor, they've been subjected to one of the most unhealthy work environments known to mankind. The toll on their health and longevity has been abominable, and investments in improvements abysmal. The ruination of the ecosystem from strip-mining and tailings are legion, taking one of the most originally awesome natural environments (West Virgina) and converting it into an industrial ruin in many regions.

Yes, my paternal ancestors were coal-miners.

[opihimoimoi]

10. Don't get Hubert Flottz started on this one...he is from WV and knows

all too well what you are saying.....Death and destruction comes from strip mining...dams made from tailings..only to fail and subsequent flood kills hundreds....one should review the sad history of the coal mine....

But it is a resource for energy and we must be able to extract and use it...we must find the ways...Help is on the way...vote Kerry.

[tlcandie]

11. I know it first had as well TN....

From a former husband whose family gave many lives to the coal mines. It isn't a pretty picture. It's even uglier when you look at how the mining companies and such are making off like pirates while the workers die w/o health insurance, adequate health facilities, adequate living wages and more!

Most who work in the mines or live near them have not educated themselves to where they understand what is happening to them or what is being done to them and just accept it as part of their lot in life.

You can't even go barefoot in a house near the train tracks in the branches without them becoming black as coal soot in seconds. When I got out of the shower I immediately put my shoes on!

I would like to see some of us who have been fortunate in the US live in their conditions for one year.

EDIT: I grew up as an only child in a middle class family. When I went there and stayed at a home in one of the branches in eastern Kentucky and saw first hand how people lived I was shocked and my heart cried out with outrage for people who lived without windows, doors, running water and more.

To top it off, Kerry is following through with what * already implemented. THAT bothers me.

[BeFree]

12. Coal is a mess

From extraction to the final burn, the use of coal as an energy source causes many environmental damages. Anyone who uses coal produced electricity is part of the solution.

Can we make using coal less environmentally damaging?
We have to. It will make the use of coal more expensive but it is the price we must pay. Look at what the real costs of oil are. We can afford clean coal.

Glad to see Kerry finally realizing this facit of energy independence.
Kerry on.

[tlcandie]

13. So did you read the article I linked regarding 'clean coal' ?

If you have then we will just disagree.

[BeFree]

14. No, I did not read that one.

But what you seem to be saying is that we can't make coal cleaner.

That may be where we disagree. I believe we CAN make coal cleaner. I know we MUST. Let's do it.

Yeah, it will require all of us to spend a bit more for electricity. Do you have a problem with that?

[tlcandie]

24. I don't have a problem with the fact that YOU have an opinion..

we are each entitled to our opinions. I disagree and think it is a waste of money and time. The corporations are getting rich from it while the miners are treated like slaves or worse.

There are more viable options and if there aren't then we need to find some! The cost to make it as clean as what they are purporting it to be is outlandish and total fiction. The article I linked explains all of this.

BTW, I was more than fine with your reply up to the point of, "Do you have a problem with that?" This was totally unnecessary and disrespectful.

I am a rational and caring human being and I don't like arguing. Also, I do try to listen and learn and I do make mistakes which I will happily admit.

Additionally, I do NOT have an issue with paying more... I do it all the time to buy organics, recycleds, etc. I am more than able to do this and more than happy to do it! I recycle to the curb, BTW and ration water along with xeriscape. I'm always trying to find better ways to preserve, reserve, recycle, and improve my footprint upon Mother Earth.

[BeFree]

28. Sorry to get your hackles up

I regret any hurt feelings I may have caused you, tlcandie.

Coal makes up 52 percent of our energy sources. 52 percent. We ain't gonna quit burning coal. So... whatever it takes to make it as clean as possible, that's what we need to do. Let's get on with it. Yeah, money will be wasted until we get it right, that's just part of the price we need to pay.

Reducing use? You bet. Personally, I have about the lowest energy using life of anyone I know. Am always looking for ways to reduce it even further... solar, wood heating and even less driving are part of my program.

I recognize coal as a dirty, filthy, environmentally damaging source of energy. I have fought against the air pollution it causes. But the reality is that 52 percent of our energy comes from coal, so I say let's find a way to make it more efficent and cleaner, whatever it costs. And don't stop there, make the extraction of coal become more environmentally sound and humanly acceptable.

We are AmeriCANs, damnit, we CAN do it!

[tlcandie]

31. Thanks BeFree...

Didn't really get my hackles up, but wanted you to know it didn't come across as acceptable to me. :hug:

At any rate, I hear what you are saying and I'm sure you are right. It just seems there should be a better way.

Also, the part about the plant they shut down in Florida because it was way over budget, that concerns me because of the HUGE waste of money that was just thrown out the window.

We are talking $400 million plus here that was just shot out the window. Could we not take that kind of money to find other alternatives than coal?

Question... what happens to coal if left in the sun? I know the sun bleaches and disinfects things organically. Is there some way it could help to remove the bad things from coal where it sees the light of day before it is used as fuel? (I know I'm simple minded..but I had to ask.)

[BeFree]

33. $400 million

Sure, alot of that was wasted, but at least it went to Americans (one hopes), unlike the moola we spend on Arabian oil. Also, surely there were lessons learned... think of it as a research expenditure.

The only other recourse we have at this time is nuclear. I for one think the total costs of nuke are far beyond what is affordable. I get the feeling you and I see eye to eye on nukes, eh?

What will force a reduction in energy use is the price. Right now the extended costs are not being paid in monetary terms but in human and environmental damages. As we move closer to the costs balancing, people will begin to use less destructive sources and be willing to pay more for clean alternatives.

[tlcandie]

34. You are right.. I don't like nukes either!

I think this is somewhat like the ABB until we can get our footing and find our way to something that is renewable and environmentally friendly.

It still bothers me, especially when you read where we were years ago... way ahead of where we are now...but it was pushed under the rug and left to rot.

IOW, because of striving for perfection you don't throw out the good with the bad.

[Kolesar]

15. Coal produces greenhouse gasses &"Clean Coal" is corporate welfare

No matter what we do to get the particulates, sulfur, or even nitrous oxide out of power plant emissions, there will always be CO2 up the stacks.

These Clean Coal initiatives always involve lots of public funding for private corporations. Ohio taxpayers have been paying for this pork for decades.

Coal is a losing issue for dems. Ultimately the answer is efficiency and distributed alternate generation. How about just turning off the lights, TV and appliances as a measure? Huddle up with a book and a sixty watt lamp.

[stickdog]

16. Or a 10 watt energy saving bulb.

Or just stop driving so damn much.

[natrat]

18. coal sucks,oil sucks

we are fucked as a planet and probably in reaaly short order but dont the smoke stack scrubbers that * let slide recently clean coal burning up a bit. Something better than nothing.

[Kolesar]

19. Yes, ok. Clean Coal and a massive effort to conserve

I am sure we will never quit burning coal entirely, so we should clean up what does get burned.

[rustydad]

29. Indeed

When they say "clean coal" they mean they clean the exhaust of acids, mercury, and other toxins. At least to a degree. What they don't incude us C02. C02 is killing the planet the way a slowly heated pot of water will kill a frog without his complaint. Kerry is as stupid as almost all politicians are on Peak Oil and Global Warming. We are screwed. Bob

[cprise]

21. This is not a move from someone who supports Kyoto

[xxqqqzme]

22. when I lived in WV,

I worked for a company 're-claiming' coal - washing it. The coal went through various washes to 'clean' it but then what do you do w/ the water? It sits around in huge settling ponds, gets shifted from one pond 2 the next, until it can finally B discharged N2 streams or rivers. There is no such thing as clean' coal.

[TrueStory]

26. Coal =/= Oil

Coal is used for electric power generation and oil is used for transport and petrochemistry - as it can be seen on the US 2002 Energy Map:



"Clean" coal means less emission of SO₂, NO₂ and Mercur but emission of CO₂ is not reduced.
You can not replace Oil with Coal or with "Clean Coal" because coal is not fluid and because coal has different burning characteristics.

US is spending more than 400 billion on weapons when there is no real enemy - and US is spending 2 billion on researching new clean energies when energy shortage is just a few years away.

When a nation invest so much in military than they will find the way to use it - no matter who is the president - otherwise it would turn up as a bad investment.

[Massacure]

30. some coal is cleaner than other coal

I believe the coal out west has less sulfer, nitrogen, and mercury than that in the eastern states.

You can also put CO2 scrubbers on smoke stacks to reduce about 98% of the carbon.

Bush recently axed laws related to these technologies, and seeing as how half of our energy comes from coal, I see it very useful for Kerry to force coal utilities to keep upgrading.

[cprise]

35. Bullsh-t!

You 'can' divert CO2 from smokestacks. That's possible now. So is diverting CO2 from oil refineries, as this is already put into practice in some other countries.

Is it being done here? NO! Why? Because once more demand is created for oil (or for coal, by building more generating plants) then their lobbyists come in and say they have to avoid the sequesterization measures in order to remain 'profitable'.

[tlcandie]

32. So what we are seeing here then is something like ABB ...

Any body but Bush? ABO.. anything but oil? Until such time that we can research and develop better?