Clean coal mythology

Email Print posted by Nick86 05/10/2008 08:45:23 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v= C0ObQKwxpHc

What a surprise, to think that these dirty resources will ever be "clean" is a myth. America has the most coal in the world, and there have been many proposals to direct the energy mix in the US again more into a coal based production. In order to stop that from super-heating the Earth, they are proposing to trap the CO2 emissions underground, which begs the question, what environmental effects will that have?  Additionally, there are even proposals to change coal to oil, a process pioneered by the Nazi's and Apartheid South Africa, they did so because they had no choice.

The reality is that we are trying to avoid the actual issue, the fact is that the way the economy is structured and works is unsustainable in its current form. Americans and Canadians use way to much energy, pollute way too much, and consume without consideration. Reminds me of the Soviet Union's plans in Central Asia to create a oasis in the desert, well look what happened to the Aral Sea. How far will we go to preserve this system, suicidal?
< I believe I just got a "push-pull" | Happt Mothers Day >
 Display:
Clean coal mythology | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
A couple of questions. (none / 0)
What is your opinion of converting 100% of the U.S. demand for electricity to nuclear energy?

If gasoline can be refined from coal at cost that is equivalent to gasoline that is refined from oil, do you have a problem with widespread conversion?

I look forward to reading your answers to these simple questions.

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 10:17:59 PM EST

I note there are no answers to this yet. (none / 0)
One area, at least, where Ken and I see eye-to-eye is on the matter of nuclear power.

We Democrats are THROWING AWAY ENERGY INDEPENDENCE by being so stupidly knee-jerk against nuclear energy.

If gasoline can be refined from coal at cost that is equivalent to gasoline that is refined from oil

Is this actually possible?  By what process could this work?

by jarett on 05/11/2008 02:36:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Personally (none / 0)
I am not against nuclear power.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:48:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Since Nick ran away. (none / 0)
"Is this actually possible?  By what process could this work?"

Sure! Just ask Adolf Hitler, PK Botha, and NickHead The DickHead.

All you have to do is liquify the coal, and then crack off the C5-C10 isomers (octane, heptane, hexane).

Octane is octane. It doesn't care if it came from dinosaur juice or dinosaur turds.

Is it economically feasible? If oil hits $200/bbl, it's starting to look pretty good!

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 02:51:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Clean" coal is bullshit... (none / 0)

but can we ignore the literal Saudi Arabia of coal that we have under our soil?

It needs to be considered.

Mind you, if we advance solar technology, which we can, and cover just a fraction of the Mojave desert with solar panels, we can provide half of the nation's daily electicity.

But back to coal.  The carbon sequestration is the issue.  I don't think you can just bury the carbon underground and have it be no problem in the future.

However, the Science Friday podcast had a guy on over a year ago, a professor from Cal Berkley, who has been making methanol fuel cells for ten years.  Works like a hydrogen fuel cell, but  with methanol, which is stable, and transports in a stable, liquid form (similar to gasoline).  What does he need to make lots of methanol?

Lots of carbon.  Carbon captured from factory smokestacks, or, from sequestered coal-to-fuel processes.

People who know science way  better than I will point out the faults in these technologies.  But they are a fraction of the new, and tested ideas that are in our universities and small businesses.

For as bad off as we are, nobody innovates like Americans.  With the right leadership, we will drive our electric powered vehicles for long commutes within 10 years, and won't give a shit about anything in the middle-east, and their 20 dollar a barrel oil. 

by gdoud on 05/11/2008 01:07:41 AM EST

Except (none / 0)
I don't think you can just bury the carbon underground and have it be no problem in the future.

You can.  It goes right where the oil did, in fact.  Ken can tell you all about this, and he's a chemical engineer.

Clean coal is not actually bullshit.  It's good technology.  And it's RIDICULOUSLY more efficient and better for the environment to distribute energy in the form of electricity produced from clean coal than it is to burn gasoline in internal combustion engines.

by jarett on 05/11/2008 02:34:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarett is a good kid. (none / 0)
He makes me proud to be an American, even if he is a liberal Democrat! (He's just doing it to get chicks.)

I hope Mookie weighs in on this thread, so we can have three engineers educating the environmental kooks.

If we run all electricity on nuclear, and we run all internal combustion engines on coal, we will have significantly reduced the production of CO2, while placing the U.S. economy in a more sustainable, and advantageous position relative to the rest of the world.

While China is scrambling to find $300 per barrel oil, we'll be riding fat for 300 years on coal and nuclear.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 02:42:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I defended, btw (none / 0)
Now I'm just looking for jobs.

In order:

  1. Someplace at ND so I can take classes for free and eventually grab a PhD in EE now that I am done with CS
  2. Freescale
  3. Vague other opportunities here and there, including maybe working as a consultant for a politician or thinktank
  4. ... it turns out that sometimes things come full circle.  Apparently the Army is the only branch of the military that is expanding and they are DESPERATE for officers in general and engineers in particular.  I could end up with a nice SIGINT job somewhere and have the luxury of taking MAC flights (or is it AMC now?  I always forget) hither, thither and yon on leave.

The job market atm is Not Good<sup>TM</sup> for freshly-minted engineers with grad degrees, it seems.  Already the ND opportunities are getting eaten up by guys in their 40s and 50s with 20 years of experience and I haven't heard back at all from my contacts at Freescale.

by jarett on 05/11/2008 04:11:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I found the perfect job for Jarett. (none / 0)
3. Free education.
4. Great resume.
5. Wait for those old guys to retire in 7-8 years.
6. Cash in on a great career.
7. In the meantime, Vegas baby!

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 07:50:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Urmm... (none / 0)

It is BS because:

1. It still emits CO2 into the atmosphere

2. Look at the environmental damage in WV

3. Its unsustainable in the long run because it reduces airborne emissions, but poisions the land environment and creates a moonscape in the Appalachian region.

So I do not see how its better than oil.  

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 03:56:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't. (none / 0)
Carbon sequestration means it doesn't emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

What do you want to bet there are ways to get coal that don't involve destroying the environment, but are slightly more expensive?

by jarett on 05/11/2008 04:04:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Think (none / 0)
Who said I was talking about the actual generation of the energy? The CO2 emssions im talking about are these:

 Blast mining

 Transportation of coal from mine to processing, to the powerplant

The process of making the coal clean will send out poisonous waste into the ecosystem.

The loss of carbon sinks, like the forests of Appalachia, and other parts of the world should this become a worldwide phenomenon.

 Etc. Did you even watch the initial video? If not, what basis do you have to criticize me?

What is my point?

Why invest in dirty energy thinking it will ever be clean when we DO have alternatives. Solar (I know its not as efficient as we need it to be, but instead of spending hundreds of billions a year in Iraq...u get the drift) in the desert basins of the world like the Mojave or Sahara, wind, nuclear (which is problematic but less dirty, tidal power, hydrogen, etc. These technologies are either established and can  be exploited, or need further investment. Thus, this is my point, INVEST in new technologies in both implementation and R&D ,a new Manhattan project.

Why won't this happen?

Lobby groups in Washington representing the big energy producers, oil, coal, natural gas, will NOT allow this to occur. If they did, where would they get their income from in the future? Marx did say, capitalism is a anti-progressive system due to this very contradiction.

This is my point.
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 11:33:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
another ridiculous argument (none / 0)
How much CO2 is generated by the production, transportation, and refining of petroleum? Look into it, and then compare the results to coal production.

As for deforestation, the coal companies can simply replant trees to offset the loss. Think of it like Al Gore paying for carbon offsets when he flies around the country in a G3, and has people pick him up in SUVs, and drive him to his home that uses 20 times as much electricity as the typical Nashvillian.

You radical Marxist environmentali sts are working for global socialism, and total domination of the individual by the state.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 04:11:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yo tengo amigos! (none / 0)
See KenTX, I did not run away I have a life try it out sometime.

About converting coal to oil, it is complete lunacy. It produces more carbon to produce it, its dirtier than traditional oil, much more expensive, and you need about 2x or so of coal to get 1 gallon or w/e of oil. Thus, coal to oil conversion makes no sense economically or environmentally, unless you are Nazi Germany have no alternatives. I read in a book on the subject, the author went, coal-oil technology is a good way to get rid of coal reserves real fast, thats about it. It is the worst possible solution, because we would STILL have our 1890 economy with the internal combustion engine.

The United States can never convert 100% of its energy mix to nuclear power, the demand is too high. The price of uranium would go through the roof, and it would cease to be economically viable relative to natural gas, or coal. I support nuclear technology, with reservations. We still do not know what exactly to do with the waste, Yucca mountain is a stop-gap measure, and humans will die long before that radioactive waste does. Interestingly, Americans may learn a thing or two from the French who produce most of their electricity from nuclear power. At this point, nuclear is the best readily available  alternative.

But this is all distracting from the point, the STRUCTURE of the economy makes it so that no matter what we do, the situation will get worse. The Earth cannot sustain the contradictions and irrationality of capitalism, principally private gain, public cost. Or as neoclassicals might call it, "externalities".

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 03:42:21 AM EST

Time for your ass kicking. (none / 0)
"The price of uranium would go through the roof, and it would cease to be economically viable relative to natural gas, or coal."
Have you ever heard of a breeder reactor? Evidently not. Read up on it so you can quit sounding so stupid.

"It produces more carbon to produce it, its dirtier than traditional oil, much more expensive, and you need about 2x or so of coal to get 1 gallon or w/e of oil."
A carbon balance equation is immaterial you nitwit. It only matters that coal is $100/ton (or whatever) and oil is $127/bbl (or whatever), and gasoline from oil costs $4.00/gallon (or whatever), while gasoline from coal costs $5.00/gallon (or whatever).

"We still do not know what exactly to do with the waste"
If every watt of electricity you ever consumed in your life was generated by nuclear energy, the total amount of nuclear waste generated would fit in a shot glass.

"The Earth cannot sustain the contradictions and irrationality of capitalism."
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The Earth cannot sustain the contradictions and irrationality of socialism, which promotes procreation by people who cannot afford to take care of themselves, much less their offspring. Socialism destroys the planet by producing too many people. Look at China.

Aren't you the same fool who used to post nonsense about Airbus in this forum?

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 07:41:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey (none / 0)
I would and could respond to you, but until you get some respect for me you are not going to be responded to. I know ur calling me names due to ur insecurity against me, thats ok but u gotta get over it. Get a life!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 11:23:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh (none / 0)
And if you ever want me to reply to u again, I want an apology otherwise forget it. :)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 11:49:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The choice is yours. (none / 0)
I’ll be quite happy if you make good on your pledge to never again respond to any of my posts. However, it’s a foolish move on your part, because you’re simply unilaterally disarming. Every time you offer a nonsensical, illogical, Anti-American, pro-Marxist, environmental-whacko argument, I will be there to counter your position and expose you for the phony that you are. If you refuse to reply, so much the better. I win.

As for insults, you’ve been escalating the hostile rhetoric since your arrival in this forum. I allow you to set the tone. If you offer polite debate, then that’s what you’ll receive in return. I can give it to you anyway you want it, because I’m here to please.   

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 03:57:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Polite (none / 0)

Summary post 

 

Nick post a swath of arguments. He does not use prejorative terms to describe those he disagrees with.

Ken disagrees with the arguments. Ken can't reply to all of them in a sensible way, however. Or he can, but wishes not to do so (too litle time, still had a cake in the oven he needed to get out asap, ...). He calls Nick a 'fool' and a 'nitwit', hoping to provoke Nick into straying of the argument.

Nick, in stead of escalating the argument by countering with childish name-calling, does the responsible thing and ignores the provocation.

Ken is confused and tries to provocate again.

Kudos to Nick. His socialist ideals might be laughable in many respects, but he at least is the bigger man. 

by Cogitor on 05/11/2008 05:22:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thanks for the summary (none / 0)
But you're only describing Nick's behavior in this thread. You're missing (or ignoring) his consistent rudeness in parallel threads. As a conservative posting in a liberal forum, I don't expect people to agree with me. If they're hostile, I return fire. If they're polite, I respond in kind. I try to give 'em what they want.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 05:53:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (none / 0)

That might be true. Or maybe not. I don't care enough to do extensive research. "He started it!" arguments are not really that interesting or mature anyway.

In this thread he wasn't offensive. Regardless of what he said in any previous thread, he might want to engage in polite discussion in this thread. If you like to respond in kind, you engage in polite discussion here, and go and flame off elswhere.

by Cogitor on 05/11/2008 06:13:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
XieXie (none / 0)
As this thread clearly shows, the flame wars are started by Kenneth. I post a thread topic, and I am attacked as "Nick Head the Dick Head" before I say even a word. The real loser here is Kenneth because he must realize that without me, he is nothing on this board. I am aware that he will not say "I'm sorry" because he one of those wannabe men who we call, conservatives, you know the type who think that talking a big game is the game itself. So really I feel no loss, and as we can all see everything I just said is easily proved by this thread alone. Enough of feeding the troll.

Now of course I object to your use of the "laughable" socialist idea's, because I am not so sure what is so "laughable" about them, mind pointing out to me what is so laughable? I am interested in your opinion, is it based on facts of ideology?

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 06:54:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Nicky (none / 0)

You remind me of me when I was a younger man.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:46:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
patience and persistence (none / 0)
I appreciate your desire for polite discourse in the forum, and I agree that’s a goal we should all strive for. But you seem to be concerned with a single post I offered in this thread, while completely overlooking Nick’s behavior in other threads.

I’ve been participating here for years, and I’ve learned the effectiveness of operate conditioning. If the monkey behaves politely, you give him a banana. If the monkey behaves rudely, you smack him upside the head. Pretty soon, you’ve trained him to be a polite monkey. The worst thing you can do is to reward rude behavior.

Nick is a grad student in economics, and he used his knowledge to insult and belittle opposing viewpoints on the subject of global economics. In this particular thread, he introduced the issues of coal technology, nuclear energy, petroleum refining, CO2 generation and sequestration. These are subjects where I’m the expert, and he’s the uninformed, uneducated neophyte. I fully admit that I waited for him to make a mistake so I could come down on him like a ton of bricks. But he had it coming, and it was good for him.

Let’s see if Nick becomes the sweetie pie I know he can be.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 07:03:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Speaking of a ton of bricks (none / 0)

I feel like I'm speaking to a ton of bricks. "He started it" is not an argument (see previous post of mine), yet you use it twice.

Negative behavior of Nick in other threads does not excuse similar behavior by Ken in this one.

Being condescending on the subject of economics by Nick in a previous thread does not excuse similar behavior by Ken concerning energy policy in this one.

But enough of this. It bores me, and everyone reading this. On to energy policy!

Converting coal to fuel for combustion engines: It might be economicaly possible when oil becomes too expensive, but the production will usuelly emit more carbon than pumping up oil and transporting/refining it. If you care about carbon emissions (as you well should, but this is a different discussion), this is a problem. If not, this might be a solution.
By the way, Ken mentioned China paying too much for oil while the US used cheap coal-based fuel. Don't count on it. China has large coal reserves as well (as does Europe), it evens out.

Using coal to produce energy: economically possible, but emits a lot of carbon. If you care about that, don't go coal: large scale storage of emissions is still only theoretical - might change though, so don't count it out.
However: coal will run out, and faster if we start using more of it.

Using Nuclear power: economically possible. But uranium will run out if we use more of it too. It's a 100-year stopgap measure (breeder reactors might change this, I'm not an expert; let's hope they do). And there's the waste: 300 milion Americans, 300 milion shot-glasses - that'll be a big hangover.

Solution: Hell if I knew. I keep my fingers crossed for nuclear fusion, but that's still decades away. It would solve a lot of problems, though. But I think solar would be a better bet for now.

by Cogitor on 05/11/2008 08:03:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0)
@ Cogitor:

"Converting coal to fuel for combustion engines"

This is the problem itself, we are not reforming the internal combustion engine economy. As long as we slaves to a technology developed in the late 19th century, we will never escape the trap of carbon. Also, let us not forget that this technology has made too many people very rich, even created a "aristocratic" working class with the auto workers. How can we prove this, the documentary, "Who killed the Electric Car" is a good example of how special interests, or as they really are, class interests, undermine technological development for accumulation. Exactly as Marx predicted they would. Same goes for Marijuana which was made illegal in 1937 because it was a competitor the DuPont and others, has nothing to do with medical reasons.

"Using coal to produce energy: economically possible, but emits a lot of carbon. "

Which is a contradiction, again the endemic  problem of capitalist logic. Basically, short term profit, long term destruction. As Keynes said, "we are all dead in the long-run". Basically, the current system is suicidal thats obvious to anyone who is not ideologically capitalist. What is economically possible does not equal, socially or economically viable.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 08:22:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"capitalist logic" (none / 0)
The alternative is state control over the individual. 

Nick's prescription for an improved society is to turn the U.S. into a socialist country, where the state dictates how much energy we use and what kind of vehicles we drive. He wants a government that exerts control over every aspect of our private lives.

I'm astonished that the rest of you guys are satisfied to sit back and let him spew this garbage without a challenge. If a right winger was promoting conservative principals in this forum, you would bury him with criticism.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 09:00:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get real (none / 0)

First of all, you represent a false dilema. It's not either all-out capitalism or socialism. There's a middle road. It's called regulation by a democratically elected government. For political purposes, however, that middle road has been painted by the far right as socialist, with great succes.

A. Seccond, if for reasons of survival as a civilisation, the state needs to dictate "how much energy we use and what kind of vehicles we drive", I don't see a problem with that. If you believe global warming's link to human emissions is real, you should see the logic in this.

B If, however, you do not consider the link between global warming and human emissions credible, I can verry well see how you would consider "the state dictating how much energy we use and what kind of vehicles we drive" a limitation of your autonomy not proportional to the emission-issue.

Until there is a concensus on the issue of global warming - emissions between us, this debate will go nowhere: I will adhere to position A, you to position B.

by Cogitor on 05/11/2008 09:15:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@Cogitor (none / 0)
You are correct in suggesting that there is a middle-ground between the free-market and socialism, we call it a Keynesian/regulated economy. Works pretty well in Germany, although Germany can be considered a mix between neoliberalism and the welfare state, but it maintains the title as the worlds most competitive economy based on exports, which has seen its emissions actually decrease in absolute terms since 1990.

Unregulated capitalism can NEVER correct itself, the market cannot correct itself because its goal is profit not social justice. The irrationality of capitalism, principally neoliberal capitalism is this, again, privatizing profits and socializing costs. Neoliberalism has NO problem socializing our costs. I agree with you that the state has to step in and internalize the externalizes of the firms to FORCE them to change their ways. As long as they do not pay for their externalizes, they will not have an incentive to change. I am totally in favour of regulated capitalism, the real indoctrination is not from my analysis. The real danger of totalitarianism is the pseudo-scientific neoclassical analysis which justifies exploitation as a natural, cosmic force of nature. ;)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 09:35:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Note: (none / 0)

"I agree with you that the state has to step in and internalize the externalizes of the firms to FORCE them to change their ways. As long as they do not pay for their externalizes, they will not have an incentive to change."

Note, this is a NEOCLASSICAL theory!
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 09:36:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
logical and reasonable position (none / 0)
If liberals can define man-made CO2 as a danger to mankind, then they have license to take control of the economy and all of society. This has been their ultimate goal all along.

Conservatives promote individual liberty and a free market environment rather than government control. That's why Nick and I will always disagree.

There is significant evidence to suggest that the planet is moving into another Maunder Minimum century. That's a mini Ice Age that causes widespread crop failure and starvation. If this is true, global warming is no longer a concern.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 09:44:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The truth (none / 0)
Sadly the environment cannot be our only concern.

If we were energy independent we would not be in Iraq, for example. In fact, if we developed a new energy source, we would render places like the middle east irrelevant.

We need to find energy independence by any means possible, while doing everything possible to protect the environment.

At the same time we need to search for (or create) a new type of energy. One that is a)non-toxic and b) cost efficient.

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 11:05:18 AM EST

Another myth (none / 0)
Both Democrats and Republicans claim to want to get the US off Middle Eastern oil, but they know doing so will cause more economic damage. Too many people, in politics and out of politics (as if such a bifurcation exists) make too much money through the oil cocaine that they will not let the interests of the American people get in the way. This happens in a corporate, captured state.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 11:44:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clean coal is a myth (none / 0)
The big, dirty sectret of this "clean coal" revolution is how to extract the coal.  It is impossible to extract it without destroying the environment.  You either have to blast into a mountain and carve it out from the inside or just slice the whole top off of the mountain.  No amount of reforestation will counteract that.  And that is just part of the problem.  The run-off from mining operations are a major problem that destroy aquatic ecosystems.  It's time for us to actually begin a transition into truly environmentally friendly energy.  There are so many options that it would be the height of folly to entertain wasting time and money going down another dirty path.  Solar and wind have made huge advances, tidal energy is another interesting alternative.  Methane captured from landfills is a great alternative that is already doing great things in practice.

Nuclear energy is still a problem for several reasons.  For one, the waste is a big issue no matter how much proponants will poo-poo it.  Ask the people of Nevada if there is any doubt.  The other big problem is that nobody wants a nuclear plant in their area.  I am not against further research into nuclear energy, but it is not a feasable option until safety and waste disposal are truly figured out. 

In my experience, it seems that the biggest proponants of nuclear energy are behind it just because they have a weird psychological problem with other alternatives.  They have spent so much of their lives disdaining hippies and liberals that they cannot bring themselves to agree with them on any issue.  I know that this does not describe every proponant of nuclear energy, I just have not met any that didn't fit this mold. 


by jawill11 on 05/11/2008 10:32:19 PM EST

Great! (none / 0)
Thanks for that post, we seem to agree on every point!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 10:35:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I like this issue. (none / 0)
You guys are wrong on technology, because there are no feasible "alternatives". I invite you to offer specifics that work.

You guys are wrong on the politics, because your only solution is to attack vehicles that people choose to drive.
If you think it's political folly trying to regulate handguns, I invite you to try to regluate automobile size and performance. See how that works out for you.

We have a shortage of oil because Democrats won't let us drill in America. We have a shortage of gasoline because Democrats create hurdles to refinery expansion.
I want to make this issue number one in the upcoming election.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 10:56:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I need to change my shorts (none / 0)

I got excited by the idea of gas prices being the number one issue in the election.  Can you imagine McCain trying to explain all that shit Ken just said?

Yeah, the swing voter is going to take all that in and believe it.  I thought Democrats were the ones who lose elections trying to explain nuance and why the obvious conclusion is not so obvious.  Please contact the McCain campaign with this strategy immediately!

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:54:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Swing voters need to know one thing. (none / 0)
Democrats are blocking drilling and refinery expansion.

The McCain Campaign will highlight Obama's voting record on drilling in the Gulf and ANWR.

Obama is big on biofuels that are wrecking the global economy and starving people.

by KenTX on 05/12/2008 12:14:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)
Good luck with that.  Just keep highlighting the high gas prices and offering your pedantic egghead theories.  Just don't let anyone forget the gas prices are high and McCain is a member of the incumbent party.

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 01:42:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not just Dems (none / 0)
Actually, the majority of Americans are blocking drilling because they are tired of their environment being flushed down the toilet.  Drilling and mining are finally being blocked at the state and local level in Colorado because the people have finally seen what the damage is and it isn't pretty.  There are dozens of other examples where the Bush admin has tried to violate environmental standards to help out his energy buddies only to be blocked at the state and local level where the people are paying attention and have the power to do something about it. 

by jawill11 on 05/12/2008 09:44:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)

I think the angle of:

 Destroying the environment to bring down oil prices by cents, and making billions more in profit for big oil will go down well with the American people especially at this moment! Is it not obvious that ANWR will solve America's needs? Its a election year winner for the Republicans!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/12/2008 12:54:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
FYI: that comment was directed @ PROFRICH (none / 0)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/12/2008 12:55:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't even think that much (none / 0)

I just think the swing voter will say Gas prices bad, incumbent parties fault.

Pretty simple. 

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 01:45:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Get off my lawn! (none / 0)
Thanks for the grumpy old man rant.  You'd make a great veep for McCain.

Get back to me when you have anything even remotely relevant to what I posted.

And, I concur with the others.  Pretty please make this the #1 issue.  If you think you can win with an argument that is equivelant to the meth addict who thinks cooking it in his bathroom is a great alternative to the drug dealer, have at it!  I would love to see a real energy discussion in this country, we desperately need it. 

by jawill11 on 05/12/2008 09:34:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It sure would be a nice change of pace (none / 0)

To watch the conservatives try to lecture their way into the White House.

You better stick with running on racism. 

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 09:50:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama caused high gas prices. (none / 0)
What has Barack Obama done to lower the price of gasoline at the pumps?

That's the question we'll be asking this year. He is against lowering taxes on gasoline. He is against drilling for more oil. He is against the expansion of refineries.

Don't think this will work? Remember how you laughed the first time we told you that John Kerry hates America.
kerry
Doctored photo? Who cares? It worked!

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 01:45:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It makes my heart swell (none / 0)

Every time you bring this up.  Wow, you people have just nothing to run on, do you?

I am thinking we should take a two pronged attack on McCain. 

1) He's old. 

2) He looks like a T-Rex. 

Shouldn't he be oil by now? 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 02:03:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clean coal mythology | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: