Titanium Cat

David Roberts of Grist takes one more look at both Clinton and Obama on the environment.

His basic conclusion is there isn't a lot to choose between them although if pressed for a pick he takes Obama but just. He thinks Obama will help get more reliable voting Democrats elected to congress something he considers important in the grand scheme of things.

The article includes a nice summary of past articles relating to both candidates environmental stands:

• My analysis of Clinton's plan is here, of Obama's here.
• A more thorough factsheet on Clinton's green record is here; Obama's here.
• An interview with Clinton on green subjects is here; Obama here.

__________________

The_Heretic

When you look at the two candidates' donor lists the choice for Obama becomes overwhelming.

__________________

John McCain: "He's in Iraq... with a few centuries to kill."





You won't fight for the Bill of Right? Fine! I won't fight for you in the ballot box!

Malkavian

Neat.. why are greens so much against coal research? We have tons of it, enough for a few centuries of intensive use... If we can figure out how to keep algae alive in the smokestacks, that'd be a decent energy source.

__________________

guest1234567

Here is statement from the Green Party:

The U.S. is blessed with tremendous renewable energy potential, enough to meet the entire electric demand of the country. We call for a Manhattan Project-level of commitment to developing clean renewable energy technologies—technologies that do not create pollution in the course of generating electricity. These can include wind, solar, ocean power, geothermal, and small-scale hydro. Since even clean renewable energy can have negative environmental impacts, care must be taken to minimize such impacts. Clean renewable energy does not include nuclear power, any sort of combustion or process in which by-products are ultimately combusted, or hydroelectric dams that block entire rivers.

Titanium Cat

The latter is not a bad idea if it can work as it can be fitted to existing plants. However I think the reason they are against a lot of clean coal research (mainly sequestoring) is because they believe it to be uneconomical and simply a handout to the coal industry.

The FutureGen project was very expensive and only viable when the feds were kicking in over half the cost.

__________________

Malkavian

Hmm... where are they gonna get the energy to build all those clean energy devices? Solar is very energy intensive, and i'd think wind would be too... What's it made of? Steel? Aluminum alloy? It takes quite a bit to smelt it, i'd think. The rest are nice but too location specific. So is wind lol, solar a bit less so, but needs batteries for the night...

__________________

Malkavian

Well, $1.5 billion is not too bad in general. It's a fraction of a cost for a decent sized refinery. You would pay as much for a basic chemical plant nowadays. But lol, that basic plant would come with it's own power... $1.5 billion would be a bit too much for a simple coal burner.

__________________

guest1234567

Of course this is true right now, but I think that is why they suggest a Manhattan Project-level of commitment. It will take this type devotion to create the next wave of energy sources.

Titanium Cat

I think it was 1.8 billion. It was a clean coal plant with CO2 sequestration. But it was only 275 Megawatts which is very small.

__________________

Malkavian

Yeah, they raised a price tag. I found a conventional coal fired plant online for $550 million though . 374 MW lifetime capacity.

__________________