this has apparently been around since january, just now seeing the light of day. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl...s-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry [rquoter] Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them.[/rquoter]
I, for one, don't think that's a bad idea. I see too many moms giving their little kids cola and setting them up for adult diabetes. I see too many teenagers sucking down huge quantities of cola making then fat, lazy, and unproductive. I think this is just more of the preventative part of Obama's health care plan.
Here's the YouTube: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hdi4onAQBWQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hdi4onAQBWQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yet another example of Obama revealing his true intentions (not the fraudulent ones that he is forced to say to try to get elected...) to the San Francisco 'intelligentsia'... VA, PA, OH, WV, CO voters please take note. All of these states are big coal states. Without coal, our nation is decimated. It provides fuel for half of our country's electricity generation. It's far and away the most inexpensive and reliable fuel. Wind and solar are nice, but can not solve the problem b/c they do not scale well. They are small solutions. Coal is THE solution. Many ways of cleaning up coal are very close to commercialization. Google 'activated carbon' and 'coal fired emissions' and you will get an idea. You can NOT be against coal and FOR energy independence. You simply can't. Obama is trapped in yet another lie. The man is a fraud. He has hidden some very dangerous philosophies and associations from the public's view, masquerading as a moderate. The man is anything but a moderate. Read a little bit about South Africa if you want to see what a disastrous government can do to the electrical infrastructure of a country. America is next if we elect Obama, the coal killer.
There is a difference between coal and clean coal Obama is against the former and for the latter and he has said that many times. He is saying he will make it economically unwise to continue to build dirty coal power plants, the coal industry will still thrive, it will just have to put some environmental protections in place.
The ignorance with regard to energy is astounding. You don't even know what the heck 'clean coal' means. You are just parroting lines that you heard Obama say. ALL new coal fired plants today must utilize best available emissions control technology. All of them. Or they don't get permitted. Get a clue.
Speaking of coal, how's your alternative to Social Security doing? Planning on retiring after that 10% yield are you? Here's PVR's chart just for reference...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-GuzIWDr2dU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-GuzIWDr2dU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> looks like Mccain needs to 'get a clue' also
rimrocker, you just humiliated yourself. I'd be happy to answer your question: PVR, on 10-24-2002, the day of my recommendation, was trading at around $10/share. Today it's at $18.41/share. That's an 84% increase. You also would have collected a 10% yield over SIX YEARS, thereby adding another 60% to your return. That's a 144% increase -- even more if you reinvested the dividends. That return would DECIMATE the government backed security alternative. DECIMATE. This type of logic that you just put on display, is why you really shouldn't ever attempt to debate finance with me (or anyone). Good grief, you really should have checked into that before trying to post it. What a colossal failure on your part. OWNED
Not anymore. HEY-O! Thank you Bush. You obviously have no idea either if you think ALL coal plants have to use the best technology either. There are degrees. I guarantee you that some coal power plants, if not all, are spewing more pollution in the air then they should because of lax regulation and idiotic short-term profit viability.
As soon as they realized that denying man made climate change landed them inside the lunatic fringe, they've been desperately scrambling to make themselves look environmental in order to seize control of the agenda.
"clean coal" such as gasification or carbon sequestration is far beyond whatever "best available" emissions control technology today. In fact, the industry has been sharply opposed to the "best available" regulation because it's too cumbersome and expensive and eliminates innovation or cheaper methods of emissions reduction. It's a little game they play where they delay installing scrubbers until the risk of a random annual inspection and fine becomes more costly than the actual installation and retrofit.
None of them use Carbon Capture and Storage technologies on a commercial scale. It's only in the testing phase right now. The first plan will probably not be built into the administration that comes after Obama finishes. Obama is not just thinking what can be done in this administration. A candidate that can make plans beyond 8 years. That's a first.
You didn't propose it as an investment of capital, you proposed it as a substitute for SS, so you would have had people buying in over the years instead in a lump at the bottom. So, looking at the chart, people would have had a decent yield over the first two years, not much over the next three, and losses over the last year.
T_J, you've got a lot of doors to knock on and phones to call to get this message to the masses before Tuesday. The free world's existence depends on it. You've got a great start here on the bbs... MOVE IT
Another Falsehood by the Republicans... http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html That coal quote is take WILDLY out of context.
I'm not talking about carbon capture and storage as you are talking about it. I'm a step ahead of that. CO2 sequestration has hit some real roadblocks over the past year or so. I don't think it's viable. Sorbent injection technology is the most cutting edge solution that solves the problem and spits the CO2 out in the form of baking soda.
