How Dirty is Obama's Clean Energy Goal?

Posted on 02-07-2011 by JohnG (JohnG)
URL for sharing: http://thisorth.at/u3b
6598

Obama, my favorite president since... well, actually I'm not old enough to have clear memories of any president before Clinton, and I didn't like him while he was in office because my parents were Republicans (although I do recall that Bush Sr. got us to invade Iraq, with soldiers and tanks and missiles to fight the bad guys with, and I thought that was pretty awesome at the time.)

Best. President. EVR. (photo by Cliff1066^tm)

So calling Obama my favorite president isn't saying much, or setting the bar very high, considering the years 2000-2008, when mistakes were made. But unlike his predecessor, whose name I will not utter here, Obama says things that I like, frequently and fluently. It shouldn't be a surprise by now, but it still seems so unlikely that a president would ever actually say something that I think the president should say that I'm almost incredulous when it happens. And yet there he was at the State of the Union address, delivering his remarks on the sexiest possible topics to my nerdy, environmentally conscious brain: clean energy, education, innovation, infrastructure, and even High Speed Rail.

Oh, yeah. Talk HSR to me. (photo by blsmmr)

Good stuff, that. But it wasn't perfect. People in the green community couldn't help but notice a certain omission, a failure to mention that sticky issue that might just be the biggest threat ever faced by human civilization (unless you don't believe in things like "science" and "hurricanes"). You know, the one that begins with "climate," and ends with civilization crumbling under the combined weight of severe natural disasters, crop failures, mass migration, ecological degradation, and a wave of extinction.

No biggie.

Maybe setting the goal of a United States running on 80% clean energy by 2035 was his way of addressing climate change, and it's certainly an ambitious and worthwhile goal in itself. But there's a problem here, too. At issue is President Obama's statement that "Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all."

Really? Some might appreciate the pragmatism of this approach, but while everyone agrees that wind and solar are renewable, carbon-free (i.e., "clean") energy sources, to many the inclusion of those last three is a strange redefinition of "clean energy" to include things that, frankly, aren't. Nuclear is great when it comes to carbon emissions - it doesn't have any - but fears of catastrophic meltdowns aside, once nuclear fuel is spent, there is the matter of storing it FOREVER so that it doesn't poison people or the environment, and lest we forget, mining uranium is anything but clean.

Pictured: our clean energy future. (photo by Alberto OG)

"Clean coal," um, doesn't exist, and while natural gas is cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, it is nonetheless a nonrenewable, carbon producing fossil fuel whose production requires building roads, pipelines and well pads, often in places that used to be nearly pristine.

Clean burning fuel and former sage grouse habitat. (photo by johngiez-)

So, if national energy policy were up to you, what forms of clean energy would you favor?

Nuclear, "clean"
coal and natural gas

Wind and Solar

598 views & 8 votes

Debate It! 6

I can't vote on this one because there is not enough of a choice. Clean coal is real. There are filters and scrubbers that process the waste gasses from clean coal burning. they remove all of the pollutants in the gasses and release only water vapor. The reason you still see "smoke" billowing from the smokestacks is because they film and take pictures on cold days. That gives the illusion of pollution. If you want further proof of the anthropogenic global warming hoax, google "climategate." What that explains is how the data was changed to show that there is global warming. Also, how do you explain the record cold temperatures this year. If anything, there is global cooling going on. And one more thing. Our ENTIRE solar system got hotter this past decade or so. That is a scientific fact. Just look at the data concerning that and you may be astounded at what you find.

Posted By Mr.Truther, 02-07-2011 (1 years)

Unfortunately, wind and solar power will be blocked by people who want to keep their sky line looking good. A while back there was a plan to put a series of windmills on the Buffalo (NY) side of the lake and it was voted down because of the view. Canada took the idea and put them up on their side. And yes, the Buffalonians that voted it down tried to sue to keep them from being built in Canada.

Posted By lockheed40, 02-07-2011 (1 years)

@Mr. Truther. So link me to an operating commercial Clean Coal plant in the U.S. The technology for carbon capture is nascent, not yet commercially viable, and the ability to sequester CO2, either in the ground or the ocean over long periods of time is unproven. We can't simply start building clean coal plants because it isn't really possible or commercially viable yet, if it ever will be. And the idea of clean coal technology is not to *eliminate* CO2 emissions, but to merely to reduce them. No serious proponents of the idea would claim that coal plants are currently able to scrub ALL pollutants from their smoke stacks such that only water vapor is emitted. You might be thinking of nuclear plants, which do only emit water vapor.

Record cold temperatures this year? 2010 tied with 2005 to be the warmest year on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/. When you talk about Global Warming you're talking about the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature, which in the 20th century was about 57 degrees F. Obviously, not every part of the earth was 57 degrees during the 20th century -- at any given moment, places on the ground were much warmer or much colder. When we raise the Average Global Temperature by a few degrees, we still expect that some places will get colder while others get much warmer. The problem lies in increasing extremes, raising the oceans, more erratic weather (including severe blizzards, etc.) and disrupting traditional patterns of human settlement.

Posted By JohnG, 02-07-2011 (1 years)

@lockheed40 Ah, but Cape Wind is finally moving forward, and there's other good news as well. There's hope! http://cleantechnica.com/2011/01/10/u-s-wind-energy-2010-summary/

How did I miss this article? Great mix of snark and commentary. I give you some pops and a snap

Posted By Brash Equilibrium, 02-09-2011 (1 years)

Props and a snap rather

This Or That

How Dirty is Obama's Clean Energy Goal?

So, if national energy policy were up to you, what forms of clean energy would you favor?

Debate It! 6

Make a Comment

Own The Watercooler

Featured

How Dirty is Obama's Clean Energy Goal?

So, if national energy policy were up to you, what forms of clean energy would you favor?

Debate It! 6

Make a Comment

Own The Watercooler

Featured

Sign In

Register