Newt Gingrich - Clean Coal?

[ParanoiA]

This is a three and a half minute video of Newt's 3 way strategy to deal with energy. Well, I'm sure it doesn't belong to Newt, but you get the idea. He mentions we have enough coal to put Saudi Arabia to shame and talks about clean coal. I've never heard of this. Anybody have any info on it??

 

 

I found it sobering. The left won't like it because he doesn't believe alternative fuels can do anything in one decade. The right won't like it because he doesn't believe oil is the long term solution and he accepts global warming as an issue to be dealt with.

 

In short, he's for releasing our reserves to punish speculators, drilling and searching for oil in the oceans and investing in Nuclear power for electrical generation (which he believes will initiate the hydrogen model since electrical usage goes down at night while nuclear plants are steady-state producers, leaving a window open for hydrogen production).

 

While it's not exactly what I want to hear, I have to admit it's quite a rational, and realistic point of view. Particularly when you consider that the alternative is to give money to corrupt to regimes that make GWB look like mother Theresa - just to buy the oil being drilled 70 miles off the coast of Florida, or "finder's keeper's" wells in the atlantic.

 

We pass laws to block ourselves from off-shore drilling or searching for oil, then pay China or Venezuela to do the exact same thing, only marked up and circumvented to ensure our dependency. That's really, really stupid on our part.

[Pangloss]

Releasing our reserves to punish speculators? Well I guess it's a kind of punishment -- they'll laugh so hard they'll cry.

 

As I understand it the biggest problem with clean coal is the setup expense, which would require massive government investment. I wonder where Newt's been drawing his paychecks lately.

[Phi for All]

I think it would be great to end the speculation that is artificially driving up oil prices. I don't know enough about the reserves to know if it would be enough, however.

 

I also want a more scientific look at how offshore drilling would affect the environment. I think the technology has improved since the laws against it were passed, but I'm unwilling to completely trust the word of the companies that will profit most from repealing those laws. We should be able to judge cost-effectiveness with the least environmental impact if we can analyze the practice without profit-drooling or knee-jerk greenthink getting in the way.

 

As far as shale oil goes, I've seen firsthand the scars it leaves in mountain areas, but again, I'd like a neutral look at current technology. The Rocky Mountains are MY backyard, and a national treasure to boot, so this needs careful attention before we forge ahead. As long as we're moving towards more sustainable energy sources, I'm totally willing to continue searching for oil to lessen the impact.

 

I didn't hear Newt mention "clean coal" (I watched the video twice), but I'm a bit worried that this is just a sound byte cooked up by coal producers. I almost donated to the Wetlands Defense Fund once, only to find out it was a group who advocated landowner rights to do whatever the hell they wanted with wetlands on their property. They boasted about all the checks they got from environmentalists who fell for their seemingly green name.

 

I'd like to know more about any process that would make coal "clean". Cleaning up greenhouse gases alone won't make coal the preferred energy source. It still has a heavy environmental impact.

 

I like Newt's stance on nuclear. Creating hydrogen while the grid is on minimum is a good idea. I also like his stance on urging science and technology to step up to the plate, especially now that new ideas are almost immediately cost-effective. I'd like to see patent laws change to avoid suppression. I'd really hate to hear that Newt's Texas A&M professor got stopped in his tracks because some oil company was already squatting on a patent for gasoline from garbage.

 

I also want to see us stop the subsidies. They prevent us from truly analyzing cost-effectiveness, and enable producers to adopt lazy habits that bypass normal market pressures. I see this as the most important and the most difficult part of this process.

[Sisyphus]

He makes several good points, but I'm not too sure about his math. As for his "releasing a third" of the strategic oil reserves, that just seems very shortsighted. For one thing, a third of the strategic reserves is about a three week supply at current U.S. consumption rates. It would certainly lower prices for a while, depending on the rate at which its released, but necessarily not for very long, since there just isn't enough oil. All it would be doing was creating a "reverse bubble" in oil prices for a few months, screwing with a market that's finally created demand beneficial to our long term goals. And at the end of that period, you're more addicted to oil than you were before, the economy takes another hit readjusting to the once-more high prices, and your emergency reserves are 33% smaller. It would punish speculators who "bet against the United States" by crashing the market, but honestly, not really, since immediately after a price drop that you know will be temporary would be an ideal time to get into oil speculation.

 

I also think he's being more than a little misleading with his comments about rocky mountain shale oil, etc. First of all, it's not "illegal to look for it there." We have been looking. Most of the theoretical supply is under federally-owned land, so there's not "a law against it," per se, any more than there's a specific law against me drilling on your property. Congress just has to approve individual leases. And they have already leased out several test sites to private companies, most notably Shell. Nobody, however, has committed to large-scale projects yet, because the economics of it aren't certain. They (the oil companies) want to be sure the global price of crude stays high, because otherwise shale extraction isn't economically viable. They were mining shale oil (or at least heavily investing in the infrastructure) during the last energy crisis in the 1970s, but when oil prices dropped in the 1980s it became obsolete, and they lost a whole lot of money.

 

As for nuclear energy, though, I pretty much agree with him. In the medium to long term, it probably will and should be the foundation of a diverse energy production infrastructure. The more plants we build right now, the better off we'll be for the next few decades. I'm probably more optimistic than him, though, in that I have a lot of faith in the technological advance of "greener" energy to the point where even nuclear power has only a minor place. It won't be totally obsolete, however, until we have a better source that is independent of external conditions and can be built anywhere.

[ParanoiA]

I also want a more scientific look at how offshore drilling would affect the environment. I think the technology has improved since the laws against it were passed, but I'm unwilling to completely trust the word of the companies that will profit most from repealing those laws. We should be able to judge cost-effectiveness with the least environmental impact if we can analyze the practice without profit-drooling or knee-jerk greenthink getting in the way.

 

This is the issue that kind of shocked me the most. I really didn't know China could drill 70 miles off the coast of Florida, while we, presumably, have restricted ourselves from it. I also didn't know we made it illegal to search for oil in some of our oceans. I don't know how extensive that is either. So there's a huge hole in my knowledge here.

 

That in mind, I have to join the chorus that says WTF? We keep ourselves from doing it just so we can turn right around and pay someone else to do it instead? The end environmental damage result is the same - only we ensure that 1) we are damaged as well. 2) that we remain dependent on other countries 3) that we transfer our money to regimes that hate us and give even less of a crap about the environment than our corporations do.

 

So far it seems like we're being naive and absolutely stupid. If the environment and resources are going to be inevitably raped and pillaged, then why not be the rapist and pillager? (that sounded better before I typed it out....) We're not sparing or saving the environment so why abdicate our independence, and help elevate those who hate us also?

[Phi for All]

So far it seems like we're being naive and absolutely stupid. If the environment and resources are going to be inevitably raped and pillaged, then why not be the rapist and pillager? (that sounded better before I typed it out....) We're not sparing or saving the environment so why abdicate our independence, and help elevate those who hate us also?

I reluctantly have to agree with this stance. I suppose it's like a top-flight, board-certified surgeon standing idly by while some medieval barber puts leeches on a patient who's appendix has burst. If anyone has the technology to keep environmental impact to a minimum, it's US.

 

I would want to make sure our regulations haven't been too severely compromised over the last twenty years before we just turn the drillers loose. An EPA with teeth would be necessary, imo.

[iNow]

What if we drilled for it, stored it, but didn't use it? That means we could pillage the earth without raping the air. We could then store it for future needs if we were able to get past our needs for instant gratification and be mature about holding it safely. China won't get it, we'll have it, and it is available for later should we need it.

 

 

Also, just an aside, "clean coal" has got to be one of the dumbest oxymorons I've heard in my entire life. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

[ParanoiA]

I didn't hear Newt mention "clean coal" (I watched the video twice), but I'm a bit worried that this is just a sound byte cooked up by coal producers.

 

Oh, sorry about that. I think he mentioned the "clean coal" thing in the 5 minute version. I watched several of these last night and only tried to link it this morning. I can't watch 'youtube' from work, so I can't fix it until I get home tonight.

 

And your second sentence is exactly what I was wondering about. I have a feeling it's a green name with no real green results. Kind of like natural gas burning "cleaner".

 

What if we drilled for it, stored it, but didn't use it? That means we could pillage the earth without raping the air. We could then store it for future needs if we were able to get past our needs for instant gratification and be mature about holding it safely. China won't get it, we'll have it, and it is available for later should we need it.

 

Interesting angle there. So we get the crude and then keep it out of the hands of those who would burn it. Kind of reminds me of Ron Paul's historical critique on Lincoln and slavery - that we should have bought the slaves and then set them free. (as opposed to the civil war). It's not a bad plan for the environmentalist agenda.

Edited July 10, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

I also want a more scientific look at how offshore drilling would affect the environment.

 

I agree.

 

 

What if we drilled for it, stored it, but didn't use it? That means we could pillage the earth without raping the air. We could then store it for future needs if we were able to get past our needs for instant gratification and be mature about holding it safely. China won't get it, we'll have it, and it is available for later should we need it.

 

I agree, let's INCREASE the reserve. THEN we'd be playing smart and looking ahead, not obsessing over 2007 and 1997 pump prices.

 

Storage is kinda problematic, though. We're talking about some pretty large numbers.

 

 

Also, just an aside, "clean coal" has got to be one of the dumbest oxymorons I've heard in my entire life. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

 

Well, how about "immunization"? Accept a little of the disease for the long-term benefit. But I guess that's a flawed analogy, since most proponents of CC see it as a long-term solution. Still, it does get us on the grid, which elminates automotive CO2 and it promises to try and address the extra sulfur it creates, etc.

[bascule]

I've been a proponent of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) for awhile. Coal plants using this technology are 60% efficient, vs 30-35% for a traditional coalfire plant, or 45% for a supercritical coal plant.

[Phi for All]

I've been a proponent of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) for awhile. Coal plants using this technology are 60% efficient, vs 30-35% for a traditional coalfire plant, or 45% for a supercritical coal plant.

Does this efficiency offset the billions in subsidies coal receives? Subsidization is allowing most coal burners to stick with antiquated processes, like simply building higher smokestacks so the locals are less impacted.

 

I'm tired of subsidies that sound like healthy initiative, but in practice enable corporations to avoid searching for more efficient ways of doing business. Without these government incentives, and with some teeth to the regulations we need for long-term success, techniques like IGCC will become necessary instead of just mandatory.