Before you dismiss the source, LISTEN TO THE AUDIO.
BY-BY Coal. . .
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
http://bizzyblog.com/ObamaSFchronInterview011708.html
He says it won't be possible to built a coal-burning plant under his system. He doesn't say anything about existing plants or coal mines. Nor does he mention using coal by other means. Just coal burning plants.
BTW, maybe the emission cap and trade revenues could be put into building the nuclear power plants? The building costs for those are so high that they can't attract investors.
This issue goes back a long long way. O's position on clean coal is well known and hardly newsworthy. Dead air time.
No new coal plants? Prepare for the black outs.
Someone says he will bankrupt any business that tries to build a coal powered plant and the response is, "No News."
We are dying from importing oil and he will bankrupt one of our major aternative sources. "No News."
Private industry will build nulear plants if the government gets out of the way. At the very worst, getting a low cost loan is the most that is needed to send a dozen companies to the planning board.
This story is spreading rapidly throughout the right wing blogosphere. Can the underlying bankruptcy intent be found anywhere in the main stream media? I really doubt it. I looked, got tired, and gave up.
Just not in coal-burning plants.
There has never been a nuclear power plant built without heavy government subsidy. Ever. The construction costs are astronomical.
He won't bankrupt one of our major alternative sources, he would stop the building of direct coal-burning plants. Totally different things.
In most cases, the government getting out of the way won't solve problems.
I can think of at least one that was built mostly by private with only a small public investment. San Onofre.
If I can think of one off the top of my head, there must be others.
Also, even if there is a government subsidy, that is often a money maker for the government. For example, when the U.S. bailed out Chrysler, it ended up making money for the feds.
It would be amazingly easy to structure some help that would end up making money for the Treasury. Quick idea. A loan to a utility at the rate that feds loan to banks, to be repaid out of the rates received. If Europe runs on nuclear, so can we. They sell their electricity. Con Ed could sell its power. Instead of paying a bank (or a consortium of banks) for the consturction loan, they could pay the U.S. which would have a secured interest.
See. Simple. We got under the hood and fixed it. Boy, I may run for pres.
Yes, he would stop the building of coal. Well, he is hostile to nuclear, cautious about off-shore, will stop coal.
That means he is totally dependent on technologies that are still producing an insignificant per cent of power.
Every one here bette be ready to cut back 20%. Where will you cut back? Why don't you do it now?
-- Modified on 11/2/2008 2:35:56 PM
No, I just think he's an incredible politician, as far as that takes him.
just keep your tires inflated properly, that will solve all of our energy problems. Sheesh do I have to tell you everything? lol
He just isn't adamant about it. He has said it isn't optimal, but he didn't rule it out.
-- Modified on 11/2/2008 6:03:48 PM
"just keep your tires inflated properly, that will solve all of our energy problems"
I have special tires ordered for my car.. 800 PSI that I will fill with helium ..the salesman said my car will be so light I will get 200MPG
lol ...but I thought mine had more drama and the pictures added special effects..
Until recently, he has never promoted it and always aligned himself with those opposed to it, never dissenting from their opposition.
He only mentioned being "in favor" of it after McCain made it an issue. Now he says he is open to it "if it can be done cleanly," which is a crock, since it is being done cleanly in France, Germany, Italy, England, and a dozen other countries.
By qualifying it with an "IF," after he is elected, he can say it can't be done, thereby placating his base of U.S. environmentists which has always been dead seat against nuclear and opposed it consistently for decades.
It is the oldest rhetorical excuse possible. One step short of pure lie.
-- Modified on 11/2/2008 6:57:50 PM
You forget, Zin does not allow for the possibility for Obama to lie. Except for those instances where Obama's words can and should be used against him. In those cases he claims to somehow "know" what Obama was really thinking, contrrary to the man's own words.