<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fallon Against Clean Energy Research</title>
	<link>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/</link>
	<description>Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:11:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: RenovateDSM</title>
		<link>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25506</link>
		<author>RenovateDSM</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 16:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25506</guid>
					<description>You are conflating two completely different energy sources. 

The vast majority of oil is used for transportation and industrial production (with some minor exceptions for kerosene and home heating oil).  Coal is generally used for heating and power generation.  &lt;strong&gt;Development of so-called "clean coal" technology for power generation simply will not impact oil use and the problems inherent in an oil dependent economy - they are separate issues.&lt;/strong&gt;

Iowa coal tends to have a high sulphur content, and is simply not as useful or interesting as a fuel for major electricity generation because of that.  Researching ways to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants is probably good, but we actually already know how to reduce emissions significantly in many cases.  Our current environmental policies may actually discourage major coal plant upgrades.

A progressive energy policy would focus on &lt;strong&gt;overall reduction&lt;/strong&gt; of energy use (electric, transportation, and production), particularly energy that comes from fossil fuels, instead of technical solutions for maintaining current growth trends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are conflating two completely different energy sources. </p>
<p>The vast majority of oil is used for transportation and industrial production (with some minor exceptions for kerosene and home heating oil).  Coal is generally used for heating and power generation.  <strong>Development of so-called &#8220;clean coal&#8221; technology for power generation simply will not impact oil use and the problems inherent in an oil dependent economy - they are separate issues.</strong></p>
<p>Iowa coal tends to have a high sulphur content, and is simply not as useful or interesting as a fuel for major electricity generation because of that.  Researching ways to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants is probably good, but we actually already know how to reduce emissions significantly in many cases.  Our current environmental policies may actually discourage major coal plant upgrades.</p>
<p>A progressive energy policy would focus on <strong>overall reduction</strong> of energy use (electric, transportation, and production), particularly energy that comes from fossil fuels, instead of technical solutions for maintaining current growth trends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: time machine</title>
		<link>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25507</link>
		<author>time machine</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 17:46:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25507</guid>
					<description>I agree that this blog post needed some more research but turning back the clock is not the solution. You so called progressives think the solution to everything is everyone should be doing the right thing. What is wrong with making are current technologies as clean as possible until we have developed clean technologies that can meet our needs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that this blog post needed some more research but turning back the clock is not the solution. You so called progressives think the solution to everything is everyone should be doing the right thing. What is wrong with making are current technologies as clean as possible until we have developed clean technologies that can meet our needs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: barackstar2008</title>
		<link>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25508</link>
		<author>barackstar2008</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 18:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25508</guid>
					<description>I am disappointed that Ed Fallon is disagreeing with Barack Obama on yet another issue (besides campaign finance reform) You can do better Ed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am disappointed that Ed Fallon is disagreeing with Barack Obama on yet another issue (besides campaign finance reform) You can do better Ed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RenovateDSM</title>
		<link>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25509</link>
		<author>RenovateDSM</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 20:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://iowaprogress.com/2008/05/27/fallon-against-clean-energy-research/#comment-25509</guid>
					<description>Um... if everyone always did the right thing, wouldn't that indeed be the solution to everything?  Gosh, though, it would be pretty hard to always do the right thing, or even to know what the right things is all the time.  I'm not building myself a mountain compound and raising organic soybeans to make my own tofu.  I even drive a car and leave my DVD player plugged in all day (even when I'm not at home)!

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the end solution to the so-called "energy problem" is not going to be a technical one.  Technical solutions like clean coal may help ease the transition.  It will be necessary to fundamentally change development patterns, transportation priorities, and individual habits.  James Howard Kunstler is kind of a doomsday nutcase about the implications, but the underlying thesis in "The Long Emergency" is worth considering.

Reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants should be a short term goal - we agree on that.  The government should help fund research towards that goal and require that all power plants implement pollution reduction measures.  This will most definitely raise the cost of electricity, which has definite economic implications.

Right now, the government incentivizes the "wrong" decisions pretty much across the board.  Old coal-fired power plants don't upgrade because they would trigger massive clean air investments (scrubbers, etc).  Transportation and development infrastructure expenditures promote low-occupancy vehicles and low density.  Gasoline prices don't reflect the external costs of use.

Obama couldn't win an election on an "gasoline and electricity will keep getting more and more expensive" platform.  My sense is that we are headed in that direction.  Clean coal may deal with some of the ecological externalities of electricity generation, but it won't help the price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um&#8230; if everyone always did the right thing, wouldn&#8217;t that indeed be the solution to everything?  Gosh, though, it would be pretty hard to always do the right thing, or even to know what the right things is all the time.  I&#8217;m not building myself a mountain compound and raising organic soybeans to make my own tofu.  I even drive a car and leave my DVD player plugged in all day (even when I&#8217;m not at home)!</p>
<p>On the other hand, I strongly believe that the end solution to the so-called &#8220;energy problem&#8221; is not going to be a technical one.  Technical solutions like clean coal may help ease the transition.  It will be necessary to fundamentally change development patterns, transportation priorities, and individual habits.  James Howard Kunstler is kind of a doomsday nutcase about the implications, but the underlying thesis in &#8220;The Long Emergency&#8221; is worth considering.</p>
<p>Reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants should be a short term goal - we agree on that.  The government should help fund research towards that goal and require that all power plants implement pollution reduction measures.  This will most definitely raise the cost of electricity, which has definite economic implications.</p>
<p>Right now, the government incentivizes the &#8220;wrong&#8221; decisions pretty much across the board.  Old coal-fired power plants don&#8217;t upgrade because they would trigger massive clean air investments (scrubbers, etc).  Transportation and development infrastructure expenditures promote low-occupancy vehicles and low density.  Gasoline prices don&#8217;t reflect the external costs of use.</p>
<p>Obama couldn&#8217;t win an election on an &#8220;gasoline and electricity will keep getting more and more expensive&#8221; platform.  My sense is that we are headed in that direction.  Clean coal may deal with some of the ecological externalities of electricity generation, but it won&#8217;t help the price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
