|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: The US Surrenders |
 |
|
| Quote: |
After Washington Pulls
Plug on FutureGen,
Clean Coal Hopes Flicker
By REBECCA SMITH and STEPHEN POWER
February 2, 2008; Page A7
The crippling blow dealt this week to FutureGen, the U.S. government's marquee effort to develop a "clean coal" power plant, will make it harder for the utility sector to slash carbon-dioxide emissions and keep coal in the mix over time as a cheap electricity source. It could also help push the nation toward greater reliance on nuclear power.
On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the Bush administration was yanking its support for the project, whose price tag had ballooned to $1.8 billion, nearly double original estimates. Energy Department officials said it was time to confront the cost issue, before equipment was ordered. Clay Sell, deputy energy secretary, said the easier, less-responsible path would have been to pretend everything was fine "and then when the thing went south, I could have blamed the next administration for failing to bring this good idea to fruition."
Members of the FutureGen alliance, consisting of a dozen or so coal companies and utilities from around the world, said they will take their case directly to Congress. "This is not the end game," said Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co., a leading member of the FutureGen Industrial Alliance. "Clean coal is essential."
The plant "was to have been the prototype for the next generation of clean-coal plants around the world," said Scott Smith, AEP's representative on the FutureGen board. Its technology would have been shared with consortium members, including China's largest coal-burning utility, China Huaneng Group, which has been criticized for its CO2 emissions. China, the biggest coal-consuming nation alongside the U.S., has been criticized for its massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
States competed vigorously for the privilege of hosting the plant, which would have turned coal into hydrogen-rich synthetic gas for generating electricity while pumping CO2 underground for permanent storage. A federal site in Mattoon, Ill., won the contest, edging out another site in Illinois and two in Texas.
FutureGen board members said they'd been in discussion with the Department of Energy about ways to restructure the deal. The board offered to split the cost of any overruns, a burden that otherwise would have fallen squarely on the federal government. Under the original terms, a nonprofit industry consortium was to bear about $400 million of costs.
The industry is now left to consider how it will both increase its ability to generate electricity while at the same time create power that does less damage to the environment. Experts say it's critical for the U.S. to find ways to use coal that don't result in massive releases of CO2. Coal is America's most plentiful domestic fossil fuel. About 90% of domestic production feeds utilities, making the mining industry dependent on finding a solution, too.
Currently, the U.S. gets more than half its electricity from coal-fired plants and its dependence has grown greater, in recent years, due to coal's ability to compete effectively with costlier electricity from natural gas-fired plants. But the emissions are regarded as a significant factor in rising carbon levels that contribute to climate change. Experts say there is no way the U.S. will be able to meet a targeted 80% reduction in CO2 levels below 1990 levels by 2050 -- the goal of major legislation favored by several presidential aspirants -- unless it develops benign ways to burn coal.
Last year, plans for more than 50 conventional coal-fired plants were canceled or delayed due to concerns about the environmental impact or through fear that carbon legislation is coming that could make their output uneconomic. The federal government has repeatedly held out the promise that technologies would be developed to clean up coal.
"People don't understand the magnitude of the problem," said Howard Herzog, principal research engineer for M.I.T.'s Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program. "How can we do hundreds of these plants by 2050 -- and that's what we'll need -- if we can't even do one?"
If progress on clean-coal technology isn't made soon, AEP's Mr. Morris said, "we'll have to move nuclear up the ladder." Indeed, the nuclear-power industry is already experiencing an unlikely rebirth in part because it is seen as a cleaner alternative to other electricity sources.
To date, five utilities have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to build nuclear plants, adding to the 104 already in operation. But nobody expects them to be cheap and cost estimates already have caused two companies to pull back, Scana Corp. and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s MidAmerican Energy Holdings.
If nuclear power also stumbles due to cost concerns, the nation could face supply shortages in coming years unlike anything seen in the past.
--Jeffrey Ball contributed to this article
Write to Rebecca Smith at [email protected] and Stephen Power at [email protected] |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120192661667637793.html?mod=googlenews_wsj |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What are we surrendering? Belief in oxymorons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US is not doing all it can to win the war on terror.Alternative energy is an essential part of the war on terror.
Most of Al Qaeda's money comes from oil and nearly all of Iran's budget comes does . Much like the Soviet Union Iran 's government gives out huge subsidies in order to stay in power. If the price of oil were to collapse then so would Irans's government.As a bonus the government of Chavez would likely fall as well.
Americans in World War II undertook great sacrifices to win. If the US were just to approach that effort the war on terror would be over. The US can win all it needs to do is decide to do so.
Up to now the US has given less than its best effort in the war on terror so of course the results up to now are going to be disappointing. It doesn't have to be that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zutronius
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Location: Suncheon
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US is not doing all it can to win the war on terror.Alternative energy is an essential part of the war on terror.
Most of Al Qaeda's money comes from oil and nearly all of Iran's budget comes does . Much like the Soviet Union Iran 's government gives out huge subsidies in order to stay in power. If the price of oil were to collapse then so would Irans's government.As a bonus the government of Chavez would likely fall as well.
Americans in World War II undertook great sacrifices to win. If the US were just to approach that effort the war on terror would be over. The US can win all it needs to do is decide to do so.
Up to now the US has given less than its best effort in the war on terror so of course the results up to now are going to be disappointing. It doesn't have to be that way. |
The problem is that most Americans/North Americans aren't willing to give up what they feel they are entitled to in order win the War on Terror. Driving that giant gas guzzling suburban SUV is their right in the land of the free  . I agree with you 100%, we need to make social change if we are to win and changing out energy use and dependence would be a major step. The issue is getting people to jump on board.
the Second World War is a great example of what we can/could do. Mass carpooling/victory gardens/ intensive recycling and reusing programs..there are lots of possibilities we just need to make use of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| What are we surrendering? Belief in oxymorons? |
You referring to the abstract & existential catch phrase "War ON terror"?
When has war not become terrifying?
"Civil" war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Igothisguitar supports anyone who fights against the US. |
Morning Joo ...
Say, what line of work are you involved in? ESL?
Whoops!
Now where did that last post of yours (see the one above?) so quickly disappear to?
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zutronius wrote: |
| The problem is that most Americans/North Americans aren't willing to give up what they feel they are entitled to in order win the War on Terror. |
...and if those kids would stop their drug taking and fornication, the war on drugs and teen sex would have been won as well.
Stupid people not doing what the neo-cons want them to!
Last edited by twg on Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would argue that most Americans/Canadians/Brits/Russians and many others actually believed Nazi Germany was a threat to our civilizations/institutions and so, had no problems sacrificing in order to gain victory.
Quite frankly, even with all the scare tactics, the average westerner is not afraid of....... The Caliphate, ooooohhhh scary. 
I'm really not afraid of a bunch of people who, forming a massive alliance, still couldn't defeat Israel in a military conflict. Any sneaky dirty attack they may pull of in the future will simply be that, a single attack. In todays world a nuclear bomb hidden in a container could just as easily come from any mafia, ultra-nationalist group as it could a fanatical Islamic group. And if, as many theorize, the real threat comes from immigration, I honestly have no compassion for a country that would willingly hand itself over without a fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zutronius
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Location: Suncheon
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Zutronius wrote: |
| The problem is that most Americans/North Americans aren't willing to give up what they feel they are entitled to in order win the War on Terror. |
...and if those kids would stop their drug taking and fornication, bot the war on drugs and teen sex would have been won as well.
Stupid people not doing what the neo-cons want them to! |
I worded that badly and it came back to bit me in the ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq
is becoming a big, big story.
But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No.
It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now. |
Yet, if memory serves me, it was the "officially" stated reason for "liberation" back in 2002.
Over and over ... and OVER again.
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE !!
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
I would argue that most Americans/Canadians/Brits/Russians and many others actually believed Nazi Germany was a threat to our civilizations/institutions and so, had no problems sacrificing in order to gain victory.
Quite frankly, even with all the scare tactics, the average westerner is not afraid of....... The Caliphate, ooooohhhh scary.
I'm really not afraid of a bunch of people who, forming a massive alliance, still couldn't defeat Israel in a military conflict. Any sneaky dirty attack they may pull of in the future will simply be that, a single attack. In todays world a nuclear bomb hidden in a container could just as easily come from any mafia, ultra-nationalist group as it could a fanatical Islamic group. And if, as many theorize, the real threat comes from immigration, I honestly have no compassion for a country that would willingly hand itself over without a fight. |
Al Qaeda will fight to get the Caliphate unless they get it or are destroyed.
It is not only Al Qaeda , it is the Khomeni followers and the Bathists too.
and Chavez is an enemy as well.
That doesn't change the fact that the Bathists , the Khomeni followers or the Al Qaedists won't give up their war. They don't have a right to it.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Zutronius wrote: |
| The problem is that most Americans/North Americans aren't willing to give up what they feel they are entitled to in order win the War on Terror. |
...and if those kids would stop their drug taking and fornication, bot the war on drugs and teen sex would have been won as well.
Stupid people not doing what the neo-cons want them to! |
It is not a culture war it is a real war.
The fact is that the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists are waging a war against the US.
If the case is made the US will do what is needed to win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
I would argue that most Americans/Canadians/Brits/Russians and many others actually believed Nazi Germany was a threat to our civilizations/institutions and so, had no problems sacrificing in order to gain victory.
Quite frankly, even with all the scare tactics, the average westerner is not afraid of....... The Caliphate, ooooohhhh scary.
I'm really not afraid of a bunch of people who, forming a massive alliance, still couldn't defeat Israel in a military conflict. Any sneaky dirty attack they may pull of in the future will simply be that, a single attack. In todays world a nuclear bomb hidden in a container could just as easily come from any mafia, ultra-nationalist group as it could a fanatical Islamic group. And if, as many theorize, the real threat comes from immigration, I honestly have no compassion for a country that would willingly hand itself over without a fight. |
Al Qaeda will fight to get the Caliphate unless they get it or are destroyed.
It is not only Al Qaeda , it is the Khomeni followers and the Bathists too.
and Chavez is an enemy as well.
That doesn't change the fact that the Bathists , the Khomeni followers or the Al Qaedists won't give up their war. They don't have a right to it. |
Nice concept you have there Joo. They don't have a right to their war. Well there you go, problem solved. If only it were so easy, or so black and white. Just because it's a catchy sig line doesn't make it right or a premise on which to base another equally absurd war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is that black and white. Sometimes it is like that.
You tell me what the goals of the Khomeni followers , the Bathists and the Al Qaedists are.
An honest answer gives you your answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
