Al Gore's Proposal

I just finished reading an article about Al Gore's recent speech. In it he described how we must get off oil in the next ten years!? I for one am all about getting us off oil, but these outlandish ideas do nothing but make some people laugh.

This ten year proposal is laughable for obvious reasons, it is simply impossible. To better describe his speech, it was more of a scare tactic than a real plan or idea. The article properly labeled Al Gore as an "alarmist", and said this is why he is ignored. I totally agree. Alarmists are often ignored, however right they might be. Gore needs to take a different approach. He needs to try and reason with the American people and the world, not tell us how wrong we are and that we're all going to die, but to encourage us. Furthermore, when Gore stops cruising non-stop in his private jet and sucking power off the grid equivalent to a small country the world just might start listening.

I agree again, Gore makes emotional arguments ignoring the facts. Without coal and oil our only viable option for the foreseeable future is nuclear, Wind and solar are nifty ideas but most of Europe is starting to back away from them after sinking huge amounts of money in these endeavors. France has gone nuclear, And I'm willing to bet we will too. Not to say we should not pursue renewable energy, but you have to be realistic it will take time.
WE WILL NOT BE OFF OIL OR COAL IN TEN YEARS. What a joke. How are we going to power the nations power grid plus charge all the hybrid electric car batteries (billions of them) with wind and solar. Gore needs to pull his head out of the sand. And quit trying to be a shock jock!

Whoa, someone is still up! I'm such an insomniac, lol.

Shock jock, that is exactly what he is. I personally like the idea of nuclear. For those who say that creates radioactive waste I say who cares. What is billions of tons of green house gases compared to a few radioactive waste dumps in some desert , miles and miles from the nearest civilian. I might be a little naive about the disposal of nuclear waste, but I believe the nuclear industry has the safest record (please correct me if I'm wrong) of all the major energy providers, excluding the small markets such as solar and wind.

I would like to use the balance of my time to revise and extend my remarks.
Gore needs to pull his head out of the sand, UNLESS HE'S LOOKING FOR OIL, and quit being a shock jock.
I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas.

Why do I always think of these things after the "moment"?

Let me be clear, all joking aside, I am all for developing renewable energy.
The technology simply is not far enough along for it to be an alternative right now. Yeah we put a man on the moon in ten years, however much of the technology had already been developed by the military. Our current Stealth technology was developed in the 50's and 60's and took billions $$$ to develop. It will take time and we will discover solutions to many of the problems, the American people are very industrious.
Anyone remember when Hitachi came out with their video camera the size of a small printer and you had to carry a vcr on your side via a shoulder strap that contained the vhs tape with a patch cord to the camera? Thats how solar panels are right now.

I own a small construction company (very small) and we do part of the work on "green" homes here in Charleston SC and on our barrier islands.
No one, and I mean no one, (around here) is using solar panels because the money is better spent on building a more energy efficient home.
They are using spray in foam 6 to 8 inches thick in between the roof rafters and the plywood on the roof has a layer of shiny foil to reflect the UV rays, same on exterior walls.
Spray in foam is also used to insulate the ceilings and walls. Windows are triple insulated with a coating that blocks UV rays, same with doors. The floor systems have about 8 inches of foam as well. Result is a big igloo cooler, if you will.
The heat and air systems have at least an Energy Efficiency Rating of 15.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is these things make the home very efficient and far exceed the savings you would see if you spent the money on solar panels. Power bills are 2/3 to 1/2 that of standard homes. Also good insulation doesn't break or require maintenance. Maybe solar panels work better in other areas of the world, but this is the trend where I live. If you have gobs of money I guess you could do both.
Hopefully the technology will be developed to a point where solar panels will be able to produce much more energy per panel, I will be first in line to get one! Haven't had any direct experience with wind mills, but from what I've read the same is true with wind technology for the time being.

Right now we have five viable options, coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, and Amish. Ha-Ha
I flyfish several tailwaters coming from hydroelectric power generators and it makes me feel good inside to stand in that water because I know it powers many homes in the area with renewable energy!

Opinions on Gore's tactics aside, I'd suggest you read "Earth: The Sequel: The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming" by Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn (http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Sequel-Reinvent-Energy-Warming/dp/0393066908)

Despite the over-the-top title, it's a fairly sober assessment of the current clean-energy landscape, including discussion of the technical, financial, and political barriers that stand in the way of more rapid deployment of alternative energy technologies.

The authors' core argument is that we need a federal carbon cap-and-trade system that would enable all energy technologies to compete on an even footing, provide additional incentives for research, development, and investment, and force polluters to account for costs that they currently externalize.

With that little bit of regulatory certainty, there appears to be a huge amount of capital standing ready to finance alternative energy ventures. There's no single "silver bullet", but with the right financial incentives we're poised to make huge gains with a combination of new sources (solar, wind, geo), conservation, and carbon capture and sequestration technology.

I need to "out" myself.

I'm a republican.

And I WAS a Sierra Club member.

I've heard numerous speeches by Gore on C-Span, probably one of the FEW "unbiased" media outlets involving politics.. and the man SCARES ME... (and my bleeding heart liberal friends, too). When I get with my "polluting republican friends" we're always looking at ways to make life better, despite Gore's attempt at making all republicans look like we're concerned only about the bottom line. I have yet to meet an "evil republican" that wants to destroy the planet... even my 'evil logging friends' near Eureka, California replant the trees they cut down on a 1-for-1 basis.

I'm all about protecting our resources, but the way its presented, especially in the radical manners by the Sierra Club & Greenpeace & manbearpig.. err Gore, it will never happen. I believe a more down-to-earth approach is in order, rather than doom and gloom.

Recycling helps, but its expensive and where is the payout.

Solar panels are a fantastic idea, but it can only be successful if on a large-scale effort. Sams Club and Walmart in Hawai'i come to mind. Link (and its a good one) : http://starbulletin.com/2008/06/15/business/story01.html

Oil dependence? boo. We're always going to want oil. We just need to get more of it from home, rather than overseas. That does mean drilling in places most of us may not want it to come from, but what is the other choice? There has to be a sensible balance between what Gore proposes and reality, as well as proper payoffs.

Hey travelnate, you may have just drawn a big bulls eye on your fore head. HA-HA! I bet you chop down trees as you hike don't you? Just joking

Hi Dave, You and Alicia have a pleasant and attractive site here, I commend you on taking the high ground in terms of allowable content. Thanks!
I would not disagree with you that the energy landscape of the future will be a conglomerate of renewable sources, unless we have a breakthrough in technology that revolutionizes our ability to produce much greater amounts of energy from a current or entirely new renewable source. (I understand that's the whole idea)
Obviously oil and coal are finite resources and sooner or later we will have no choice but to transition to another resource even if we developed ways to reduce emissions to zero!
My personal opinion is we need to drill domestically for the short term and keep that money in our own economy, while boosting production to help alleviate some of the pressure on the markets. I'm quite familiar with all the arguments for and against. I would prefer off shore drilling, if we don't we will just have to buy it back from those that will, and already are drilling off our coast. To me that's just retarded.

On global warming, I'm not in that bucket with both feet, I admit we have done a terrible dis-service to the environment by polluting and pillaging. I love fishing as you may know, and there are lots of little streams that the coal mining in my area have utterly destroyed with acidic runoff. Not just the fish, but entire ecosystems have been affected. It's real sad.
Yes we need to reign in our co2 emissions, but that needs to be done on a global scale! I'm thinking of countries like China, with pollution so thick they are shutting factories and such down for the Olympics, so the air will clear up. I do not mind doing my part but these other countries will have to step up to the plate. I seriously doubt they are going to buy any carbon credits!
Also there is an obvious effort to suppress that part of the scientific community who disagree with Al Gore. One case in point: Several NASA scientists disagree with many aspects of the global warming theory, and after at least one of them made comments to that effect to the press, he received a major slap down from the higher ups. What happened to free speech? He was giving HIS opinion, not speaking for NASA.
Being on the company payroll does not nullify that right.

On cap and trade, I will have to be honest and say that I do not have an educated opinion on the subject, but I am willing to read the book you mentioned.

On capital investment, you are correct. But lets not through a bunch of money down a rat hole, let's remain sensible, we have to do what works, not what is politically correct.
There are already segments of big oil positioning themselves to reap the rewards of that investment money. They are not stupid and have no intention of getting left in the dust and giving up their position as the beneficiaries of the vast amounts of money we spend on energy.
I think some people are looking forward to getting off oil in hopes of cutting big oil out of the picture, not likely, they will mutate and continue to suck cash from your wallet somehow! Case in point: A self proclaimed lifelong oilman named Pickens, has a commercial asking people to visit his website concerning wind power. He is not stupid, he has seen the writing on the wall and is positioning himself to reap the rewards.
Having said that, I'm all for green technology, lets do it.
But we should not be fooled into thinking it will bring about utopia!
I mean the collective "we" not anyone here really, but I know several people who think that we will have cars that run on water and such, and it will be a free ride. Sorry for the pun.

We get somewhere around 80% of our oil from foreign sources-Canada (most of it), Venezuela and the Middle East.

Even more drilling offshore, in ANWAR, etc. won't help much, if at all. The oil companies already have 68 million acres under lease that they are not using yet, so the question is "why not"? The answer probably is "why should we?" Oil companies are making record profits without increasing their capital investments beyond what they are already spending,so the reality is they see no need to spend more, just to bring down the price. Supply and Demand is global and demand is increasing. That simple fact will keep prices up, which is why alternatives, even costly ones, will eventually need to be tried.

Tom D, I think you are correct about their (oil companies) motivation. It is my understanding that the oil companies do not pay for the lease until they start to drill/pump. The land is just "locked in". I will have to go back and read that article again.
I also agree about global demand, right now China and India have both had a surge in consumption as of late. But while the increase in consumption has gone up a few percentage points, the price per barrel has gone up 100%.
I think the same should be true in reverse. Except of course as you point out "why should they?"
I think the numbers show that domestic drilling would have an impact on the market significant enough to drop the price. Especially if we had started 10 yrs. ago.
But even if I'm wrong, becoming more self sufficient always makes an economy stronger, creates jobs, calms the markets, and keeps more money in the local economy. I have much more faith in us protecting the environment than China or Venezuela.
I just think that less dependence on foreign resources of any kind is a win-win situation. I do realize that it can also be accomplished with domestically produced renewable energy. I am not against us having global trading partners of course, but it is time to quit cutting our own throats.

But you are certainly right, record profits are not something they will just walk away from.
Tom D. How do you feel about nuclear? France seems to be going "whole hog" as my grandfather would say.

I do like having people to discuss things with that do not get all bent out of shape and start acting like neanderthals!

trout,

no, we don't chop down trees while we hike. We hire a team of mexicans to hike a few miles in front of us to clear the path. They also make cute lil huts for us, and then produce power like hamsters in an exercise ball so we don't have to "sleep in a tent" or share a "shelter" with all those icky "other people" :-P

what's funny about politics... my republican friends recycle a lot more and tend to be more aware of waste than my sierra-club-card-carrying tree huggin liberal friends.

Oh, did i mention i dated a socialist for a while? we didn't see eachother for 2 weeks after GWB II got elected in 2000...

I took some time yesterday to listen to Gore's speech. For the most part it seems like he's far more interested these days in challenging and inspiring people than frightening them. He acknowledges that, yeah, carbon-free in 10 years may seem like a far-out goal, but it's really not any further out of reach than challenges the country has faced before -- man on the moon, World War II, etc.

One of the elegant things with the cap-and-trade system is that it's technology- (and fuel-) neutral. It sets a limit on emissions and lets the market determine the most cost-effective way to get there. Once the proper financial incentives exist, the fossil fuel companies (at least the smart ones) will become part of the solution, investing in new tech to clean up emissions from existing plants, etc.

TH, you mentioned China a couple times. That country actually has a very active and growing renewable energy industry. The Chinese government has announced plans to be 16% renewable by 2020, including 3% non-hydro. We have a window of opportunity to fund homegrown innovations and create a strong export market for renewable technology. If we wait much longer, it will be the Chinese leading the market (to our economic detriment).

Your NASA story sounds very familiar, although in the opposite direction: James Hansen is a NASA scientist and outspoken climate change expert who has claimed censorship by the Bush White House (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen).

Nate, Always a pleasure!

I personally recycle, metals, plastics, paper, and so on. I don't do it because it's easy, I do it because I care about the environment. One of the biggest concerns I have on a daily basis is all the plastic water bottles I see in public trash cans, like at the park. Especially the very people who should know better anyway, hikers, joggers, nature lovers.
I think we (my state) should put a deposit on them, or ban them, since we have good drinking water and a lot of the bottled water comes from the same source as city water anyway.
About the Mexicans, I hope they are legal, it is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal worker. Which is why around here we don't hire them, we find one legal worker and set him up as a sub-contractor and let HIM hire all the illegals. If he gets caught he simply goes south before his court date. Just in case you've ever wondered how it is done! I'm not advocating it, and I don't do it, but for many small, and corporate home builders alike, it business as usual.

Dave, Thanks for taking the time to post back to me, I'm sure you are busy.

I'm fairly sure it was Hansen or his office, who rebuked one of the other scientists at NASA for opinions that contradicted his own. This has been several years ago.
I would concede the point I think you were trying to make, which is that this stuff goes both ways. Global warming is a theory, nothing more, I brought this up because too many scientists, professors (like Gore), and news feeds, talk like it has been proven. Not to mention politicians, and special interest groups.
Even Hansen now refers to it as climate change, and in the last writing of his I have read, he now predicts a temp rise in the next 50 years of only 3/4 of a degree, give or take 1/4 of a degree. I do agree we need to change our ways and work with the planet instead of against it! I'm sure we are in agreement on that.
I remember when I was in elementary school, we were told that we were headed into a cooling period, and possibly another ice age. Go figure, scared us to death. At least till lunch! HA-HA

About China, you are correct, China has no choice really because they lack a lot of the natural resources we take for granted, and have been blessed with. Although they have a fair amount of coal , Chinas' huge population, and industrial growth of late will deplete it. China is building a coal plant every week to keep up with energy demand.
They are working on several forms of renewable energy and are expected to ramp up R&D significantly in the next 5 yrs.
They are starting to work seriously with wind power and General Electric has a large presence there building wind turbines, and as soon as it becomes viable GE could easily start to produce those turbines for the US and foreign markets. Problem right now seems to be the huge number of turbines it takes to produce any significant power vs. the total production investment, even though I think it would produce jobs in much the same way domestic drilling will. It takes 10 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy we can now get out of just one coal plant, not that I'm a big fan of coal. Coal can produce power 24 hrs. a day, whether the wind is blowing there or not.
I do think we need to move ahead with renewable energy initiatives and develop the technology, but it will be a while before we see any significant payoff, and in the meantime I bet we ramp up domestic drilling because the American people will not stand for 10 dollar a gallon gas. It would cripple the economy, (already is), and how will we lead the world in renewable energy with an economy in ruins?
Yes it will also take time before we see a payoff on drilling as well, but remember in the past we produced much of our own oil and that capacity is still there, it is just dormant. Too many environmental groups out there saying that we have very little oil left and that is why we aren't drilling. I would say the real reason we have not been drilling, is because we are purposefully sitting on our own reserves, while depleting others.

BTY- I am interested in new solar products to charge batteries or power headlamps ect. I have a friend who takes a couple of the little solar powered lawn lights car camping, he just has to get there early to let them charge. HA-HA

So glad we live in a country where we can have open discussions.

I am like travelnate. I am a Republican (and now I am a target here too) based on moral stances that do not affect the environment, but have a liberal stance on labor and unions. Sierra club members would hate me as I believe in conservation, and part of conservation is population control on certain species. In other words I like to kill and eat animals. But even as I plan my next trip to kill a Turkey this fall, I am also planning my next house. I believe the answer to people dependence on oil is in their own hands. No matter how much it costs now, find a way to make it happen. My next house will be ICF construction with a Solar Panel capapble of 800Kwh per month and am looking at buying an electric car for daily work driving.

As for global warming, it IS happening. And I do believe what we are doing is speeding up a process that would have heppened anyway in its own natural cycle. We cant stop it, but we CAN help make sure that when teh cliate changes, the earth is still inhabitable by not clogging up the land with chemicals and landfills.

Trout, yer kidding.

Being the "evil, immorale, elite Republican" do you think I personally have TIME to make sure Juan, Angel, and Claudio are legal? I just pay off the La Migra folks when they come by!

doing all of that work like background checks, verifying social security, takes time and money that could be better spent feeding my mojito budget! \~/ \~/ Think of the GEAR I could buy instead of doing background checks... I could probably afford something better than my Outdoor Products daypack! (toungue in cheek)

now yer going to say that Rosie my personal bartender may be illegal too, right?! i am NOT sending her back! She washed up fair and square on my beach dammit!

Let's be honest, this is no "let's put a man on the moon" proposal, it is exponentially more difficult than that. That involved a highly focused (small) team pointed towards one goal. Getting off oil will require thousands of variables working together towards the same goal.

It is funny and ironic that Republicans are targeted as such anti-environment people, as I am willing to bet the Repubs in Congress get out more than those "tree hugging" Dems. I mean, would you think to see Barack in Backpacker like McCain?

Gore could use a good hike, sorry, had to say it.

As I have already pointed out, a lot of (not all) the technology that got us to the moon, had already been developed and tested by the military. Kennedy knew this.
Not taking anything away from anyone, it was a mind blowing accomplishment by a lot of people brighter than I will ever be.
But the propulsion needed to get us there, worked, and was obviously HIGHLY EFFECTIVE.
Unlike solar and wind power, for the time being. Although I think we should pursue them vigorously. It will just take time. Toyota is putting solar panels on top of its Prius model to power the AC. Which I guess you mostly use when the sun is bright, at least that's the idea. I say great.
In the meantime we have to use the proven resources we have online now.

I will go on record, and say that for the short term we will drill domestically, it's just a no-brainer.
In fact oil companies are already moving equipment into place waiting for the politicians who have opposed it to gracefully do their little 180 dance and make themselves look like our saviors.
Earlier today yet another scientist, David Evans, from Australia, has backed away from his global warming theory, saying it is CLIMATE CHANGE, and that co2 emissions are not to blame.

I too plan to build a house in the near future, I will probably incorporate solar panels. Even if they only provide 10% of my electric needs that's money in the bank.
As I have said before I am in the Green Housing business, and many times I have watched sales reps unintentionally pass on erroneous figures about the output of solar panels. They are also not necessarily maintenance free as some people have been led to believe. Kinda like 50 yr. caulk, the product remains chemically stable for 50 yrs. but it looses adherence at about 10 to 15 years sometimes less in direct sunlight.

Like the moon shot, much of the technology we need to get to a carbon-free grid has already been developed and tested. The big challenge at the moment is deploying it at scale, and funding that deployment. Storage is still a concern with solar and wind, but an intelligent national grid would alleviate some of the need for storage.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain appear to be backing Gore's challenge. McCain said last week "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011652066)

As far as David Evans, he's not a climatologist, has never published a peer-reviewed paper, and many of his findings have been disproved. There is a very strong consensus among the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. And that's the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) most recent report, which is probably the most thoroughly reviewed and heavily negotiated scientific document ever published.

For a good primer on the science of global warming, I'd highly recommend Mark Bowen's "Thin Ice" (http://www.amazon.com/Thin-Ice-Unlocking-Secrets-Mountains/dp/0805081356). In addition to providing a lot of background on the science, Bowen follows a group of scientists drilling ice cores on high-altitude glaciers, so there's a bit of climbing thrown it there too (just to keep us somewhat on topic). Very interesting to see this group of researchers hauling tons of equipment above 18,000 feet and then living there in ice caves for weeks at a time.

Just take a look at what's going on here in Texas. We are the leader in wind power, #2 in the world I think. Funny how the state founded on oil is now the largest generator of wind power. If other states, the ones who complain about energy but consume most of it (CA, NY) took some steps, without the Federal government, this goal of ten years could be attainable. Forget waiting for some Federal mandate, here in Texas we understand it does not take the Feds to get things done (in fact, that is counterintuitive to me). Either way, Texas is way ahead of the curve, but still far from where it should and could be.

I understand the point both Dave And MTB416 have made, again I do not disagree with you, the climate is warming, I disagree somewhat as to the cause. There are also just as many books by renowned scientists providing a lot of evidence indicating this is a natural warming cycle. The ice age was not caused by Hummers, or coal fired generators. It was a natural occurrence. And yes I am aware there were external factors, but the same could be true today.
I fully understand things are coming along with wind turbines, Texas being the leader in the US.
Of course wind power is doable, but it will still take time.
I also am aware that Texas is trying to fund and implement a plan to build a transmission line for wind power. Estimates are there would be a $4.00 increase in the individual power bill however to help recoup the costs. I'm cool with that to get us off coal.
I have stated several times I'm in favor of wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal. But currently we are not ready to switch the power grids to renewable energy. Isn't that correct?
Surely you do not wish to pull the plug now and make us ride horses until renewable is online, That is my major point.
There is no excuse for not reducing the high cost of oil, and its many derivatives until renewable is online.
Unless you think that by bringing Americans to their knees financially is a way to shove your plans down their throats. I find this type of thinking on the part of some elitist types to be morally reprehensible. I'm not saying anyone here is mean spirited, but that does seem to be the plan by the more progressive types.
Approximately 10% of homes in the US heat with heating oil, and the high cost of oil is having a crippling effect on their budgets. There is no sense in this, we should have increased domestic production 10 yrs. ago, again for the short term, to alleviate the crisis for many people who do not have enough money as it is, to live on, or maybe some do not understand the hardships of the working poor who have to eat rice and beans in order to buy heating oil and gas for the commute to work, and their ability to have health insurance is non existent, thanks to $400 a month gas bill.
Many people can not use a fuel efficient car for their occupation. And hybrids are still expensive. When they make a smart car with a 10,000 lb. tow rating I'll get one!

And just to keep us on topic the amount of FOOT TRAVEL I partake in, picking up trash, recycling, planting trees, and carpooling should help offset my "carbon footprint". Just how much energy does Gores home consume so he can live high on the hog, while telling us all to conserve? Yeah he buys carbon credits, big whoop, he does not lead by example, and that is what draws the ire of so many.

I am on your side. I question "global warming" all the time, both its actual effect and causes. When Backpacker came out with the all global warming issue around a year ago it upset me, I would have changed mags if they weren't the only backpacking magazine. I separate politics from my workplace, why can't Backpacker?
Climate change has only been able to been studied (properly) for the past couple decades. It requires inputing massive amounts of data and variables into a complex algorithm, something computers just did not have the power for years ago. The audacity of some scientists is perplexing to me. To say the polar cap is gone in less than 50 years, poof, gone for eternity, is simply and a very uneducated guess at best. I thought scientists were all about the educated ones?
We simply do not have enough information at hand to make an accurate assessment. My weather man said it would rain yesterday, but it didn't. These 50 year forecasts are nothing more than guesses with little science behind it. All the data we have right now is not nearly enough, so don't tell me they used "this and that" for data, it still is not enough.

I am always reminded of Charlton Heston's monologue from Jurassic Park about climate change, go listen to it on youtube.

MTB416, I also agree that waiting for the Feds. to do things is wasted time. I believe in free markets and private enterprise. Private enterprise works best because they are motivated by the bottom line, it is their money that is being poured into their enterprises. By contrast the Government is spending OPM (other peoples money). They are not good at management a lot of times, and almost never in a hurry.
Way too much "throwing money at the problem"
Case in point: Public Schools, I admire those in the teaching profession giving their all, but they are working in a broke system.
Once again, take a look at what General Electric is doing in terms of wind turbines. I have two friends working overseas for GE, one in Japan, the other in China.
Both are very exited about the prospects of wind turbines, and also GEs' new clean running turbo diesel used in trains and public transport.

My Organic Chemistry professor raised an interesting point in a lecture about polymers. He said finding alternate fuel sources was a good idea, but to be oil-independent is impossible for our way of life. One word-Plastic. Look around you right now, you can probably see a lot of plastic. It all requires oil to be made. while the amount is pretty small and I think right now it is made out of the waste products in oil refining, there is still a ton of plastic everywhere. However far we get with alternate fuels, we will always need oil-unless we find something to replace plastic.

Personally, I am a proponent of nuclear energy as was MTB416. As he brought up it is a safe (relatively) source of energy. Proportionally, a lot more people die due to coal mining and burning than do people from nuclear energy. In fact, more people get cancer each year from coal burning than nuclear energy. I know I am a little biased in this area because I am in Nuclear Medicine, but anything with the word "Nuclear" gets a really bad reputation because of Hollywood and simply because people don't understand it. I can talk more about it if people care or have questions, yet this could get pretty nerdy and boring if I delve to much deeper into it right now.

I too am in the Nuclear camp. I am a big supporter of renewable energy, but it will take time.

Also, crayons, and a thousand other things, are by products of oil.

You are right coal is really dirty, it can be burned in a fairly clean way with today's technology. However mining methods, particularly mountain top removal, doesn't seem to draw as much protest as drilling for oil or gas.
I guess many people just aren't aware of the process.
Thousands of animals loose their habitat and their lives thanks to this type of mining.