Climate Be Damned

E.U. plows ahead with coal

Posted at 11:24 AM on 23 Apr 2008

Even as it makes plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, the European Union is gearing up to put some 50 coal plants on line in the next five years. Europeans' distaste for nuclear energy and the relative cheap cost of coal -- even when carbon permits are factored in -- have made the black rock attractive for meeting rising demand. E.U. electric companies say they're seeking out "clean" coal, an oxymoron that is unlikely to be feasible anytime soon. Any way you slice it, a slew of new coal plants means another five decades of dirty electricity in the E.U., which environmentalists say is pretty much a death sentence for the climate as we know it. Says ubiquitous NASA climate scientist James Hansen, "Given our knowledge about what needs to be done to stabilize climate, this plan is like barging into a war without having a plan for how it should be conducted, even though information is available."

source: The New York Times

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (6 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

S.K. plows ahead with Fuel Cells !

FuelCell Energized By Korean Order

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/fuelcell-energy-posco-ma ...

Posco Power, a subsidiary of the steel producer Posco (nyse: PKX - news - people ) that is one of South Korea's largest power producers, ordered an undisclosed number of power plants and fuel cell modules worth a total of $70 million.
FuelCell Chairman R. Daniel Brdar said the order's total wattage of 25.6 megawatts is roughly equal to enough energy to power 25,000 homes at any given time.

[I think Richard Branson is a big investor/angel in FCEL.]

by jabailo at 3:22 PM on 23 Apr 2008

Not That Dirty

While I have to say I have a distaste for building new coal plants, I tend to believe that in some cases they make sense. The impact of coal is far lower then nuclear power, and it does provide an inexpensive alternative to building new nuclear power when massive amounts of base load power is needed.

Personally, I wish those plants would stay with oil or natural gas, as it's cleaner then coal. Yet, I'd much rather see new clean coal technology, rather then old coal dirty coal plants providing electricity, or even dirty plants using other fossil fuels.

While the clean coal plants put out more greenhouses gases then the alternative, the reality is they are much cleaner then the alternative of old coal technology.

by nycowboy at 5:06 PM on 23 Apr 2008

nuclear against coal

Supporting coal as against nuclear power is inane. Coal is an utterly short resource, produces more radioactivity and dumps it directly into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant, and finally produces a lot of toxic and posionous byproducts, apart from greenhouse gases.

Please read this book by Prof Bernard Cohen. Solar and nuclear power are the way for the future.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

by vakibs at 8:42 AM on 24 Apr 2008

No Nukes!

As Buckminster Fuller once said, the sun is a perfect example of a nuclear reactor and a perfect example of how close a nuclear reactor should be to the Earth.

Anyone who advocates nuclear energy should be forced to mine uranium, and live with to radioactive tailings and nuclear waste. Otherwise, shut up already with this hideously environmentally destructive technology.

And this is not meant to support coal. Anyone who advocates building more coal plants should have to mine the stuff and live next to a coal plant.

by Wolverine at 10:51 AM on 24 Apr 2008

At a loss

I am at a loss as to what technology we need to push for energy in the future. Well,maybe? Coal is very dirty and polluting of water,air,and land,no matter how you slice it.I am against nuclear energy whole heartedly because of its past history and potential for war and the destruction oh humankind.There is also the extremely long life of its dangerous materials.I am also whole heartedly for renewable energy in all its forms,wind,solar,and water.The problem is that all renewabe forms of energy production are limited in the numbers of people that can use them and the limits of production that they have.Renewables are not crystal clean either.The production of silicon crystals pollutes,and wind turbines have a carbon footprint,and dams disrupt fish reproduction,but on the whole renewable energy is not as deadly as is nuclear energy or the global warming effects of coal,or oil.Plus you have the political implications of nuclear power,which have been and continue to be abused and used to promote war.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 4:54 AM on 25 Apr 2008

At A Loss

The reason you're at a loss is because you're asking the wrong question to begin with. The main thing humans should be doing re energy is greatly reducing consumption. It is also important to quit using hideously destructive sources of energy, such as coal, oil, uranium, and dam(n)ed rivers, but changes to solar and wind will not solve the ecological problems caused by artificial energy consumption on their own.

Everyone can have solar panels on their roofs and wind generators in their yards, which would go a log way toward providing all the artificial energy needed. But until humans evolve to where they're not willing to destroy the rest of the planet in order to make money, acquire needless material goods, be needlessly more comfortable, or have totally unnecessary conveniences, this problem, along with all other ecological problems, will not be solved.

by Wolverine at 11:15 AM on 25 Apr 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?