James Hansen's war on coal

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 22 Feb 2009, 08:03

The Guardian - 20/02/09

Hansen says coal-fired power stations are 'factories of death', but unless we want to go without electricity, we must keep them open.

Article continues ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Feb 2009, 08:28

A rather silly piece.

Hansen doesn't offer a single idea as to what the world will use to replace the coal that he abhors.

As if it's Hanson's fault. Robert Bryce thinks we have to adapt to climate change rather than try to prevent it because we are addicted to prosperity.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » 22 Feb 2009, 15:47

Furthermore, the possible replacements for coal – wind and solar power in particular – are incurably intermittent and therefore cannot be used for baseload capacity. That means that barring a breakthrough technology in electricity storage, wind and solar are likely to contribute only small – that is, single-digit – percentages of our overall energy needs.

Someone remind me. If the UK does without nuclear and coal where is this baseload coming from? Will it all be gas?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 22 Feb 2009, 16:34

If we shut down all our coal power stations, wind and solar would immediately be generating a far higher percentage of our energy.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Feb 2009, 00:23

When I read some of the comments after the article I start to think that we are well and truly buggered by economists and a population addicted to BAU and governments who are too scared to tell them that BAU isn't possible.

OK, there is a possibility, 2% according to the IPCC, that GW isn't man made, but we still have a warming trend. Arctic ice volume is reducing year on year: glaciers are retreating worldwide; droughts are increasing; desertification is increasing; severe weather events are increasing in both number and severity. That would seem to indicate a warming trend; possibly to a certainty of 98%.

Lovelock is saying that we have a warming trend that can't be undone and we should be going for nuclear power. So with a certain warming trend, a shortage of oil looming and ice melting all over the world our government is going with Lovelock, fair enough, but proposing to put new nuclear plants all around our coastline where they will be flooded.

Not only will the nukes be flooded, but the (ex) centre of our prosperity, London, will be too, along with our most prolific food growing areas. And this will apply to all countries with a coast line around the world. BAU will not be an option then. There will be mass migration followed by mass starvation and then mass population die off.

Hopefully, living on an island, we will only have to deal with our own problems, not those caused by mass migration from the tropics.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Feb 2009, 09:02

I think that 2% was just a delegate from Saudi Arabia getting his foot stuck in the door and the scientists saying 'whatever' and heading for the bar.