Back to black: return to coal power

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 10 Mar 2008, 06:18

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93703.html

The Independent - 10/03/08

The Government will today anger environmentalists by signalling its support for a controversial new generation of coal-fired power stations and warning that Britain needs to burn more fossil fuels to prevent power cuts.

John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business, will say that "clean coal" has a crucial role to play in filling Britain's energy gap for the future. He will accuse the green lobby of "gesture politics" by opposing any coal-fired plants, putting energy supplies at risk and presenting a false "black and white" choice to the public over coal.

Mr Hutton, the cabinet minister responsible for energy, will speak about the future of coal for the first time at a speech to the free market Adam Smith Institute in London.

Article continues ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2008, 08:18

John Humphreys, on Radio 4 this morning, summed up the government's policy as " Lord make me chaste, but not just yet".

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 10 Mar 2008, 11:13

biffvernon wrote:John Humphreys, on Radio 4 this morning, summed up the government's policy as " Lord make me chaste, but not just yet".

Brilliant!

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 10 Mar 2008, 12:52

Can't say I didn't say "told you so".

Gerontion · Post by **Gerontion** » 10 Mar 2008, 13:22

Just listening to the World at One. John Hutton is on it saying that, as the national economic interest depends on energy use, the building of the powerstation is completely justified, persumably climate change or not. It's not surprising but, my God, it's depressing hearing it being said out loud. I try to remain at least slightly upbeat about humanity's chances but it seems to get harder every day.

Post by **clv101** » 10 Mar 2008, 13:36

Thanks for posting... I wasn't able to hear this live.

Looks like climate change will rapidly be forgotten when energy security becomes a problem. We can only hope the folk suggesting an early coal peak are right.

Gerontion · Post by **Gerontion** » 10 Mar 2008, 13:54

^ Yes. Energy security was part of John Hutton's message, though it was slightly ruined by his admission that 50% of the coal burnt in the place would be imported. I realise that Hutton is Minister for Business so - in that chilling phrase - he is just 'doing his job' but it did seem that climate change was a distant concern - possibly in his mind something to worry about after all the bills are paid. Of absolutely overriding importance is profit and he wasn't in the least ashamed to say it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2008, 14:15

Energy security is an issue that is within the timeframe of current politician's careers, (or so they've just noticed). Climate change, no matter how much more important in the long run, is in the timeframe of the next generation of politicians, so can be ignored (they hope).

21st_century_caveman · Post by **21st_century_caveman** » 10 Mar 2008, 14:22

Gerontion wrote: I realise that Hutton is Minister for Business so - in that chilling phrase - he is just 'doing his job' but it did seem that climate change was a distant concern - possibly in his mind something to worry about after all the bills are paid. Of absolutely overriding importance is profit and he wasn't in the least ashamed to say it.

Its not just Hutton, its the job of virtually all politicians to do what Business and Industry wants, which is to continue making profit without regard for anything else including climate change and PO, even when there seems to be a large majority people who want something done about the former at least.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 10 Mar 2008, 16:08

The problem though is not as simple as you have laid out here.

Peak Oil is here now.
Global Warming is here now too but the effects are unknown both as to the strength and the arrival.

If we have already passed a tipping point where GW takes us back to the Eocene thermal maximum via the dumping of the methane hydrates in the oceans into the atmosphere then half baked measures won't cut it.

If we are indeed there then we need a carbon NEGATIVE economy and especially a methane negative economy.

While I think that's theoretically possible it needs to be done on a massive scale.

I don't think that is possible without continuing the economy because it is the economy that employs all the millions of scientists and engineers who are paid to discover new technologies and implement them.

If we go back to subsistence farming or victory gardens and electric trains or something similar ONLY then global warming could still jump up and kick us on the behind in fifty years.

There is an old Chinese saying that sums up our position:
"He who rides the tiger cannot get off".

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 10 Mar 2008, 16:19

My guess is that there won't be any cheap coal available to put in new boilers. This thing about "just switch to coal" is probably just another layer of denial.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 10 Mar 2008, 16:39

MacG wrote:My guess is that there won't be any cheap coal available to put in new boilers. This thing about "just switch to coal" is probably just another layer of denial.

Again, I'm reminded of Campbell's recent words:

The adherents of nuclear energy speak of new technologies and of tapping less concentrated resources, echoing almost precisely the themes of oil companies when they speak of enhanced recovery or exploring the Arctic Ocean.... the dispassionate observer may conclude that words are cheap and unlikely to have any material impact on the underlying progression of geological history that has been characterised by cycles.

Petroleum Man will certainly be almost extinct this century, but his successors may be able to enjoy their lives on their hilltops if the oceans rise. They may even wonder at the strange obese behaviour of their antecedents who spent their lives dashing into shops to buy superfluous items, and having their knees fondled by security guards before they took off in strange bird-like machines to fly to sunny beaches to drink and play with a ball. Priorities and circumstances change over history.

21st_century_caveman · Post by **21st_century_caveman** » 10 Mar 2008, 17:15

fifthcolumn wrote: Peak Oil is here now.
Global Warming is here now too but the effects are unknown both as to the strength and the arrival.

I think it would be more correct to say:

Global Warming and Peak Oil are here now (in planning terms) but the effects are unknown both as to the strength and the arrival.

The two problems have two common solutions, massive reduction in production and consumption of fossil fuels and a massive programme of renewable energy infrastructure contruction.

fifthcolumn wrote: While I think that's theoretically possible it needs to be done on a massive scale.

I agree, it is almost certainly possible but we are going to need a WW2 type mobilisation towards renewables.
Indeed, wouldn't it be nice if history recorded WW3 not as a resource war for the last scraps of fossil fuels but a war in which humanity pulls together to fight energy descent?

fifthcolumn wrote: I don't think that is possible without continuing the economy because it is the economy that employs all the millions of scientists and engineers who are paid to discover new technologies and implement them.

The economy is corrupt and is failing to act on the two problems, it will need root and branch re-structuring before it can tackle the problems. The scientists and engineers that went to work during WW2 didn't seem that bothered about being paid, they were more concerned for them and their childrens future, which has similarities to the current situation.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 10 Mar 2008, 17:30

21st_century_caveman wrote: The economy is corrupt and is failing to act on the two problems, it will need root and branch re-structuring before it can tackle the problems. The scientists and engineers that went to work during WW2 didn't seem that bothered about being paid, they were more concerned for them and their childrens future, which has similarities to the current situation.

That's great if that's what you believe.
I want to save the world AND be paid.

21st_century_caveman · Post by **21st_century_caveman** » 11 Mar 2008, 00:51

fifthcolomn wrote: That's great if that's what you believe.
I want to save the world AND be paid.

I'm really not that bothered about making huge wads of cash, a nominal income would be nice to keep the bills paid but other than that respect would be enough, i quite like the model offered by the open source community responsible for such things as Linux, they do it for the respect that it earns.
Some people also like to look at StarTrek as a model for future human development, well you didn't see the crew of the Enterprise queuing up at the door of the captains ready room asking for their paychecks during a Romulan attack did you? Mind you, that doesn't really say much because you never saw them queuing for the toilets either.