Is building a coal-powered station in the middle of a climate crisis stupid?

Question

At the Kingsnorth power station in Kent, the owners have proposed building a new facility, which would be the first such plant to be built in Britain for 33 years. Britain has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, and the Government is still considering E.ON’s application.

And how do you multiple stupid?

"Unless there’s a big fight over Kingsnorth these companies, with the backing of Government, want to build six more atmosphere-crunching coal fired power stations in the next few years. Collectively these power stations would emit around 50 million tons of CO2 a year."

The first link below is the "fun" link. The 2nd has the bulk or the information and links, including one to the home site.

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/node/4

Answer 1

Unless carbon sequestration technology is employed, and even then it's not very smart because that's a stopgap measure, since you still need to find a place to store the CO2.

We're supposed to be replacing coal power plants with renewable energy, not building more coal plants.  So yes, it's stupid.

As for China - they're still a developing country.  It's not fair to compare them to UK, a wealthy developed country.

Answer 2

Wow, what climate crisis do y'all have?

"Ms. Werner and Prof. Susan Brantley of Penn State calculate that Yellowstone's thermal regions annually vent millions of tons of carbon dioxide.

They presented their results last week in a special session on Yellowstone at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Ms. Werner and her colleagues found that Yellowstone's Mud Volcano area produced about 176,300 tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Loosely expanding those figures based on the park's underlying geology, they suggest that each year the entire park may emit about 44 million tons of carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless and incombustible gas.

By contrast, a medium-sized power plant that burns fossil fuels is estimated to release 4.4 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. "

Then I guess we should shut down Yellowstone National Park in the US, its almost as bad as a chain of Coal burning powerplants in England.  

Yellowstone is expelling 44 Millions Tons of CO2 per year about 10x the amount produced by a medium sized fossil fuel power plant.

Answer 3

because the government is probably get the share of the profits.

Answer 4

The only climate crisis is a fantasy of the political left.  At best they can suggest that there may be a climate crisis lots of things are possible.  To invent crisis to limit energy is typical of the left.  It amazes me that they seldom will acknowledge such an obvious thing.

Answer 5

There are ways to clean burn coal. Coal power plants can use excess heat to make fresh water  from salt water or ethanol from garbage. CO2 can be stored underwater at a depth of less than 1000 ft. or at greater depths. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen sulfide must be addressed, but the UK has some very fine minds. Before using the knee-jerk reaction that has become ever so common, why not propose these problems be solved in a manner that can create more than just electricity.

Answer 6

I agree...I live in Michigan and there is legislation that proposes building 35 new coal fired power plants in my state.  Take out the environmental ramifications because I don't care to fight, but who wants to have a coal plant in their backyard?  Michigan is surrounded by water on 3 sides...why not wind energy?  We have the auto industry, why not develop fuel cell technology?  What about solar?  Its the pursuit of old technology that is most frustrating to me.

Answer 7

Coal power is in use all over the world still.  With modern technology the emissions can be cut back to safe levels of pollution, scrubbers on smokestacks eliminating the harmful effects.  Coal power doesn't have to be the belching, smelly soot that it once was.  It's clean power now.  Besides, China is opening coal powered plants weekly.  If it's okay for them, isn't it okay for Kingsworth?  Those alarmists who say there's a difference aren't making sense.

The climate crisis you speak of isn't real, of course.  Cutting back emissions by 60 % in 40 years is impossible and foolhardy.  What if it doesn't happen?  Do you have to pay someone?

The link you have seems like an extremely radical left-wing outfit that will do anything to stop any progress whatsoever.  Even if you believe in global warming you should probably be more concerned with their motives.  They sound really scary, as if they're trying to control peoples very thoughts!

Answer 8

There isn't a climate crisis. And I trust England to build the most advanced coal plants, unlike what China is doing.

Answer 9

The company proposing to do this presumably feel they can make money doing it, because they expect that there will not be a nuclear competition. In absence of nuclear  competition they must have done some numbers that convince them they will make a lot of money.

Society is likely to continue to insist on an unlimited supply of electric power, and unless someone else is proposing to do whatever is needed to make that happen, coal, even dirty coal would be a money making choice.

Answer 10

Amy-- what would you replace the 25% (USA) electrical generation with? --- I hope you say Nuclear.

Just a fact-- all the nuclear waste from all the US reactors operating since the 1950s can fit on ONE football field-- reprocessing reduces this waste by about 70%. Nuclear waste is a social and political problem --- NOT a technical problem.

Answer 11

This is STUPID.

Coal, and Fossil Fuel based source will be around   for at least the next 100 years.  I know lots of people like to bash EXXON, but they are very conservative.  The are the most advanced Energy Company in the World.  No one spends more on Research than these guys.

EXXON is a no surprise operation - it is super boring.  If they are will ig to invest Billions of Dollars in anything you can bet it will turn a profit, and will not be a once in a lifetime event.

Wind, Geo, and Nuclear are all possible, but since the U.S. Politicians do not trust its' own citizens to re-process Nuclear Fuel.  They will never be as efficient as France.  That is not the U.S. Model, and probably never will be.  

Nuclear advocates - like to jawbone, but probably have no idea what re-processing Nuclear Fuel does to waste.  It reduces it to a smaller amount.  France which does use re-processors stores all its' waste over 30 years in one facility beneath the floor.  

Until the U.S. decides to use a more sustainable model, and really educates the public - NUCLEAR is just a huge  boon doggle.

Answer 12

So when was it declared that there was a climate crisis?

other thatn that No it is not.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201...

Education is the defense against ignorance! see above.

Answer 13

A 1.2 degree F increase in temperature over 120 years, which no tangible evidence shows is connected to human activity, is not a "climate crisis."

And no, it's not stupid to generate electricity using one of the most abundant natural resources we have.

Answer 14

China is on schedule to open a new coal fired plant EVERY WEEK for the coming years.

Against that, the UK plan doesn't seem to matter much.

Answer 15

No, it's called progress.  Since CO2 is a product of perfect (clean) combustion, even if it wasn't a coal-powered station, you would still be complaning about it as long as it produced no pollution but produced CO2.  On the other hand, the official statistics show that countries like Denmark that use a lot more renewable energy than other countries are actually using a higher percentage of oil than the UK, for example.  What a fraud--I though these renewables that are going to cost trillions in tax dollars and much more in increased energy prices were supposed to DECREASE our dependence on oil!

Primary energy consumption by fuel:

UK

Renewable energy: 1.7%

Oil: 35.6%

Denmark

Renewable energy: 16.2%

Oil: 41.6%

???!!!

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/v...

Dana said:

"As for China - they're still a developing country. It's not fair to compare them to UK, a wealthy developed country."

So...this is an urgent crisis where the fate of the earth and all living beings are at stake...yet we need to stop picking on China because they're "developing?"  (And China loaning the US money seems to say that China is wealthy--it's just that the wealth was made on a lot of slave labor!)  So the earth is in peril because of CO2...but only selectively?  Hmm...

Answer 16

"Is building a coal-powered station in the middle of a climate crisis stupid?"

Only if we are in the middle of a "climate crisis". Are we?

Answer 17

Given there's no "climate crisis", it makes a heck of a lot of sense in the middle of an energy crisis!

Answer 18

Is the Pope Catholic?

Is an elephant heavy?

Does almost everyone like money?

You knew the answer to this question when you asked it, I think.  

Yeah - it's totally whacked.  Like pouring gasoline on a fire in hopes of putting it out.

Answer 19

Wanna hear something really scary?

China puts a new coal fired plant in operation every 2 weeks!  

So quit wasting your time with 1 plant that is probably 10 times cleaner trying to fight an imaginary problem like Global Warming.

If you just want clean air in your home town, that is fine though.