I seem to spend a lot of time disagreeing with Hansen, so I shall record my agreement with his if you look at their actions, emissions are continuing to increase. All of these countries and the United States are planning to build more coal-fired power plants. And if you build more coal-fired power plants, then it is not possible to achieve the goals that they say they are committed to. It's a really simple argument and yet they won't face up to it. [1].
Other than that, I like the idea of the "roll of the scientist" :-)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
CBS' 60 Minutes didn't break any news with its report on the dilemma posed by coal-fired power plants. It was probably inevitable that they would look into the fascinating contradictions posed by Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers. For a man who make a lot of money emitting greenhouse gases into the planet…
Coal is turning out to be one of those political litmus-test issues for those worried about climate change. And as usual, the country is polarized. The Iowa Utilities Board is the on the side of angels. Holding the fort with Satan are Arkansas and Indiana, among others. It splits on predictable…
So the other day I found myself on a conference call with James Hansen, who is just back from a European trip during which he tried to convince environment ministers that we should stop burning coal. I was given the opportunity to put one question to the guy. So, referring to his many public…
Dr Roy tells it like it is3. Or perhaps you prefer James Hansen1, 6 as reported by JA?
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words.…
*cough* UK *Cough*
[Frog in your throat? I did strip the quote down, so Broon disappears. Sorry -W]
> If we were to have a moratorium on coal-fired
> power plants within the next few years, and
> then phase out the existing ones....
Anyone got numbers on what that does to the book value of the corporations that own the assets involved?
Reminds me of the days of 300 baud acoustic coupler modems, when the local phone company came out with a study forecasting their profits over the next few decades, as these "Bulletin Board Systems" became more popular and more and more of their customers would be willing to spend hours on the phone line, long distance, racking up big phone charges to "communicate" online.
It looked like a really big profit center for them, for a week or two. Then someone invented the Internet .... and their valuation crashed.
Yes, you did, the important bit is this:
"I think that the greenest leaders, like German chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Brown, are saying the right words. But if you look at their actions, emissions are continuing to increase."
I.e. Broon is talking pretty, but not matching words with actions, in precisely the way which gets politicians a bad name. Basically, if you look at the remaining lifespan of nuclear power stations and indeed coal fired ones (Longannet and Cockenzie here in Scotland have only another decade or so to go) we just do not have the investment in the necessary power stations going on right now, and as for trying to meet our CO2 obligations, which I thought were legally binding, forget it.
All because the gvt refused to take a proper long term planning view of the whole issue.
[The govt is unpopular enough without scaring people more, right now. Should have done it 5 years ago -W]
Exactly, should have done it 5 years ago. Therefore, due to incompetence, they should be drummed out of office.
Of course in places I've worked I've seen similar incompetence not be rewarded properly (ie with the sack) so I can hardly expect it with this lot.
Nuclear is the only low cost 24/7 (i.e acceptable to the public) alternative to coal. The longer we wait for solar/wind the more coal plants that will be built.
Thorium (LFTR, liquid fluoride thorium reactor) is the "green" nuclear.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/