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" :-)
More like this
Renewable energy advocates like to trumpet the rapid growth rate of wind farms and solar power plants, and it's true. Installed wind capacity grew by almost 32 percent globally in 2009, according to on industry estimate.
In the past week both Canada and the UK have announced a phase-out of conventional coal-fired power plants. Could this be the beginning of the end? Are we seeing the first stages of a global moratorium? Too soon, to tell of course. But it's encouraging.
Speaking of Los Angeles, the city just announced that they are weaning themselves off cheap coal power:
U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is all about saving the coal industry.
*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/