Ahem:
At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.
Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.
And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.
Here is the full story.
Apparently carbon permits are not quite as expensive as they should be…
Given that the US emits about 2x as much CO2 per capita as the EU, will this development lead to them eventually being just as bad?
Probably not, if only because population density does seem to provide an advantage for developed countries. The US produces roughly the same CO2 per capita as Canada and Australia.. (Slightly more in one case, slightly less in the other according to the latest figures.)
The market trumps global warming fanaticism again.
Hopefully the US will see the light too and stop giving our money away to other countries.
Interestingly, coal plants are being sold to European public as means of energy independence from the unpredictable Russia (which is the main natural gas supplier to Europe)… Some politicians here have been labelled as sell-outs to Russia because they support natural gas power plants.
“Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.”
Dirties doesn’t it puts out most CO2, it means it puts out most pollutants (sulfur and the like). Most of this pollution will stay in and around Italy.
Tyler,
I have a book suggestion for you on this topic (i.e. AGW) that I haven’t read. I’ll wait for your review before I click on the amazon.com button on the MR site.
Any other comments by others would also be appreciated, here is the link.
I’m also curious what people think of this link (whose author is an engineer by training and a successful entrepreneur by vocation), and the embedded link regarding climate sensitivity, the latter of which mostly went over my layman’s head.
With regard to the coyote blog link, in particular the list of 5 criteria that ought to be met strikes me as the correct approach to the issue, noting that the author agrees with 1 and 2.
But then jorod would probably resist such a big government R&D effort because it would be caving
to the “global warming fanatics.”
With a government effort, how do we avoid another ‘synfuels’ failure or, even worse, another corn-ethanol debacle — an effort that pays lip service to reducing carbon emissions, but actually makes emissions worse, drives up global food prices, and wastes billions (but is useful for pandering to voters in Iowa)?
Fanatics and sceptics alike would benefit from reading Nigel Lawson’s ‘An Appeal to Reason: a cool look at global warming’, published after much difficulty in the UK. Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher. His is the best and best written analysis of the issues I have seen.His argument is summarized in talks given to numerous think tank publications which Google will uncover.
I am 100% in favor of pollution control. But we have to use common sense. There are experimental coal facilities coming on-line to explore less polluting processes with coal using basic oxygen process. Also, some power companies are using cow manure as fuel if the things I see on the Internet are accurate. In the long run we are running out of fossil fuel, so even if we do nothing there will be less carbon footprints.
Also,
See “Earth First” at American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/earth_first_people_later.html
Barkley Rosser,
I couldn’t agree more; nuclear power is our best bet. But aside from public hysteria, another problem with nuclear power is that it lowers the cost of electricity and causes energy usage to increase. All of which will mean no net loss in CO2 emissions (assuming nuclear power doesn’t account for ALL our electricity generation). France is a good example of this phenomena.
Which makes me think we also need an aggressive carbon tax or an emissions trading system so that electricity produced via nuclear energy is differentiated from electricity produced via other means. Of course, this will never happen because “environmentalists” will be the most vehemently opposed to any new nuclear power plants.
IIRC, in the last hot summer in W Europe, French nuclear generation was turned down because of cooling water problems. The French simply reneged on their contract to supply Italy. Naturally the Italians would look to diversify suppliers and fuels.
“another problem with nuclear power is that it lowers the cost of electricity and causes energy usage to increase. ”
So, cutting taxes increases tax revenue, but that isn’t fair to poor people, so raise taxes.
The problem with nuclear is plutonium. Anybody know how to recycle the stuff?
Can we launch it into the sun?
Another tiresome diatribe. I find several things objectionable about this story. First, the assertion that the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming.” Who are these top experts and who anointed them as such? The consensus is always asserted, never supported.
Second, though coal is the dirtiest fuel, that fact has nothing to do with global warming. The constant conflation of CO2 with pollution by the press is completely erroneous. You can’t see it. You can’t smell it. It is non-toxic. It is essential for life on earth. The irony is the the “dirty” part of coal may actually offset some of the warming.
Finally, the thing this story demonstrates is that the U.S. could cease to exist tomorrow and emissions will continue to rise at a rapid rate. China’s emissions alone will swamp any reductions by the U.S. Climate regulation in the U.S. is little more than a suicide pact.
Anyone who wants cheaper fuel prices needs to ask his representatives
at the local, state, and federal levels, what are their plans and
policies for Energy Independence. If they don’t have any, don’t
vote for them. They are costing you money and in the future they
may cost you your freedom. We need to stop paying dictators,
terrorists, and tyrants oil money. We have all the coal, oil,
nuclear power, and liquid natural gas we need to be come
energy independence. In addition, a healthy investment in
alternative sources will keep Energy Independent for the
foreseeable future.
Comments on this entry are closed.