BritishAirman

22 July 2008 12:38PM

A new coal-burning power station in Kent would send our climate-change targets up in smoke

That assumption is irrational because proposals in constructing the new coal-burning power station include the use of carbon capturing mechanisms (CCS) which sequester carbon, in liquefied form, deep underground.

Whilst the building of such a power station is extremely costly, the benefits in reducing carbon emissions and the extent by which a facility will provide vital energy supplies should not be overlooked.

mestizo

22 July 2008 12:42PM

Would Stop Climate Chaos Coalition mind paying the excess in my energy bills over the next few years, please?

MoveAnyMountain

22 July 2008 12:43PM

Let me start by saying I strongly doubt thta any MMGW lobby group has a membership base on millions. Perhaps a lot of people say nice things to the leading questions asked them by nice girls with clipboards, but in their daily lives, no one is changing. Nor should they.

Let's be clear what's at stake: without urgent action by Gordon Brown and other world leaders, climate change will have devastating consequences. Hundreds of millions of people, particularly the world's poorest and most vulnerable, will be put at severe risk of drought, floods, starvation and disease. By the middle of the century up to one-third of land-based species could face extinction. That's what we will face if we continue to burn coal as before.

But this is, at best, disengenuous. There is no reason to think that climate change, if it exists, will have devastating consequences. Or any malign consequences at all. The world tends to be a better place when it is warmer. Droughts *and* floods? Plants love more rain, more heat and more CO2 so the claim famine will be a problem is utterly nonsensical - we will get better fed as we get richer anyway. The only threat to food is the threat from Greens to modern agriculture. A third of land based species *could* face extinction now. There is no reason to think they do now or will then but they could. What nonsense is this? There is no reason to think that MMGW will adversely affect a single species.

There is an alternative. Instead of supporting the one global industry that does most to cause climate change, we should invest in a strong, homegrown renewable energy industry and send a powerful signal to the international community that the UK is prepared to help lead the transition to a low-carbon future for our world.

So we should destroy our economy and do something India and China will ignore anyway as some grand gesture? This going to be a moral victory is it? Reminds me, in an odd way, of Bridge over the River Kwai - showing the Japanese what superior people the British are by doing something utterly counterproductive and pointless.

In making this transition the UK will prove the case internationally that action to tackle the inseparable challenges of climate change and fossil fuel-addiction will protect the environment, create new jobs and increase energy security.

Only if it works. And there is no evidence of this at all. Creating new jobs by the way is a bad thing.

By investing in green energy, energy efficiency and smarter ways of living and working we can meet our climate change targets and keep the lights on. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Sure. And by eating our vegetables all up and never swearing God doesn't kill llittle kittens. Come on, this is daft. There is no evidence Green energy can work and there is no chance of meeting our CO2 targets - and they keep shifting anyway.

On top of which, of course, there is no evidence that MMGw is happening.

What's needed now is courage from Brown to go out and make that case with the electorate.

The problem with this article is that it does not mention the one thing Brown ought to be doing and the one case he ought to be making to the electorate - nuclear power. But that would require courage. Agreeing with the Great and the Good does not.

ABasu

22 July 2008 12:44PM

Just think, a string of new Carbon Capture coal fired power stations and investment in recommissioning all those mothballed coal mines and Britain becomes self sufficient in electricity for a century, regenerates the economies of many communities and eradicates domestic poverty within a decade. We might even be able to afford a bit more aid to countries affected by climate change.

PinkTaco

22 July 2008 12:51PM

Listen, man made carbon emmisions DO NOT affect the climate.

Even if you are dense enough to believe they do then you would still be forced to admit that a couple of new power stations in blighty amount to very little in theface of massive industrialisation in the developing world.

If you are unable to divorce yourself from the idea of limting carbon emmission you would better spend your time looking at how we can prevent china, india and other countries further increasing their populations and how we can prevent them from using more fuel.

Geecologist

22 July 2008 12:52PM

CCS will take at least 20 years to get online, and there is absolutely no guarantees that it will work even then.

"There is no reason to think that climate change, if it exists, will have devastating consequences." - MoveAnyMountain.

Are you mad? Do you really think a solution will come from putting our fingers in our ears and chanting 'We won't do it unless China & India do'? And you suggest nuclear instead one of the most costly energy sources available... Are you closely linked to the US administration by any chance?

joseph1832

22 July 2008 12:53PM

At the moment, green energy will not meet energy needs. By all means invest in it, but not the assumption that the research and results would be successful. That would be only slightly less daft than declaring that by 2050 nuclear fusion will provide 100% of our energy needs.

So, it is back to coal and reopening the mines (hopefully) or we must harness the power of the mighty atom.

Lets face it, the French got this one right from the start - and all we do is bother them with demands to liberalise their "energy sector" so that the hedge funds and asset strippers can work their magic on the only country in Europe to have planned properly!!

SpursSupporter

22 July 2008 12:57PM

MoveAnyMountain - " the one thing Brown ought to be doing and the one case he ought to be making to the electorate - nuclear power. "

Brown has been pushing the pro nuclear agenda quite hard, but it is too late for nuclear to help reduce carbon emissions until around 2025. At best, the first new nuclear power station won't be working until about 2018 by which time a number of currently-operating plants will have shut down. I doubt that the amount of nuclear-generated electricity could get back to today's level before 2025. And, that's with a big push - we do not have the industrial base, or skills base, to go any faster.

New nuclear might be able to reduce the rise in carbon emissions but it can't do much to actually reduce them.

mestizo

22 July 2008 12:57PM

So, it is back to coal and reopening the mines (hopefully) or we must harness the power of the mighty atom.

Actually I read this weekend about a company that's rapidly expanding it's coal mining operations in Wales. Can't remember the name now. Very exciting.

seejaybee

22 July 2008 12:58PM

I read this, and something jarred about it. I suspect massive dishonesty in this reporting.

There is already a Kingsnorth power station. It's near Hoo St Werburgh, on the northern shore of the Medway estuary. The new power station is proposed to be adjacent to this existing facility, within the boundaries of the existing property.

There is no adjacent village called Kingsnorth here. There is an industrial estate, and a couple of isolated farms.

There is, however, a village of Kingsnorth in Kent. It's near Ashford, some thirty miles away. There is no power station here, nor is there proposed to be. Are we to believe that the villagers are being mendaciously led to believe that they are under threat of losing their precious tranquility?

With this level of deception present in the original report, how can we believe a word that follows?

Disgraceful.

hopefulcyclist

22 July 2008 1:15PM

What we need to realise is that the world demand for all major forms of energy (oil, gas, coal, between them over 80% of all energy used) is rapidly exceeding supply largely due to China and India modernising, and this is the end of cheap energy, for ever. What is worse, the UK is going from 80% energy independent to importing 80 % of energy in less than two decades, whilst the prices have risen between 3- and 10- fold so far. It is now too late to prevent powercuts in about 5 years time, when we are forced to decommission old nuclear and coal plants, we won't have had time to build new nuclear, and we simply will not be able to import enough natural gas to meet demand.

The best case for CCS is that it will cost about 30% more to run on top of the infrastructure cost, because it will generate less electricity per tonne of coal. For this reason alone it will NEVER HAPPEN. We simply won't be able to afford it in the middle of a permanent energy crisis.

This country is descending into deep recession and stagflation, and almost certainly depression as we find we cannot afford our energy hungry lifestyle. We have had it easy for the last thirty years and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Learn to live with less energy, before you are forced to.

Roas

22 July 2008 1:23PM

The price of oil is horrific. The price of gas is horrific. Britain has a thousand years' worth of coal under its feet. What's the problem?

scottow

22 July 2008 1:24PM

China isbuilding stations like this every week so please don't get megalomaniac about it. Whether this station gets built or not really isn't that important.

If it's true that many people will die of cold this winter shouldn't helping them through say better insulation be the priority? It's clear that the years since 1997 have seen many mistakes but the worst was to assume that energy would remain cheap.If all these stations are built it's clear that many people won't beable to afford the electricity produced.

mawbags

22 July 2008 1:31PM

yes you are right. nuclear power ticjs all those boxes. bring it on i say.

OneTooMany

22 July 2008 1:34PM

Nah lets build it before we have to buy ALL our power from rip off artists in Europe or Russia and economics force us to huddle round the family candle. Stuff climate change, most of the rest of the world does.

khamsin

22 July 2008 1:36PM

I think the basic response is we are screwed,

Nuclear, white elephant, where is the fuel coming from and who is paying for the clean up, Coal, not exactly environmentally friendly, but it is something we can burn and be self sufficient in.

Oil and Gas , Burnt pretty much all we had so are dependent on Russia being nice.

Windpower, an eye sore.

Solar, it rains everyday so why bother.

Tidal power, think of the spawning salmon

Hydro-Electric, can't go flooding the Scottish Highlands now.

Geothermal, we not on an active fault line.

Incinerating our waste to produce local area networks, completely against the free market how can you force someone to buy power from the local heat network.

And who is actually going to build any of this? the Poles? We don't have enough construction workers in the UK.

What is left?

Building houses to Passivhaus standards? must be joking, plywood is where it is at.

This should have been sorted 10-20 years ago, now is far to late.

ardennespate

22 July 2008 1:39PM

@ seejaybee:

"Are we to believe that the villagers are being mendaciously led to believe that they are under threat of losing their precious tranquility?

You are right and the author of this article is horribly, toe-curlingly wrong.

The new Kingsnorth coal-fired power station is simply a replacement for the existing, ageing power station and ought to be about 20% more efficient.

AFAIK, while locals would rather it were elsewhere (obviously), they've not gone Monbiot crazy about it either.

It was also approved by the local authority there.

@Ashok Sinha:

"By investing in green energy, energy efficiency and smarter ways of living and working we can meet our climate change targets and keep the lights on. Sounds like a win-win to me."

Sounds like unworkable nonsense to me. For example, what does 'smarter ways of living and working' actually entail? It sounds like a tacit admission that 'green energy' cannot actually provide all the power we need - why else would you call for it?

Geecologist

22 July 2008 1:46PM

Windpower, an eye sore.

Is that really what people think? Even if it is, it seems like the vibe is people are happy to say stuff the environment, lets burn coal and not think about any of this stuff because emerging economies will not? So basically lets destroy the planet because we've been convinced that windpower is ugly, or tidal power may cause unforeseen problems - well I guess that leaves us with the very obvious problems that we already know about and no furture for our children's children.

Good choice - heaven forbid there's an eyesore on the countryside. Stick with something beautiful like power stations eh?

edwardrice

22 July 2008 1:58PM

seejaybee

If you look at the map there is a Kingsnorth next to Hoo St Werburgh.

Philofrei

22 July 2008 2:01PM

Carbon capture as part of new coal-powered electricity generation? Perhaps, although I think the technique and technology are still in their infancy and yet to be proven.

On the other hand the nuclear option is being oversold. Where will they be built? They need a massive amount of water...So the coast is the only real option. If global warming is real, then flooding of coastlines is inevitable...What will happen to all the lovely new nuclear power stations?

Just a few more ideas...

Nuclear power requires a lot of security. The power stations will be a security risk / terrorist targets into the foreseeable future. Security services / surveillance will be beefed up. We will be given / sold ID passes [for our own protection]. Extended periods of detention without charge for terror suspects will be inevitable. Power will continue to grow in the hands of a few...Do you trust them? Are they competent....Will they make a cock-up / lose information? Can they be trusted with OUR plutonium?

Where do we get our nuclear raw materials [Uranium]? Are our sources secure? Are the supply routes secure? And, how do we ensure their security?

AS I said, just a few ideas.

Oh, for those who believe the global-warming sceptics...Who funds their 'research'?

Also, just a minor point you may like to consider [unless you're a Bible-literalist who thinks the world is about six thousand years old]...Fossil fuels were laid down over hundreds of millions of years and we have only been releasing that stored carbon into the earth's atmosphere at an increasingly massive rate over the past couple of hundred years. Now, surely this constitutes a terrible shock to the Earth's system? Seen from space, the Earth is a 'closed system. We all know that smoking is stupid and very harmful and it is banned in our restaurants, pubs etc and yet we continue to pump 'smoke' into our global 'closed' system, effectively oblivious to the cost to our selves and future generations.