Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Coal isn’t the climate enemy, Mr Monbiot. It’s the solution
Arthur Scargill, Guardian
Coal power is far safer, says former National Union of Mineworkers leader Arthur Scargill in reply to a pro-nuclear article by green campaigner George Monbiot
—
Has George Monbiot sold out on his environmental credentials or is he suffering from amnesia? In his article on these pages last Tuesday he states that he has now reached the point where he no longer cares whether or not the answer to climate change is nuclear – let it happen, he says.
Has he not read the evidence presented by environmentalists such as Tony Benn and me at the Windscale, Sizewell and Hinckley Point public inquiries? Is he unaware that nuclear-power generated electricity is the most expensive form of energy – 400% more expensive than coal – or that it received £6bn in subsidies, with £70bn to be paid by taxpayers in decommissioning costs? Is he unaware that there is no known way of disposing of nuclear waste, which will contaminate the planet for thousands of years? Has he forgotten the nuclear disasters at Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
(8 August 2008)
Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense
George Monbiot, Guardian
Arthur Scargill is a brave man. He was brave to come to the climate camp at Kingsnorth last week. Though we disagreed with most of what he said, he earned our respect for his willingness to debate. He is brave to return to public life after suffering one of the nastiest vilification campaigns in British history, and is brave to be fighting for coal again. He is especially brave to offer to asphyxiate himself in the interests of science. Many people would be willing to help him perform this experiment at the earliest opportunity.
But he is also wrong. In his article last week demanding a return to coal and accusing me of selling out, Scargill suggested that radioactive discharges are more dangerous than carbon emissions. This, of course, is nonsense; but if he really believes it he should be campaigning against the burning of coal.
The odd and widely ignored truth is that routine radioactive discharges from coal-burning are greater than those produced by nuclear plants. Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. Though these are present at much lower levels than in nuclear fuel, a lot more coal is burned, which means that total emissions are greater.
(12 August 2008)
Expert: Replace old inefficient coal power plants
Energy Tech Stocks
CoaLogix CEO McMahon (Pt 1 of 2) – Rules & Misguided Environmentalism Thwart Remedy to Coal Plant Emissions
There is a straightforward and relatively simple way to deal with the environmental dangers of burning coal to generate electricity; however, regulations and misguided environmentalism are combining to send the U.S. in the wrong direction, all-but-guaranteeing that Americans will have to dig deep into their wallets as the nation enters a prolonged period of electricity scarcity.
So says Bill McMahon, CEO of CoaLogix, a company that works to reduce the environmental footprint of power plants through technology, optimization and efficiency improvements.
… McMahon’s straightforward approach to reducing the environmental impact of a coal-fired power plant is to have it burn less coal. He says this can be achieved over time through a coordinated program that retires old inefficient coal-fired power plants and replaces them with modern high-efficiency ones
(12 August 2008)
What Future for Coal in South Africa?
Jeremy Wakeford, Energy Forecast via The Oil Drum
South Africa has been in the news a lot recently because of its electricity supply problems throughout 2008. Most South African electricity comes from coal-fired power stations. Jeremy discusses the role of coal in South Africa’s energy mix, long-term trends in production and consumption, and how underground coal gasification might help solve South Africa’s energy problems.
Can and should our dependence continue?
South Africa’s energy economy is overwhelmingly dependent on coal. The fossil fuel provides nearly three quarters of total primary energy, supports almost 90 per cent of electricity generation, and provides feedstock for close to a third of the country’s liquid fuels via Sasol’s coal-to-liquids process.
… Conclusion: watch this space
Let us attempt a quick summary of the coal situation. In the first place, coal’s future in South Africa is perhaps not as certain as was commonly believed, at least until recently. Second, the risks of continuing heavy dependence on coal are becoming clearer: including security of energy and electricity supply, as well as climate change and associated financial risks related to carbon pricing. Third, the international price of coal looks set to continue to rise in the foreseeable future – whether from resource constraints or climate protection – so that the long era of cheap coal seems likely to be over for good. Fourth, underground coal gasification may provide a partial solution to all of these challenges in South Africa by substantially extending the amount of economically recoverable coal reserves while also limiting the environmental damage. The development of UCG will no doubt garner close scrutiny over the next few years, and not just in this country.
But this prospect should not allow a renewed complacency to set in regarding coal dependence. From a long-term perspective it arguably still makes sense for the country to diversify its energy sources by investing in renewable energy technologies and industries as ultimately these will be needed, have proven environmental benefits, and are becoming increasingly cost competitive with fossil fuels.
Jeremy Wakeford is an economist specializing in energy and sustainable development and is Research Director of ASPO South Africa.
(May 2008, but just posted at TOD)
