|
BBCAT query to James R. Hansen about coal-fired power plants and his response 4 August 2006 |
|
Query to James R. Hansen about climate change versus coal Our community is proposing to build a coal plant, and we the Big Bend Climate Action Team (a small group of scientists and writers), have been working in a formal capacity with the city for over a year, reviewing their assumptions, analysis, consultants’ report and more. We are convinced the city’s energy needs for the next ten years can be met with energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy resources. Our statistician has crunched the numbers and we can prove using the city’s own figures, that the lowest cost option is our alternative. The city still wants to move ahead with the coal plant . . . reason. . . . ”they feel it is the most prudent course of action.” What are the best climate change economic arguments against a coal plant that might resonate with a local utility? BBCAT Note: James R. Hansen, Ph.D. is director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies within the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal government has tried to control what he says on global climate change and he has gone public with the threats. He now has a minder whenever he speaks publicly and his speeches are reviewed. |
|
Response to McVety about climate change versus coal You are addressing the most important issue in global climate change and the future of the planet. Although it has not been successfully communicated yet, the science has become clear: we will push climate beyond a point that the public can or will endure, if we stay on the business-as-usual emissions. See my New York Review of Books article, which I will forward. The upshot is that atmospheric CO2 is going to have to be kept at or near 450 ppm. I am confident that this will be broadly realized and agreed upon in the reasonably near future. Conventional oil and gas will take us to about that level (c. 450 ppm), given realistic estimates of undiscovered reserves, and full exploitation of conventional oil and gas is practically unavoidable. This means that coal and unconventional fossil fuels (shale oil, etc.) will have to be phased out before mid-century, except where they are used with carbon capture and sequestration. Coal phaseout will happen, otherwise our planet and future generations are in deep trouble. Therefore, I expect that it will happen, as the impacts of “otherwise” become crystal clear (China and India would suffer as much or more than the U.S. under “otherwise”). Therefore it is reasonable to expect that conventional coal-fired power plants (i.e., ones without CO2 capture and sequestration) will all be bull-dozed before mid-century. Anyone building a coal-fired power plant w/o sequestration now is making an economic mistake. The sensible approach is to milk efficiency for all it is worth during the next decade or two, by which time new policy should be agreed upon and new energy options may exist. There was a relevant article in today’s Greenwire about some states taking action to make utility company profits increase with increased conservation, rather than with increased energy sales. |