we don't have to--indeed, cannot--stand by and allow utilities to "build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology." To borrow a phrase from my four year old, they are not the boss of us. We are the boss of them. They will build what we, as a nation and as a species, let them build. We do not have to sacrifice our future for the benefit of electrical utilities. Full Story »
Posted by Beth Wellington
:
1
Only the first of three points made is well supported. But even that one has a factual error: The FutureGen Project cost is $6500/kW, not kW-hr. Good number of relevant links.
David Roberts story, in fact a blog post, builds over a NYT article about the problems arising in the development of CSS, Carbon Capture and Storage, technology: Capturing the CO2 emissions generated by big producers, mainly power plants, and storing it underground for ever. CSS was regarded as a key technology for the stabilization of green house gases in many studies, some of them highly regarded. It is sure that CSS will not materialize soon and the carbon lobby will try to continue making business as usual. But Roberts only mention the key to stop it: Establish a mandatory tax policy to control the output of greenhouse gases, if possible a true tax per unit emitted, better than the cap and- trade system favored by politicians.
Roberts, in a sharp tone some may object to, questions assumptions underlying the NYT look at "clean" coal.
Retrieving Comments
