My words don’t fail me. I’ll give you numbers instead. You wrote regarding newer better coal plants:[quote=“GJDS, post:29, topic:36891”]
This can be reduced to about 800kg CO2/MWh while providing a secure supply, by replacing the old plant with new.
In contrast to that (800kg CO2/MWh for your new more efficient coal plants), wind energy comes in at about 18kg CO2/MWh --right now already just as they are. That is wind outperforming your new improved coal plants by 44 to 1; and outperforming the existing ones by ~70 to 1.
Regarding the power being more expensive? Sure. New technology is more costly than existing established technologies. So yes, making power more expensive can add economic pain to the poor. We should find other ways to mitigate that instead of clinging to dirty sources in wanton disregard of everyone’s (including poor people’s) environment. Here in Kansas we get around 30% of our state’s electrical power from wind now, and our electrical bills aren’t noticeably different (other than typical inflationary creep perhaps). That also may be due in part to subsidies for renewables here. But even so --that means we have found a way to make better choices without hurting the poor.
Agreed on that – with “sensible” being the key word. I’m glad to see you aren’t just opposed to renewables across the board. Yes; it is irresponsible to engage in fear-mongering. I like to think I’m promoting better energy choices, not because of doomsday fears, but because it is the logical and compassionate thing to do in a world that tends to glorify wanton exploitation and promote it as ‘business as usual’. The one thing missing from all this is the best and most painless energy solution of all that you never hear promoted in politics at all any more is this: conservation. Just turn off the darn lights when you aren’t in the room, and put on a sweater instead of hiking the thermostat. Those simple things blow everything else out of the water.
There – was that tantrumy enough? Did I save the world?