Scary map du jour
This map was in this morning's Washington Post. The red dots are currently-existing coal-fired power plants. The black dots with the central stars are proposed future coal-fired power plants. Coal is relatively cheap energy, but it's got some signficant environmental problems associated with it (the accompanying article was about reduced air quality in national parks like Shenandoah). Another recent Washington Post article investigated the effects of mountaintop-removal methods of getting at the coal out in neighboring West Virginia.
More significant than the air quality issue to me is the lunacy of investing more in fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be moving away from these old, dirty technologies, not entrenching ourselves in them. Burning coal generates CO2. The writing is on the wall in regards to the effect of this anthropogenic CO2 on our planetary climate system. But the vast majority of DC's energy comes from coal. Enter the hypocrite: I'm bummed that every time I post to this blog, I'm using electricity that adds carbon to the atmosphere. And if this map is prophetic, it looks like it's going to stay that way for some time to come.
10 Comments:
"Coal is relatively cheap energy, but it's got some signficant environmental problems associated with it..."
Indeed. And that is really the crux of our energy problems as a whole ... how do we reconcile the problems with supply/demand and cost?
People are complaining now about high gasoline prices now ... imagine if electricity prices increased four to five times over a few years.
New coal-fired plants are certainly not the answer ... but, I wonder how many of the new ones are replacing old ones? Or, are they simply additional? And ... are the "new" plants utilizing current technologies that make them more efficient than the old ones?
Hello,
A link to your very useful site was posted at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ which is following the Chaiten story. Exploring further, I am surprised that you still consider CO2 as important, as amongst my large circle of friends here in the UK, we are aware that Global temperatures have fallen since 1998 although CO2 has risen by 20 ppm in the same period. Also, our High Court did not accept Al Gore's claims and issued a warning about the validity of his film.
Volcanoes produce far more CO2 than Mankind and plant growth benefits as a result. We Brits have a tendency to take "hype" with a pinch of salt, especially the EU targets for biofuels. We see the greens as socialists and as you will realise from our political blogs, socialism is a despised polity that has run its course. On 22nd May, there is another test of socialist values when a by election in Crewe & Nantwich takes place. The result could see the Prime Minister resign. He is not well liked, a disgusting, repulsive man who picks his nose in Parliament and forever bites his fingernails. Take a look!
http://www.order-order.com/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/
Coming back to Chaiten, it will be interesting to see if a long term eruption helps Australia by ending its long years of drought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html?pagewanted=1
Yours truly,
Perry
Perry/Anonymous,
You're nuts! Human CO2 emissions are about 47 times higher than volcanic emissions.
Anthropogenic sources (including fossil fuel burning, flatulent livestock, and forest clearing): 7 gigatonnes per year.
Volcanoes (on average): 0.15 gigatonnes per year.
Ditto for your flat-out incorrect comment about global temperatures dropping in recent years. Ummm, they've actually been record-setting warm years. I'd check your sources of information.
And, not to put to fine a point on it, but who cares about politicians picking their nose? Or what some court decided about some film? Al Gore doesn't drive climate science. Give me a break.
Perry...
Seems like you are simply going around to blogs discussing Chaiten (which is not even what this post is about) with a form letter, and a weak one at that. What a joke.
Hello Callan,
Temperatures. Geology is OK, but I
put my money on weather scientists.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/rss-msu-lt-global-temperature-anomaly-for-april-2008-flat/
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/ipcc-annoyance/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/march-2008-hadcrut-global-temperature-anomaly/
You may not be aware of these factors.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/curiosities-mixed-signals-in-land-and-ocean-temps/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/page/6/
However, your site is still one of the better ones I have read.
Yours truly,
Perry
Perry ... are you a global-denying robot?
Brianr,
Nope Lol,
I'm s rational freethinker. From your little humour I deduce you probably cannot help the way you believe in extreme greenery. Dr John Hibbing, from the University of Nebraska, amongst other researchers, has said that how an individual reacts to social issues - whether as a radical or a conservative - is also influenced by their genes. This influence may then predispose them to vote as they do, probably AGW in your case.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/reject-random-b.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7315656.stm
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/11/11-14-06tdc/11-14-06dscihealth-03.asp
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070524_ideological_leaning.html
It wouldn't surprise me if you cannot bring yourself to read data and conclusions that disagree with your beliefs. T H Huxley wrote "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
Defining faith as a belief held without valid evidence, John Brignell, Professor Emeritus (ESD) http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/jeb/cv.htm has a few words for you if you are willing to read them.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
The remainder of his website will reward study, as measurement is everything. Good luck and enjoy.
Yours truly,
Perry
Perry says: "It wouldn't surprise me if you cannot bring yourself to read data and conclusions that disagree with your beliefs."
This argument about beliefs, social condition, etc. is a diversion and distraction from the issue (not to mention patronizing).
I will let it slide, I have neither the time nor the energy ... how 'bout this? How 'bout you actually address Callan's response to your comment about volcanoes? Is he wrong? Why?
This happens time and time again ... when challenged with data and facts, the arguments about beliefs and other sociological aspects come out. It's an effective sleight-of-hand.
It looks like at least one of those coal plants is on a current nuclear plant site in S. Jersey. It would be better to replace coal with nuclear, not the other way around.
Perry? Were you going to explain Callan's numbers in the face of your comment about volcanic vs. anthropogenic CO2? Is he wrong?
(sound of a distant wind)
of course you're not going to address that ... you're already gone
Post a Comment
<< Home