By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: April 23, 2008
Published: April 23, 2008
CIVITAVECCHIA, Italy — At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.
Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent. And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are slated to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.
This is what really frosts me. Environmental zealots and linguini-spine state legislatures conspire to send the American economy back to pre-Industrial Revolution days.
In the United States, fewer new coal plants are likely to open up, in part because it is becoming harder to get regulatory permits and in part because nuclear power remains an alternative. Of 151 proposals in early 2007, more than 60 had been dropped by the year’s end, many blocked by state governments. Dozens of other are stuck in court challenges.
The environmental lobby knows it can't win the hearts and minds of people to their religiosity, so they do what liberals do: run to the courts. Meanwhile, India and China waste no time demonstrating what they really think about the Kyoto Protocol.
The fast-expanding developing economies of India and China, where coal remains a major fuel source for more than two billion people, have long been regarded as among the biggest challenges to reducing carbon emissions. But the return now to coal even in eco-conscious Europe is sowing real alarm among environmentalists who warn that it is setting the world on a disastrous trajectory that will make controlling global warming impossible.
Environmentalism is the new communism. It is oppressive, self-righteous, judgmental and hypocritical. If left unchecked, it will severely limit our individual freedoms and seriously cripple the American economy.
4 comments:
If they could somehow make solar cost effective, then things would be better. You get right down to it, outside of Nuclear power all the forms of energy we have originates, ultimately, from the sun. Seems like a worthwhile endeavor to develep technology which would be cost effective, durable and could turn a profit for the developers.
DAV,
A lot of "ifs" there. The truth is, solar power is cost ineffective, takes a while to "pay for itself," and very few can turn it into a profit.
When you think nuclear, think "zero emissions."
I'd "go green" in a minute if it wasn't so ineffective, expensive and the opposite of green. Think about all the energy and other resources it takes to make solar panels and wind turbines.
Last week I had a conversation with someone from Minnesota Energy who was going to a conference in order to be certified as a "green consultant" or some such. We started talking about geothermal and he said it's really not all that cost effective, plus the components of the system are made in foreign countries where our environmental sensitivities mean absolutely nothing.
Looking at the long term, I doubt our civilization can sustain itself indefinitely using energy which must be burned, ie ethanol and fossil fuels. Nuclear looks like a very feasible option (You and the French agree? Mon Doo...), provided the safety levels are tolerable. I would suppose that a Manhattan Project scale investment in developing cost effective energy sources couldn’t be too far around the corner.
Doom and gloom scenarios and scare tactics shouldn't be the driving force behind the pursuit of renewable energy.
The "peak oil" lie is just that. The Chinese are drilling oil off the Cuban coast. The Brazilian government just discovered a massive oil reserve off the coast of my native Rio de Janeiro which they say may make the country independent from Middle Eastern oil.
Brazilians have discovered two fields: "Tupi," off the coast of Rio, is estimated to hold 8 billion barrels of oil; "Carioca," another coastal field, may contain as many as 33 billion barrels. Please see http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aBUoYKhu7PWk for more.
I don't mind agreeing with the French as long as they are right. I am shocked to find myself in agreement with the founder of Greenpeace, however. Apparently Patrick Moore is what some would call a "global warming denier" since he believes "there is no proof" that global climate change is man made (See Idaho Statesman artlicle available at http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html).
Moore compares our need to wean ourselves of fossil fuels to purchasing fire insurance. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident," the Greenpeace founder said. His solution is to build "hundreds" of nuclear power plants over the next 100 years.
More to your previous point, Moore argues that "[t]here isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources."
Post a Comment