Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMore than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute?intcmp=122A coal-burning power station in Beijing, China - the country is planning to build 363 new coal-fired power plants. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters
More than 1,000 coal-fired power plants are being planned worldwide, new research has revealed.
The huge planned expansion comes despite warnings from politicians, scientists and campaigners that the planet's fast-rising carbon emissions must peak within a few years if runaway climate change is to be avoided and that fossil fuel assets risk becoming worthless if international action on global warming moves forward.
Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade.
hatrack
(59,592 posts)Not surprising, but . . . . shit.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)hatrack
(59,592 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)stuntcat
(12,022 posts)a wonderful Green Revolution is coming!! This century will be humanity's great crowning achievement!
(sorry, thanksgiving makes me bitter)
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I recall hearing 1,400 coal plants were planned for China alone, a few years ago
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)At least in the fact that it seems that the number of planned coal plants seems to be significantly down from a few years ago.
Though 1,000 coal plants worldwide is still way too many, IMHO.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)+1000 C(oal plants) = +10 C(elsius)...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Watch this space...
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)which pollutes rivers and streams. I have a journalist friend who's writing a book about it. She's visited every state in the US (including Alaska) investigating this.
It could be in your water.
Coal ash is full of heavy, often toxic metals like arsenic, hexavalent chromium, selenium and more. It's often stored in slurry ponds that contaminate groundwater and drain into rivers and lakes that often serve as drinking water sources for large populations.
It's unregulated federally and only barely by some states. After a Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash basin burst two days before Christmas in 2008, spilling nearly a billion gallons of coal ash slurry over about 300 acres in Kingston, Tenn. the U.S.Environmental Protection Agencys administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, vowed that the agency would regulate coal ash something its tried to do for decades by December 2009. That didnt happen.
Instead, the agency released two regulatory options and held a series of public hearings. Since then, more than 450,000 comments have been submitted, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that could prevent regulation, and several environmental groups have sued the EPA.
But, those aren't the only issues with coal ash. The biggest issues are the constant and invisible water contamination it causes and the power behind the push to keep it unregulated.
http://www.coalashchronicles.com/
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)This 1400 GW of new construction will add 8.4 GtCO2 per year to the atmosphere. That's an increase of 25% in our CO2 output - the same increase that happened over the decade from 2001 to 2011.
Nobody on God's gray Earth is planning to slow down coal use in the next 20 years.