NASA official (Hansen) raps coal-fired plant

is going nowhere and will only hinder real progress. The only point I absolutely agree on is that mercury emissions need to be ended immediately. There is no safe level of mercury in the environment.

Barring a national energy conservation plan, new coal plants are necessary to prevent further degradation of the economy. But the construction of any new fossil fuel plants needs to be legislatively tied to the development of additional renewable energy sources.

Wind power is competitively priced with fossil fuel generation WITHOUT emissions and other hidden costs - wars over oil, mountain-top removal, mercury, CO2 emissions, sulfur dioxide, etc.... When these hidden costs are factored in, solar thermal and, possibly even solar electric, would also be competitive. However, the political will to do the right thing is absent from the WH, House and Senate. We don't stand a chance until 2009.

> As much as I'd like to agree, the "all or nothing" environmental approach
> is going nowhere and will only hinder real progress.

This only applies if you view "real progress" as being "business as usual".

> Barring a national energy conservation plan, new coal plants are necessary
> to prevent further degradation of the economy.

You have just (unwittingly) adopted the coal industry's slogan there.
The answer is to ban all new coal plants - full stop.

Coal plants (indeed power stations of any sort) do bugger-all to change
whether the economy is "degraded" or not. The only way the two things can
be tied together is if you view the economy as being measured by blatantly
wasteful over-consumption. If that is the case then it is even more vital
that the "fuel" for this genocidal (and ultimately suicidal) world-view is
restricted rather than allowed to propagate the stupidity.