« Non-mainstream schools of thought | Main | Nabokov's last work will not be burned »
Europe fact of the day
Ahem:
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 expected 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.
Here is the full story.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 23, 2008 at 01:21 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Apparently carbon permits are not quite as expensive as they should be...
Posted by: David Zetland at Apr 23, 2008 1:29:22 PM
That's disappointing.
Given that the US emits about 2x as much CO2 per capita as the EU, will this development lead to them eventually being just as bad?
Posted by: a student of economics at Apr 23, 2008 1:35:08 PM
Given that the US emits about 2x as much CO2 per capita as the EU, will this development lead to them eventually being just as bad?
Probably not, if only because population density does seem to provide an advantage for developed countries. The US produces roughly the same CO2 per capita as Canada and Australia.. (Slightly more in one case, slightly less in the other according to the latest figures.)
Posted by: John Thacker at Apr 23, 2008 1:46:25 PM
LOL. But at least they have clear consciences about their being opposed to CO2 emission "in principle". The Europeans approach energy and environmental policy like they do foreign policy. Totally ineffectual.
Posted by: massrepublican at Apr 23, 2008 1:47:55 PM
The market trumps global warming fanaticism again.
Hopefully the US will see the light too and stop giving our money away to other countries.
Posted by: jorod at Apr 23, 2008 2:18:13 PM
You will know the world is serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions when fossil fuel plants are being replaced with nuclear ones. Until then, people are spouting hot air.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Apr 23, 2008 2:19:03 PM
Interestingly, coal plants are being sold to European public as means of energy independence from the unpredictable Russia (which is the main natural gas supplier to Europe)... Some politicians here have been labelled as sell-outs to Russia because they support natural gas power plants.
Posted by: Adrian at Apr 23, 2008 2:26:00 PM
This is consistent with the impression I have held for a while. It appears that the apparent wide support for global warming curbing initiatives among governments is not truly so, but the usual pandering that politicians do to get elected. On this issue at least, the United States government seems a bit more transparent than its Europeans counterparts. I also think that much of the rallying for global warming curbing initiatives have more to do with protectionism and being anti-corporate than with caring about the issue.
In reality, there is no political will to do anything substantive about global warming in either side of the Atlantic. In some regards, this may be so because politicians know that the costs of doing so are too great to allow their parties to truly support such policies and be elected. Also, it may have to do with the fact that the effects of global warming will not be as great in the developed world and, maybe, it will bring some benefits to it (I am sure some of those living in the northern latitudes would not mind shorter winters).
Posted by: Ignacio at Apr 23, 2008 2:52:03 PM
"Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth."
Dirties doesn't it puts out most CO2, it means it puts out most pollutants (sulfur and the like). Most of this pollution will stay in and around Italy.
Posted by: Mason at Apr 23, 2008 3:23:42 PM
jorod,
I fail to see how price and political pressures pushing Europeans (or at least Italians, who have
been less avid about fighting global warming anyway and have the slowest growing economy in the
EU) to switch to dirty coal plants "trumps global warming fanaticism." Heck, it makes global
warming worse, arguably argues for more intensive efforts by others to do something about it.
And, just to whom has the US been giving money abroad in regard to this? Countries that sell us
oil because we are 76th in the world in GDP/carbon dioxide emissions?
What I see nobody talking about here is the obvious need for a major R&D push, funded by government,
folks, to get a workable carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. It is unfortunately
clear that a lot of the alternatives to fossil fuels either have their own serious problems that
will lead to political resistance to their widespread adoption (or cost too much) or are simply
incapable of providing enough power to offset our dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal,
which we in the US are especially dependent on (and have a lot of). So, getting a usable CCS
technology may well be our only realistic hope of doing anything about this problem.
But then jorod would probably resist such a big government R&D effort because it would be caving
to the "global warming fanatics." Better that we all just emulate China and India and Italy, not
to mention getting back into our SUVs and cranking the suckers up...
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 23, 2008 3:54:45 PM
Tyler,
I have a book suggestion for you on this topic (i.e. AGW) that I haven't read. I'll wait for your review before I click on the amazon.com button on the MR site.
Any other comments by others would also be appreciated, here is the link.
I'm also curious what people think of this link (whose author is an engineer by training and a successful entrepreneur by vocation), and the embedded link regarding climate sensitivity, the latter of which mostly went over my layman's head.
With regard to the coyote blog link, in particular the list of 5 criteria that ought to be met strikes me as the correct approach to the issue, noting that the author agrees with 1 and 2.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Apr 23, 2008 4:08:25 PM
It's pretty idiotic to have an oil powered electricity plant given the incredibly tight supplies of oil right now and for the foreseeable future.
They should've converted to nuclear instead earlier, but with phobia propagated by Greenpeace and others, it is not surprising that they chose coal instead. They have little choice now given that the Russians can't be trusted to reliably deliver natural gas.
Way to go Greenpeace for increasing AGW. Bravo!
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Apr 23, 2008 4:14:59 PM
But then jorod would probably resist such a big government R&D effort because it would be caving
to the "global warming fanatics."
With a government effort, how do we avoid another 'synfuels' failure or, even worse, another corn-ethanol debacle -- an effort that pays lip service to reducing carbon emissions, but actually makes emissions worse, drives up global food prices, and wastes billions (but is useful for pandering to voters in Iowa)?
Posted by: Slocum at Apr 23, 2008 4:36:34 PM
This is fantastic news. CO2 emissions simple aren't a real, pressing threat to human well-being.
Of course, the real pollutants of coal (sulfer and the like) have to be dealt with and, increasingly, we have the technology do that. Clean coal is a wonderful thing.
Really, really great news.
Posted by: Stephen at Apr 23, 2008 4:53:40 PM
Fanatics and sceptics alike would benefit from reading Nigel Lawson's 'An Appeal to Reason: a cool look at global warming', published after much difficulty in the UK. Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher. His is the best and best written analysis of the issues I have seen.His argument is summarized in talks given to numerous think tank publications which Google will uncover.
Posted by: Reg Hall at Apr 23, 2008 4:59:02 PM
Slocum,
The problem with synfuels was that they did not work. The problem with corn-ethanol is that the farm lobby loves it
while it in fact does not help.
We may not be able to find a usable CCS tech, but if we did there is no particular reason to believe that it would
lead to increased net emissions the way corn-ethanol appears to do.
I happen to favor increased use of nuclear power, but there are simply a lot of people who are terrified of it and
oppose it, and this is not just because of Greenpeace. Some more education on this matter would help.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 23, 2008 5:27:08 PM
I am 100% in favor of pollution control. But we have to use common sense. There are experimental coal facilities coming on-line to explore less polluting processes with coal using basic oxygen process. Also, some power companies are using cow manure as fuel if the things I see on the Internet are accurate. In the long run we are running out of fossil fuel, so even if we do nothing there will be less carbon footprints.
Also,
See "Earth First" at American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/earth_first_people_later.html
Posted by: jorod at Apr 23, 2008 5:46:12 PM
Mason,
Coal is dirty both in the local sense of polluting the air and also highly CO2 producing. The DOE calculated for 1999 that 2.095 lbs of CO2 were produced for each kilowatt hour of electricity from coal (coal for heat probably is more efficient). Petroleum is nearly as bad; 1.969 lbs of CO2 per kWh. Natural gas is significantly better: 1.321 lbs. of CO2 per kWh.
Posted by: PG at Apr 23, 2008 5:50:02 PM
Barkley Rosser,
I couldn't agree more; nuclear power is our best bet. But aside from public hysteria, another problem with nuclear power is that it lowers the cost of electricity and causes energy usage to increase. All of which will mean no net loss in CO2 emissions (assuming nuclear power doesn't account for ALL our electricity generation). France is a good example of this phenomena.
Which makes me think we also need an aggressive carbon tax or an emissions trading system so that electricity produced via nuclear energy is differentiated from electricity produced via other means. Of course, this will never happen because "environmentalists" will be the most vehemently opposed to any new nuclear power plants.
Posted by: Greg at Apr 24, 2008 12:33:42 AM
Though the government's planning new nuclear stations (and fixing public consultations on the matter), the UK is set to start building a big new coal fired plant pretty shortly. There could be more to follow. As mentioned before, it makes sense from an energy independence point of view, because we still have large supplies of coal in this country. (Power generation in the UK largely switched from coal to gas in the 80s, but North Sea gas supplies are running low now.)
In order to lessen the environmental impact of the plant, the government proposes assorted carbon capture and scrubbing technologies. Except they won't be built into the plant at first because, er, they don't exist yet.
Incidentally, it's surprising how many environmentalists are coming to support nuclear power now. I view it as basically an admission of failure - failure to control energy use or to spread and develop alternative energy sources. In light of that, you start going for the least worst option that has a decent chance of success.
Posted by: Tim at Apr 24, 2008 5:00:55 AM
IIRC, in the last hot summer in W Europe, French nuclear generation was turned down because of cooling water problems. The French simply reneged on their contract to supply Italy. Naturally the Italians would look to diversify suppliers and fuels.
Posted by: dearieme at Apr 24, 2008 7:16:36 AM
The local pollution from coal (particulates, SOx, NOx, even mercury) can be controlled without enormous cost. SOx controls in the US are a great environmental success story, coming in below the alarmist cost estimates by a factor of 6.
Also:
The problem with synfuels was that they did not work.
No, the problem with synfuels in the last energy crisis was that the price of oil and natural gas collapsed. This made synfuels uncompetitive, at least when capital costs had to be amortized (that synthetic natural gas plant in North Dakota continued to operate after being bought in bankruptcy and is now very profitable). At today's prices, synfuels are quite competitive even including capital cost. Fischer-Tropsch CTL using PRB coal would be profitable at oil prices somewhere in the $40/barrel range. GreatPoint Energy's one-step coal to methane process is supposed to be cheaper than drilling for new natural gas or importing LNG from overseas.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz at Apr 24, 2008 10:17:26 AM
"another problem with nuclear power is that it lowers the cost of electricity and causes energy usage to increase. "
So, cutting taxes increases tax revenue, but that isn't fair to poor people, so raise taxes.
The problem with nuclear is plutonium. Anybody know how to recycle the stuff?
Can we launch it into the sun?
Posted by: jorod at Apr 24, 2008 11:43:02 AM
The problem with nuclear is plutonium. Anybody know how to recycle the stuff?
They can recycle nuclear waste, yes. It is illegal to do in the United States, because of lobbying by the environmentalists and the fossil fuel companies in the 1970s (no-one wanted the oil embargo / fuel crisis to cause a mass switch to nuclear), but it does not present any technical problems.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 24, 2008 12:32:49 PM
Another tiresome diatribe. I find several things objectionable about this story. First, the assertion that the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming." Who are these top experts and who anointed them as such? The consensus is always asserted, never supported.
Second, though coal is the dirtiest fuel, that fact has nothing to do with global warming. The constant conflation of CO2 with pollution by the press is completely erroneous. You can't see it. You can't smell it. It is non-toxic. It is essential for life on earth. The irony is the the "dirty" part of coal may actually offset some of the warming.
Finally, the thing this story demonstrates is that the U.S. could cease to exist tomorrow and emissions will continue to rise at a rapid rate. China's emissions alone will swamp any reductions by the U.S. Climate regulation in the U.S. is little more than a suicide pact.
Posted by: Paul at Apr 25, 2008 10:05:01 AM
"Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power"
Here:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html
Posted by: dapai at Apr 25, 2008 1:31:56 PM
Anyone who wants cheaper fuel prices needs to ask his representatives
at the local, state, and federal levels, what are their plans and
policies for Energy Independence. If they don't have any, don't
vote for them. They are costing you money and in the future they
may cost you your freedom. We need to stop paying dictators,
terrorists, and tyrants oil money. We have all the coal, oil,
nuclear power, and liquid natural gas we need to be come
energy independence. In addition, a healthy investment in
alternative sources will keep Energy Independent for the
foreseeable future.
Posted by: poetryman69 at Apr 28, 2008 9:28:48 PM
