I guess from within my climate policy bubble I had concluded that the case against coal is airtight & universally accepted. Apparently not.
But y'all, as I used to say back in the 2000s: coal is the enemy of the human race. There is no viable scenario wherein it lives on.
But y'all, as I used to say back in the 2000s: coal is the enemy of the human race. There is no viable scenario wherein it lives on.
In the (IMO) unlikely event that CCS tech is developed & scaled up enough to be meaningful, it will still be hella expensive. We're going to put it on industrial facilities (for things we don't know how to decarbonize) & biomass power plants (for negative emissions).
There is NO scenario in which it makes any sense to attach it to coal plants. The parasitic load immediately eats a third of the power, rendering the remaining power expensive AF (& coal is already expensive). Plus you still live with the environmental & health ravages ...
... of mining, transporting, & burning coal, every step of which generates massive air & water pollution.
Coal is so toxic that the health benefits of shutting down US coal plants would, in & of itself, pay for the incremental additional costs of building out a 0-CO2 system.
Coal is so toxic that the health benefits of shutting down US coal plants would, in & of itself, pay for the incremental additional costs of building out a 0-CO2 system.
The difference is that health benefits are widely distributed (+ concentrated in low-income & marginalized communities) while profits from burning coal accrue to a small group of executives & investors, like Joe Manchin. That's the only reason anyone's still talking about coal.
Ha ha, 2008! huffpost.com/entry/coal-is-…
Ooh, and this is a good one. 2011. "Coal-fired power is a gigantic, blood-sucking parasite that's enriching a few executives and shareholders at the public's expense, a new report suggests." grist.org/coal/2011-09-3…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
