Four carbon-capture power plants to be built (in the UK under government plans unveiled on Tuesday)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a6beb3a-e4db-11de-817b-00144feab49a.html

Four carbon-capture power plants to be built

By Fiona Harvey in Copenhagen and Ed Crooks in London

Published: December 9 2009 17:39 | Last updated: December 9 2009 17:39

Four power plants equipped with facilities to capture and store carbon will be built in the UK under government plans unveiled on Tuesday as part of the http://www.ft.com/indepth/pre-budget-report">pre-Budget report.

One of the plants would be funded through a long-running competition for public funding, the winner of which is expected to be announced early next year.

The others would be funded by a levy on electricity bills, the exact nature of which has yet to be decided.

Building the four plants would probably cost up to £10bn, according to industry forecasts.

…

[kristopher]

1. The coal lobby in England has been PO'd for more than a decade.

That is when they started phasing out the subsidies for domestic coal mining and moving the money to renewables as a response to Kyoto. When they totally ended the subsidies in about 2003 and announced they were instead backing offshore wind, their coal industry went nuts.

They haven't given up.

[Nihil]

2. Tell me about it!

> When they totally ended the subsidies in about 2003 and announced
> they were instead backing offshore wind, their coal industry went nuts.

They've got some powerful & influential friends too. :-(

Mind you, if they want PO'd, this will get them a result:
>> The others would be funded by a levy on electricity bills, the exact
>> nature of which has yet to be decided.

When people (like me) who agree to pay a slightly higher tariff for
a "greener" supply mix (yeah, I know) are threatened with an involuntary
levy to support sodding coal plants they will get more than a little
"unwanted feedback" ...

:grr:

[madokie]

3. We pay a premium on our electric bill each month and have for several years

ever since they built the wind farm down in the southwestern part of the state. Lot of us are willing to pay more for cleaner energy and are and have been. Some fantasy nutron electron producing mo fo machine that doesn't pollute the world in other ways ain't been found yet so we's gotta do what we's gotta do and thats clean up our act. Nuclear is not it though

[Nihil]

4. Go back and read my post rather than guessing what it might say.

If you do that, you will find that I was not claiming the "Nuclear is 'it'"
or any of the other bullshit that you appear to have ascribed to me.

Read what I said. I hate coal. I only want nuclear in the places where it is
appropriate (and yes, this does *NOT* include the USA as they are proven to be
incapable of running a nuclear power plant safely or efficiently - I am with
you on that!).

My objection is to the (proposed) "enforced" levy on electricity users to support
coal plants regardless of how much they have already been prepared to pay over
the odds in order to *avoid* that situation.

Maybe you are confused due to the difference between Oklahoma and England (Old!)
but you seem to be attempting to merge things that simply do not apply.
:hi:

[madokie]

5. I wasn't saying anything of the likes

i was simply saying that we have to clean up our act and that nuclear is not it. The making of the fuel for a nuke plant is energy intensive no matter if parts of it could be nuclear energy powered. Getting that ore to the power plant is a co2 intensive producing process that rapes the land like coal mining does, maybe not on the same scale. Talk to the Navajo about the mining, they've got a few stories to tell too.

I had no intention of starting a fight with you over this, I'm sorry you took it that way :hi:
Peace