RSS Feed
RSS Feed

The Five Best Arguments for Coal (And why they’re still really, really bad.)

299545533_d44a4e8007_o

The Industrial Revolution was an exciting time when we in the UK were still dying from cholera and typhoid, not letting women vote, and really getting into burning coal for power.

You might think that in these more enlightened times, there wouldn’t be much argument that, just like typhoid, burning coal is a pretty bad idea. But actually, there are plenty of people out there who still insist that it’s absolutely the way forward. Here’s thecoalhole’s quick rundown of the 5 ‘best’ arguments for coal.

5. The coal industry provides employment

At the moment, the coal industry in the UK employs 5,600 people, about 1,600 in opencast mines like Ffos-y-Fran.

But hang on – according the Government Britain’s going to become a world leader in clean technologies, like wind power and wave power – let’s face it, our windy, wet island has a lot of potential. Hey, perhaps being a world leader in clean technologies would mean you’d be able to employ some people in the renewable sector? Germany’s an interesting example – over the past 6 years, they’ve created 250,000 jobs in the environmental engineering sector – so-called ‘green collar’ jobs. Surely we could be doing the same? Even the back of the fag packet calculation I’d be able to do if I smoked suggests we’d be up, er, 244,400 jobs.

4. Oil is going to run out – but we’ve got lots of coal!

Conventional wisdom goes that while we’ve probably got limited amounts of oil left (oil companies themselves guess between 10 and 30 years until we reach maximum global production, and it’s all downhill from there) – there’s enough coal kicking around to comfortably power us well into the dim and distant future. Great!

Great, except, if we burn even a small percentage of that coal, we will quickly push the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere up to levels best described as ‘very dangerous’, trigger climate feedbacks like ice sheets melting which will further accelerate the cooking of the planet, raise the average temperature of the planet by 4, 5 or 6 degrees, kill, displace or drown a good chunk of the World’s population, and there won’t be a future, or at least not one you’d much want to be around in. Next!

3. If we don’t burn coal, there’s going to be an energy gap!

If we can’t provide all the electricity that we need and demand is bigger than supply, we fall into the energy gap. The energy gap – sounds pretty bad, right? If we don’t build new coal and nuclear power stations, our hospitals will have no power, the country will be plunged into darkness, and small children will start crying.

Except, when you look at the government’s own statistics and predictions, you see the following:

  • Amount electricity generating capacity reduces by 2027 from closing old coal and nuclear power stations: 35%
  • Amount of energy Gordon Brown has said we will generate from renewable sources by 2020: 40%

So that means that according to the government, we’re 5% up, 7 years before there’s a problem! If they actually deliver on their own policies, there is no energy gap. Hmmm.

2. If we don’t use coal, China will…

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before. If we don’t dig it up in Wales, someone will dig it up in China, and then they’ll ship it here, and that’ll be even worse for the environment!

It’s a funny argument. It’s kind of like saying: Let’s employ children in factories in Britain – because, let’s face it, if we don’t, they will in Malaysia, and then we’ll still have to ship those trainers all the way to the UK, and think of the carbon emissions!

The problem is this. We can’t afford to keep burning coal as a planet – that means us, the Estonians, the Cubans, the Chinese. Climate change is a global problem, and burning the most polluting fossil fuel anywhere will make it worse.

Gordon Brown is fond of talking about the UK becoming a “world leader” on climate issues. The way to become a world leader is to act like one – phasing out fossil fuels, plowing investment into renewable technologies like wind and wave power (creating a load of jobs and energy security in the process), and generally getting our act together. Otherwise, why should the likes of China listen to us? In fact, if we weren’t so obsessed about what an awful environmental record China has, we might have noticed that in the past year, China installed more renewable energy capacity than the UK has ever installed!

1. Carbon capture and storage will save us.

Ah, Carbon Capture and Storage. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Well, not quite. In fact, Carbon Capture and Storage didn’t even make it to the wedding, she’s about eighty thousand miles away, it’s going to take her about twenty years to get here if she ever does, and if she ever does, she’ll forget her lines, trip over her dress, eat all the cake, throw up on the dancefloor and generally be completely useless. Worst of all, she’s got no interest in men whatsoever, because she’s been chatted up by the likes of Gordon Brown and John Hutton, and let’s face it, a girl can do better.

So, is that the best the coal cheerleaders can do?

Related posts

Posted on 10 April '08 by chrisp, under Popular.

27 Comments

#1 Richard Hamilton 10.04.08 // 12:33

Dear CoalHolers,
Firstly, incredable respect for all your energy and action on this ‘burning’ issue, Setting a great example for the rest of us.

However, I do feel that in this statement I do not completely agree with your Carbon Capture and Storage section. Yes, As a technology it’s far away and it is irresonspable to suggest that it can solve our current situation problem. BUT we need to engage with these technologies and give reasons why we disagree with them and the way they have been promoted.

Other than that, you guys are an inspiration.

Richard Hamilton

[Respond]

#2 admin 10.04.08 // 13:59

Richard –

We quite agree with you. But you’ve got to let us have fun now and again…

More, and more detail, on carbon capture and storage is upcoming.

[Respond]

#3 Richard Hamilton 13.04.08 // 09:32

Yep, I’ll let you off, apologies for the awful grammar/spelling. Yikes.

[Respond]

#4 Gordon Brown 16.04.08 // 10:06

Well done you lot! Until I get this V-chip implant out of my brain and am no longer being remotely controlled by the forces of darkness, I am afraid that there is very little I can do as your Prime Minister to stop us sliding into the climate abyss – it is essential that good folks like yourselves get up and take action on this burning issue, otherwise we will all dance along to the same old tune, straight over the cliff like the rats we are…..

[Respond]

#5 Ailish 26.06.08 // 18:53

4. Oil is going to run out – but we’ve got lots of coal!

Isn’t that what people said about all fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution and about oil until recently?

[Respond]

Reply: Christian Willmington July 9th, 2008 // 9:14 am

but if we use just coal surely coal will be usedup more faster and we’ll soon run out of coal.

[Respond]

#6 Old King Coal 15.07.08 // 16:39

Why do groups like yours always show Cooling Towers in your pictures? All that is escaping to the atmosphere is steam! Or is it to make the picture more dramatic? Long live coal.

[Respond]

Reply: admin July 16th, 2008 // 8:26 am

Well, cooling towers do look dramatic. But you will see that there are chimneys in the pic as well, pumping out a variety of noxious substances – and it would be odd if there weren’t!

Things are probably better than they were – tougher environmental standards mean plants have to be cleaner these days. But there hasn’t been an effort to address carbon dioxide emissions – and we know it’s those that are cooking the planet. As far as CO2 is concerned, coal is as dirty as ever.

‘Long live coal’ seems like a weird thing to say – should we really be that attached to a technology? Surely if we can meet our power needs with investment in clean renewables and energy efficiency that’s a more elegant solution? Certainly, it would be a more efficient one – those cooling towers you’re pointing to represent a load of wasted heat energy – around 50% of the energy in the coal in the first place!

Long live humanity, I say – and that means ditching inefficient, polluting old coal.

[Respond]

#7 King Coal 31.07.08 // 18:05

The ONLY option to clean coal is Nuclear, that’s why I say long live coal. Their will never be enough wind power or even wind to keep this country supplied at peak demand. Gas will be gone in 25-27 years, so for me it’s either Clean Coal or the lights go out, their really is no choice at the moment. The Power companies across Europe have cleaned up their act, there is more to do ,I agree, but they are working on it and only by working with them can you make changes. Climate Camp should not be trying to disrupt a coal fired station. even if they did succeed in shutting one down for a day or so, they will only bring an oil fired one on instead, to replace it=more pollution! If Nuclear is the choice we are ALL doomed.

Sorry if this is a rant! was not meant to be.

[Respond]

#8 admin 01.08.08 // 08:50

From today’s (1st August 2008) Poyry report on UK Renewables targets:

[Our] report considered six scenarios for meeting Britain’s commitments to deliver on the binding EU renewable energy commitments for 2020, and for future electricity demand (drawing on both EU and UK targets for energy efficiency), and assessed whether any additional capacity from conventional sources [i.e. big power plants] would be needed to secure the UK’s electricity needs. It concluded that there would be no role for such plants, even taking into account the very few days when there is little or no wind. These scenarios represent a radical shift away from the ‘business as usual’ pathway (under which new power stations may indeed be needed). But such a radical shift is precisely what is required by the Government’s stated ambitions on renewables and energy efficiency.

So, according to the government, who are hardly the progressive renewable energy enthusiasts we’d like them to be, we don’t need big new power stations.

As for ‘clean coal’, it’s a nice idea, but that’s all it is! It doesn’t work on any large scale and certainly wouldn’t make new power plants clean. You might as well argue that we should be building nuclear fusion plants – according to industry it will be at least twenty years before carbon capture technology is advanced enough to start cutting emissions – if it wo0rks at all. That’s no good if we need to be cutting emissions within the next five years!

[Respond]

#9 King Coal 03.08.08 // 12:03

Ah! Yes the Poyry report. Sponsered by Poyry Energy who are (Now!) keen supporters of the renewables sector, so it’s therefore Anti-coal & biased and not worth the paper it was written on and has already been discounted.

[Respond]

#10 admin 03.08.08 // 15:14

Er, that report was written by Poyry Energy. They do seem pretty keen on renewables. (They’re saying that if we get into renewables and energy efficiency we don’t need big new power plants.)

On the other hand, they also seem pretty keen on coal – here for example they’re talking about how happy they are to get an engineering contract at a coal-fired power plant in Indonesia.

Anti-coal, biased and already discounted? Interesting, but also inaccurate. You’re going to have to do better than that!

[Respond]

#11 King Coal 03.08.08 // 21:57

Inaccurate?? I know for a fact, but you will have to wait and see.
They are happy to get an engineering contract in Indonesia because quite simply they will not get any opposition over there, while they would here, so they cut thier cloth accordingly = coal in the East and renewables in the West, clever but the report has been canned.

The chinese are bringing on 1 new coal fired station on line a month for the next 3 years(without even running F.G.D -Too expensive for them to run!) they also have no opposition, but the UK wants to bring in 2-3 (with FGD-Scrubs and CC) of them and out come the tree huggers!

[Respond]

#12 paul 04.08.08 // 18:43

ever consider how much taxpayers money your consuming,police,secruruty,cleaning up after you.
if your that concerned why not get a large hamster wheel and generate your own electricity instead of wasting police time and resources

[Respond]

#13 eve 11.09.08 // 16:07

hmmm, think how much police time anti-apartheid campaigners wasted in South Africa, bringing apartheid to an end. And how much police time the suffragettes wasted getting women the vote. I’m quite glad they did… aren’t you?
I’d also be glad if millions of deaths – which climate change will cause if we go on with “business as usual” – could be prevented. Wouldn’t you??

[Respond]

#14 King Coal 17.09.08 // 20:33

Took you over a month to reply!…….is your pc run by solar or wind power? Bit like the press centre your lot had at Kingsnorth! That didnt work either it had……… No power! how funny is that!

[Respond]

Reply: admin September 18th, 2008 // 9:18 am

Um, some things aren’t really worth replying to… Particularly on the internet. For instance: daft arguments about renewables!

Common sense tells us that renewables will play a bigger role in our future energy mix – whether you can run a press centre when the police have confiscated your wind turbine masts is neither here nor there…

My PC is run by a lithium-ion battery, charged by electricity from Ecotricity.

[Respond]

#15 2befrank 23.09.08 // 08:32

Re: your pc being charged by Ecotricity. Do Ecotricity run a cable from its Windfarm direct to your house? or do you get your electricity from the grid like most people?

[Respond]

Reply: admin September 24th, 2008 // 10:19 am

Through the grid, of course! And that’s a very good point you’re making – the grid is the way forward!

At the moment, the best (and easiest) option, if you want to lower the impact of the power you use, is to sign up for a green electricity supplier, because a higher proportion of the electricity they supply comes from renewables. The supplier I use generates 30% of their power from renewables they’ve installed, and puts a significant amount of investment each year into building more renewable capacity.

But clearly, it’s not a straight switch. Because of the terrible lack of renewable power capacity in the UK (we are second-worst in Europe, beating only Malta…) they buy the rest of their electricity on the market, which obviously includes that generates from coal, gas, nuclear, etc.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to expect everyone to install their own wind turbine. Renewables work much better on a larger scale, anyway. In particular, a national grid system is great because it lets you balance supply and demand across the whole country – it’s much more efficient to power the grid renewably and let everyone tap into that, than everyone having their own wind turbine.

That’s why we need the big policy changes from Government to shift to a grid which is powered by renewables. It’s clearly technically possible to make more progress than we have already – we wouldn’t be second-worst in Europe if it wasn’t.

That’s why we spend our time agitating for change, rather than just putting up our own personal wind turbine…

[Respond]

#16 OhNo! 25.09.08 // 22:32

Well done to all you Greenies out there. We are turning away from coal and the goverment are going to allow the French to build more Nukes! Yippee the planet will cool down while we are blown away in a nuclear disaster! Still at least the chinese will survive in there coal fired country!

[Respond]

#17 G.Ball 16.10.08 // 05:53

For over 3 years we have been fighting in our area to stop an opencast extension. We have successfully fought two applications by the company, been to Parliament and worked alongside Doctors and politicians.The two councils involves refused overwhelmingly the last application.But the company, worth billions, keep coming back with slightly different planning applications. They have now gone to appeal at the Welsh Assembly.We are having a public enquiry in February 2009. The feelings of despair, stress and worry that all this causes to the local campaigners is incredible. They hope to wear us down!!
All the arguments for coal fall short when you see the destruction, desecration and encroachment of opencast mining on the countryside, its amenities and the local communities, as well as its effect on health and well being.

[Respond]

#18 Anonymous 16.10.08 // 11:26

Their is one and only one option if you dont use coal, and that is Nuclear. Please forget the idea that Wind & Solar power are the answer, they are not. you would need to place windmills everywhere and pray for the wind everyday for it to have even half a chance. Also the noise from these things drives you round the bend. They also kill thousands and thousands of birds each year.

If we do go for Nuclear the results will be horrific on a environmental scale and can you imagine the carnage that would follow if a terrorist organisation destroyed one! Even with Nuclear stations they are very inflexible when they are on load they stay on load, so you would still need coal/oil/gas fired stations to take up the fluctuations in the grid as demand rises/falls on an hourly basis

I understand the reasons against coal but until something new comes up it really is all we have.

Sorry about spelling….must try harder!

[Respond]

#19 G.Ball 17.10.08 // 17:14

France has already got nuclear plants just across the channel. If they are attacked then we suffer also. That is not an argument to rip up hectares of beautiful countryside and destroy peoples lives for decades to come all in the name of a polluting fuel that could be replaced if there were enough investment in renewable technologies such as solar and tidal.
If coal must be won, then it must be from underground methods and not by opencast, which is not clean in its extraction methods and causes unessessary stress and depression on the local communities.

[Respond]

#20 JJ 11.11.08 // 20:15

It’s not really the 5 best arguments for coal that I would use… Infact, there are only 2 real arguments for coal that I think carry any weight.

1. The lack of any other technology to fill the gap.
What do we build instead? Gas? At the moment we need as much of that as we can for heating our homes rather than generating electricity – the whole industry has rather gone off gas in the last few years since the price started fluctuating wildly. Nuclear? I’m not sure that the green movement sees nuclear as any better than coal at the moment. So that leaves us with renewables. I’m not sure anyone in the green movement appreciate the challenges presented by renewable energy…

To replace just Kingsnorth with renewable power, you would have to build 400 wind turbines each with a diameter bigger than the london eye. Oh and they would only be the equivalent of Kingsnorth when operating at their peak power output (which, for anyone interested is just 5% of the time), the rest of the time they would produce much, much less.

Secondly, who would build all these turbines? There are only a handful of manufacturers of large wind turbines, and they are all booked out with orders for the next 4-5 years. Turbines on this size are not exactly something you can knock up in the shed. The blades especially are precision pieces of engineering built by very skilled people using very expensive, custom built machines. It’s not like Gordon Brown can snap his fingers and suddenly 100 times the number of skilled engineers and technicians will leap out of thin air and get to work. We have an enormous, gaping skills gap that is one of the major obstacles to building more renewable energy.

Thirdly, where on earth will all these turbines be built? And by who (lack of skills again)? You can’t just erect a wind turbine anywhere. Good sites are few and far between (especially once you go offshore), and that’s without even getting into the madness of planning permits.

Fourthly, how will they be moved to site? You’re talking about blades over 60m long here – you can’t exactly throw them in the back of a van.

Fifthly, who will operate and maintain them (lack of skills again)?

Sixthly, what do we do for the 95% of the time that they are operating at less than peak output? We don’t have a way of storing lots of energy, and we’re not going to have a way any time soon.

Seventhly (and finally), who pays for the massive changes in infrastructure/manufacturing capacity as well as the turbines themselves required to maker this happen before a new coal power station could be built? I’ll tell you – us. Whether it’s through the electricity bill or income tax, the population will fund it. So who wants to go tell the little old lady at the end of the street that she won’t be able to heat her house this winter cause her fuel bills have risen 1000% to pay for all this new renewable energy?

2. The potential for carbon capture and storage.
A lot of rubbish is talked about this technology, but I studied in great detail at university, so here are some facts:

The basic process of capturing CO2 on a very large scale has been around since the 1960s as it is used in the production of ammonia, to remove CO2 from the ammonia gas mixture. The basic process of burying CO2 on a very large scale has been around for 10~15 years, as Statoil have been using it to enhance their oil extraction in the North Sea. There is nothing new about the technology.

The questions that are currently being asked are ‘exactly how much will it cost?’ ‘Who could build it?’ and ‘how much of the CO2 should we try and capture?’ It will be ready way before 2050. It will be ready in time for the government’s CCS demonstration plant to be built in 2014ish.

But on to my point about the potential. Like it or not, ANY cuts we make will be dwarfed by new developments in the developing world. CCS is the technology with the greatest potential to reduce CO2 emissions around the world in the near future. All those coal fired power stations in China? They’ll still be generating in 50 years time and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, unless we can help them to capture and sequester those emissions. That would make an impact to global CO2 emissions bigger than you could shake a ethically sourced stick at.

So anyway, rant over. If people are interested, *quickly checks over shoulder to make sure nobody can see* I work for E.ON as designer of renewable and sustainable energy schemes.

[Respond]

#21 King Coal 07.03.09 // 21:00

Notice you have not answered and removed the post Re your Holiday in the Caribean…would you like to jusify both the removal of it and why you felt the need to fly across the world on Holiday….what about your carbon footprint?

[Respond]

#22 chrisp 09.03.09 // 13:19

Yo yo yo,

Funnily enough, the tweet on our twitter feed about not blogging for a while because we’d been in the Caribbean was a… wait for it… JOKE! (And as far as I can see, that tweet is still visible.) Let no man say I don’t have a highly developed sense of humour.

I don’t actually fly – although that’s not really relevant to whether my arguments about coal being a climate disaster are valid or not. The irony of someone who is arguing for coal power challening us on our carbon footprint is apparently lost on you.

On not replying… you *may* have noticed that the site hasn’t updated much recently. That’s cos we’re all well busy doing other things. However, I would expect normal service to resume some time in the near future. Until then, you’re just gonna have to wait!

(What I’m trying to say is the reason for the delay is not because we’ve been struck dumb the the ‘quality’ of the ‘arguments’ the pro-coalers have been dropping in here.)

I was impressed with the thoughtfulness of JJ’s contribution though, (although I think JJ is mostly wrong about renewables) and will get back to it when I have a moment, so thanks for the prod!

Chrisp

[Respond]

#23 King Coal 10.03.09 // 09:55

Joking!……yes….. of course you was!

[Respond]