Shot in the foot

I've just found out that a major energy company has decided not to replace their ageing coal power station - rather their going to extend it's life, for the next 20 years.

The parts have already been ordered, it's guarenteed to happen.

This is bad news. Whilst it's a cheaper alternative (prices for a new coal fired power station start at a little over a billion, whilst this is just over a third of that) it's less efficient.
Todays (20th November 2008) best available technology means CO2 emissions of around 700g/KWh, around 150g/KWh less than the UK fleet average.
The relevant power station could have been replaced with this.

Two obvious villans spring to mind:
1) The cost / credit crunch. The CEO of Eon explained at the weekend just what pressures his company is under - which suggests that this company will also be under these pressures.
2) The 'green' crusaiders. They won't accept this critascicm, but looking at what people have done to Eon where they've tried to replace an old power station [Kingsnorth] with one fitted with best available technology [Kingsnorth], and after seeing the backlash they've encountered for trying to reduce their CO2 emissions, you can't blame this company for not putting their staff through the grief.

This process doesn't need planning permission, section 6 approval or to be in the public eye. It means the power station isn't new, so doesn't need to comply with 500g/KWh emission limits.

It's a work around, and I blame it 50:50, bankers, 'green' groups.