End of efficient coal in the UK

The guardian is reporting today that the government has again deferred the decision on whether or not to permit new coal fired power stations.

This may mean the decision is getting too close to the next election, and won't happen until the next government - the last possible date for an election being the 3rd June 2010.

It takes three years to build a coal fired power station, and it is required by around 2012-15 (although I know there is a lot of gas fired capacity being built).

Faced with this I wouldn't now expect any new coal fired power stations to be built in the UK - the government has quashed them.

This means that the old ones will be kept running, almost at any cost - if they can't be replaced the energy companies will do what E.on is doing at Ratcliffe on Soar, and life extend their plants.
These emit around 20% more CO2 because of the old technology that they are using.

All the government is doing is increasing the price of our electricity (by mandating gas), failing to test CCS (so the E7 can't use it and won't reduce their emissions - meaning there is no point in us reducing ours) and failing to tackle older plant and bring them off grid.

All in all my opinion is that this policy is completely f*cked.

Brazil

According to point carbon Brazil's emissions (from fossil power stations) are due to tripple by 2017.

This worries me.

The only way out I can see is to get them to fit carbon capture and storage to their plants - which, as they recently said at the Poznan summit, they won't implement until the west has, and has proved it to be safe.

Anyone for Kingsnorth?

The world in 2050

...will be a very different place.

However different people are constantly working out what it will look like. A projection (updated last week) from PWC suggests that it won't be that bad a place, which is nice.

They conclude that the emission reductions (both for G7 and E7 nations, Russia is part of E7 for this analysis) can be met by a 2% global reduction in GDP - i.e. the global GDP would be the same in 2051 as it would otherwise had been (with no emissions reductions) in 2050.

PWC say that this can be done with "increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage and other low carbon technologies and techniques, as well as reducing deforestation".
Makes sense.

What is interesting (apart from the confirmation of CCS) is that Greenpeace UK link to this report saying that stopping climate change is affordable.

Yet they stand against nuclear and CCS.

I don't understand.