Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Will Not Provide Financing For New International Coal-Fired Power Plants
Dorianny writes "The Treasury Department declared it would no longer support any new coal-fired power plants around the world. By leading a coalition of like-minded countries including several European ones that have already announced similar intentions, they will effectively be able to block the World Bank and other international development banks from providing financing for new coal-fired plants. The policy is unlikely to amount to any real change as 75 percent of proposed coal-powered plants are in China and India, which do not rely on outside financing. It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from this policy."
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from every policy ever.
They are contributing least to global emissions, lets keep it that way.
The poorest most underdeveloped countries will increase their carbon outputs the most unless they skip coal. Even if you buy into letting them do it today you are just setting them up to have replace that infrastructure later. If those countries have coal reserves the let them sell them to nations that already coal plants and use the money to buy cleaner technologies.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Why would the US Treasury fund any power plants, anywhere? No wonder the US government and budget is in such a mess. WTF are these people doing?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's not like getting a loan is a right, and that's what this essentially is. The US and EU have decided they won't lend money to build new coal power plants. Seems like a reasonable enough policy, and one that's fully within their rights as the people lending the money in the first place.
Seriously, who cares about these poor, underdeveloped countries and why should we be helping them in any way? They are poor because of their own incompetence, corruption, and lawlessness.
The US and rich countries should not be in the business of handouts to these impoverished countries. Let them solve their own problems.
They were only going to spend the money on weapons as usual!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
If they contribute the least to global emissions now, their development should take the form where they remain contributing little to global emissions. Hopefully more advanced nations will be able to reduce their dependency on coal in the meantime.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The UN is all about keeping the poor under the thumb of the rich nations. WE cant let the poor get all uppity and become rich, it would throw off the balance so carefully crafted over the centuries...
china is poor and undeveloped? those communists should spread their wealth to us k thx
That could very well constitute "real change."
No surprise. It is consistent with the President's previously expressed views.
Coal-state lawmakers seek to block EPA power plant rules
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They are the most profitable customers to help keep the price of coal from collapsing. All the demand from the little countries just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense to support them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Mining coal is incredibly deadly. It kills more people - and in painful, slow black lung deaths than any other source of energy.
The area around coal plants become more radioactive than nuclear power plants over time - because most coal contains small amounts of thorium which gets released into the air when the coal is burned and settles in the area around the coal plant.
Burning coal is the main reason why pregnant women can't eat most fish. It is also why a diet of just fish is bad for you rather than being the healthiest diet. Why? Because it releases tons of mercury into the ocean.
And of course, burning coal in also a huge green house gas contributor.
There is zero reason whatsoever to create new coal burning plants. Use that same money to offer then nuclear power plants. It would cost less lives and create technical jobs as opposed to creating mining jobs.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And more in 10 other Asian countries. This is a twofer: Let's loose money by not making loans on a nearly fool proof business model and let those countries become ignore the U.S more for their new friends who will do what they want and we don't!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal.html
The Bloomberg link is broken. Here's a another, with misleading headline:
http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/chinas-power-sector-heads-towards-a-cleaner-future/
How is it "leading a coalition of like-minded countries" when the US is joining the group of countries *already doing this*?
It sounds like the power-plant builders with have the coal-burning anyway. That is what other comments seem to suggest.
The question is no longer IF there is coal-burning, but how. How is important, right? Because there are some clean-ish ways to burn it and there are some very cheap, very polluting ways to burn it. Given a 3rd world budget and engineering do you think they are going to spend the time and talent making it clean-ish, or do you think they are going to minimize short-term expenses and maximize short-term profits?
It is a drop in the bucket of our policies, according to other comments, so there is no "real" economic cost.
In conclusion this is a decision that has the superficial appearance of being green while maximizing levels of pollution for tomorrows world. Doesn't that qualify as "politics as usual"?
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from this policy
So the World Bank provides money for wind, solar and hydro-electric. The only thing this really hurts is coal miners. Yes, I feel sorry for miners who may loose jobs because of decreased demand, but if a country's economy is based on coal-mining, then they got serious issues (of course, if they are the poorest, most undeveloped nations, they have economic problems anyways, so I guess that is a circular argument).
This sounds pretty reasonable to me - the World Bank will fund power plants around the world, but they have to meet certain enviornmental standards? How does that hurt anyone?
if the US decided to NOT do something with its money it's THEIR choice and no anyone else's.
Sure, let's prevent third world countries from using the one thing they might have in relative abundance locally because then we can hook them on our high-tech, high-cost, and low return clean energy technologies.
They're just going to get the loans from Russia and China now. Thanks for nothing!
Chinese and indian power companies could and did rely on US financing before, and now they won't be able to. New restrictions mean they will be forced to get more such big-ass loans from unrestricted sources, such as local banks or even state-owned banks. This effectively reduces such country's capacity for development, but in the long run might even be beneficial as interests circulating internally. Only time can tell.
Since scrubbers cost more than simpler systems, this helps ensure those who do build coal plants don't build clean ones.
Nice gesture....
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Eeeexcellent, muttered China, as they prepared another foreign aid package.
Actually, the total cost of a coal power-plant is in the ballpark of wind energy as of 2013. That's the price _excluding_ the cost of carbon pollution. The price of coal will probably go up in the future, and wind will definitely continue to decrease in price. So it's really not such a big deal for the communities using the electricity. The policy will make it harder for the fossil-fuel lobby to get power-stations built that will buy their products for 50 years.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The solution is large solar and wind farms tied (500MW's) tied to small battery back-up 2-5MW's, all tied to a reactive Gas generating plant.
The gas plant has time to gear up and down and is done automatically.
The batteries are there to smooth out any quick dips in production. Not lithium, because we don't want to push up the price of Lithium.
The plant operator needs to be given priority on the grid due to cleaner energy production, vs his competitors.
The grid operator should not be charging per kWhr, but just for a monthly connection for either a residential or commercial customer.
This system will keep demand for NG down, and therefore the price of NG down.
Don't forget it's crony sibling, "job creation". Politicians love to show how some tax money is being used to keep people working or local businesses expanding. Doesn't matter if it is this Luddite way of generating power, "it's about jerbs!"
The person giving the charity gets to decide how the money is used. There is nothing wrong with this.
Poorest most undeveloped countries are due to some reason places with a lot of sunlight, so invest in solar + wind instead.
Here, we see once again that anthropogenic climate change is a developed problem and the mitigation efforts for it become a developing world problem. While AGW is claimed to affect the poorest of the world the most, it turns so do the mitigation solutions.
My view is that while the World Bank and IMF loans are dubious due to their blindness and even support for local corruption, that the denial of loans on the basis of ideological reasons is just going to make it even less effective than those organizations already were.
Why would the US Treasury fund any power plants, anywhere? No wonder the US government and budget is in such a mess. WTF are these people doing?
You think they dish out foreign aid so we can all hold hands and sing kumbayah? Because Money = Influence, that's why. It allows us to influence how the votes go at the U.N., what communications passing through a nation's territory get tapped, what routes are available for U.S. military supply shipments, what policies on drugs or extradition get implemented in those countries.
If America can't look in the mirror to examine itself, we'll use a foreign example. With China's increasing wealth has come increasing expenditures on foreign aid, and that is buying them access to ports and listening outposts around the globe, and you can bet their influence will keep expanding as long as the money keeps flowing.
We live in the first world... You're starving we don't care! You're freezing it plenty warm here. We live in the first world... You can't polute except when you take our trash. We dump our cheap grain and bankrupt your farmers. We live in the first world... And you ain't! You want a loan sell me your resources for pennies on the dollar. We live in the first world and you ain't.
The poorest? CHINA AND INDIA ARE THE POOREST? In what universe is this true? Seriously people, grow up. The Chinese boom and the Indian boom emphatically deny this claim that poverty is being penalized for use of coal.
Still, if America were serious, we would ban the mining of U.S. coal entirely. Price worldwide would rise by over 15%, ending the 'cheap' advantage. End of story.
The developed world is not obligated to help the undeveloped world. The first world can spend or not spend their money on whatever it chooses.
Here, we see once again that anthropogenic climate change is a developed problem and the mitigation efforts for it become a developing world problem.
That's a success for the developed world. The first world is solving its problems while minimizing pain to themselves. If the developing world wants less pain, they can spend their own money and power to figure something out for themselves
While AGW is claimed to affect the poorest of the world the most, it turns so do the mitigation solutions.
Again, this is a good thing. The first world are the ones paying for the loans or the mitigation, so it's their right to decide who will be affected the most by it. Also note that the first world will also be paying later as there would be less new markets and customers to expand to, but that's the first world's choice.
My view is that while the World Bank and IMF loans are dubious due to their blindness and even support for local corruption, that the denial of loans on the basis of ideological reasons is just going to make it even less effective than those organizations already were.
Dubious or not, effective or not, it's still the first world's money. There could be no money to loan at all in the first place.
The market cares nothing for your failed ideology or it's reliance on 18th Century fuel sources.
Adapt.
Or dye.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How many other contries are helping fund power plants that are international to themselves?
I'm just curious.
So why are they doing this?
www.climatedepot.com
Can't wait until the winter comes and we all freeze to death, but hell, at least the alarmists got to 'save the planet' (LOL) and keep their fraudulent 'research' jobs for life to boot...
Where they capture toxic and carbon emissions?
Also, not the way to go about it, subsidize renewables, as their share of the energy market increases, fossil fuel's will decrease.
You loan people X, they pay you back X plus interest. If the "plus interest" part is more than you could make putting your money to other uses (and the risk/reward calculus is acceptable), you make the loan. That it is international is a minor consideration - it gets factored in as an increase in the risk that you won't get paid back.
The government subsidizes loans to third world countries as a form of aid. Removal of the subsidy will not stop the loans. GE, for example, started as a manufacturer, but became a bank because they started loaning money to their customers to buy their products. The commercial loan business outgrew the manufacturing arm.
So, stopping the loans may hurt the US more than it helps, in strictly financial terms. We aren't building power plants at the rate the developing world is. If you want that business, you need to be prepared make deals that include financing.
Poor people need power far more than the rich. Minimal communications, clean water, things like that. God Damn the Environmental Movement to HELL. And also the yuppie war criminals who support it. Good for China, India, and anyone else prepared to nuke the yuppies whether figuratively or literally.
but I'm sure that the US will gladly sell you some coal to burn if you get a plant built.
Its like you read my message mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the home a bit, but instead of that, this is excellent blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
Thanks for this glorious article. One other thing is that nearly all digital cameras can come equipped with the zoom lens so that more or less of the scene to generally be included through ‘zooming’ in and out. These kind of changes in focusing length will be reflected inside the viewfinder and on huge display screen on the back of this camera.
If by "modern economy" you mean a toxic environment, then YES!
I coulda sworn you were a freeper libertarian, and not a bleeding heart liberal.
gosgog:
New technology....NUCLEAR POWER.....BUT WITHOUT URANIUM......THORIUM, SAFE, ITS FOUND ALL OVER THE WORLD AND IF IT GETS TO HOT IT WILL SHUT ITSELF DOWN. iNDIA & CHINA going that route & if the BRITS ARE SMART, THEY'LL TELL CHINA GO THAT ROUTE FOR THE NEW ONE WE PAYING YOU TO BUILD.