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."

Comments

FTFY

[stewsters]

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.

Re:FTFY

[Salgak1]

OF course, it ALSO means they are prevented from developing a modern economy and advancing the their production structure to no longer BEING a poor, underdeveloped nation. That doesn't seem to be a consideration.

No matter, we'll just keep using them for manually recycling electronic refuse, dumping toxins, etc. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. . .

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to the mind of a liberal. They want to help people, but they don't want people to help people be self sufficient because then they wouldn't need help.

Re:FTFY

[mrchaotica]

On the contrary, it means they can jump straight to clean/renewable energy, just like the jumped straight to cellphones while skipping over all the wired infrastructure.

Re:FTFY

[voss]

"Officials also left open the possibility of financing coal plants that meet strict emissions standards. In the United States, the E.P.A.’s new rules require that any new coal plant emit no more than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt-hour, just slightly more than a natural gas power plant. The new Treasury rules would permit financing of a new coal plant abroad that also meets those standards."

In other words all those people yelling about "clean coal" need to put up or shut up.

Re:FTFY

[wytcld]

Why would the U.S. want to finance potential competitors?

Because they're also potential customers - for electrical and generating equipment to start with (most of these loans are for equipment they buy from us), and for all sorts of other goods once their wealth increases.

Re:FTFY

[GameboyRMH]

Coal is by far cheapest and most economical however, and modern coal doesn't even pollute. Modern coal burning process in new power plants alone removes most of the nasties like NOx and SO2 emissions and modern filters can eliminate particle exhaust by turning it into ash which can be kept out of atmosphere.

Yeah that ash collects in a huge ever-growing toxic lake. Thus solving the problem once and for all!

Just make sure that if any dams hold it in, you don't live in the floodplain.

Then there's the unholy amount of CO2 these things pump out, and the huge amount of mining needed on an ongoing basis to feed the coal plant...minor problems right?

Re:FTFY

[517714]

What you cite is a fact, but you take it very much out of context. Wind Installations have been cheaper in the US, because they have been located where the wind blows constantly, this isn't the case for Africa and much of the developing world. You cannot take that data and generalize it to other countries, or other places in the US. In some locations wind will provide even greater benefits, and in others it will not. Also, and importantly, these costs are based on having an reliable base power generating grid. Wind can be extremely expensive when it is the base supplier since storage is required to provide power when the wind isn't blowing. Wind cannot provide more than a small fraction of the total power except in a few places on earth assuming having power 24/7 is part of the equation.

Re:FTFY

[Bengie]

Not quite, but very close. Nuclear power plants consume about 8 tons of Uranium per GW/year, Coal power produces about 5 tons of uranium per GW/year. But once you include the 12 tons of thorium produced, that's another 500MW of power.

So, yes, a 1GW coal power plant will have enough radioactive waste to generate another 1.1GW of power. Not only that, those nuclear power plants would consume a large portion of the radioactivity by converting it into power. So the total output of radioactive waste of a coal power plant is more than that of a nuclear power plant. Now add in CO2, mercury, sulfur, and lots of other nasty stuff. Coal is horrible.

Carbon is carbon

[LWATCDR]

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.

Why would they fund it in the first place?

[Gothmolly]

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?

So what?

[gravis777]

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?