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

[Maury Markowitz]

"short end of the stick from every policy ever"

Exactly.

And given that the plants in question are almost always crappy ones, I'm not very happy seeing our money go to a short-term solution that will hurt the health of the local residents for decades.

Re:FTFY

[betterunixthanunix]

Why does a country need coal to become industrialized? This comes to mind:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/kamwamba-windmill/

Obvious recycling alternators from old cars is not a solution that scales well enough to industrialize a nation, but at the same time this was being done by a teenager with only rudimentary knowledge of engineering.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, because as we all know the only existing type of power plant is coal. There are no power plants running on oil or gas. There are no nuclear power plants. There's no hydropower. There's no wind or solar energy. There's no geothermal energy. There's absolutely nothing but coal.

Re:FTFY

[wytcld]

Coal isn't the smartest tech to develop in the truly undeveloped areas anyway. Cost per kilowatt calculations in the first world assume that a high-voltage grid is already in place. Even with a high-voltage grid in place, solar and wind are close to parity with coal in many parts of the first world now. Lacking the high-voltage distribution, localized solar and wind - and biomass in some places - are overall at the advantage, because they can be used closer to where they're generated. Nobody puts a small coal-powered generator in their backyard, or next to their factory or hospital. On the other hand I have friends with solar in their backyard, and they live normal American lives with it, firing up gas generators only a few dark winter days a year. Most of the third world doesn't have dark winter days.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now 22, Kamkwamba wants to build windmills across Malawi and perhaps beyond. Next summer he also plans to construct a drilling machine to bore 40-meter holes for water and pumps. His aim is to help Africans become self-sufficient and resolve their problems without reliance on foreign aid."

Where is his nobel peace prize? Seriously this is the kind of thing Africa just needs a few hundred more of, since in the history of "financial aid" no nation has ever scraped out of poverty by getting deep into debt (don't try to use Indonesia as an example).

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

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course, biomass is something to get away from long term, due to CO2 output

Biomass has zero net CO2 output. The plants that provide the biomass suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, then you burn it to put the same CO2 back into the atmosphere...

Re:FTFY

[TheCarp]

Except they mostly already shut-up. While they were yelling "clean coal" the same way Microsoft was yelling "GUI Sucks", while implementing Windows.

Lets not forget that these regulations didn't come about...UNTIL there were ALREADY NO PLANS to build another coal plant, and no expectation that anyone in the US would even be trying to build one, in the next 30 years!

My bet is they made this announcement because it was an easy decision to make to cut off something that's hardly being used. I am sure it will be every bit as effective as.... me sacrificing the hub caps off my car to end world hunger.

Re:FTFY

[microbox]

Coal is by far cheapest and most economical however,

This is simply not true. Not only is it untrue, but solar/wind will be much cheaper than coal in just a few years. The technology is really moving that fast.

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

[Luckyo]

What you have is a list based on current price.

What you do not understand is that price is but one factor of actual cost. Power is baseline necessity. As a result, there are several factors to it which are not factored into monetary cost, such as reliability, availability and functionality. Costs merely relay the end user costs after local governing body absorbs all those things.

As for wind and solar being cheaper than coal, there are two options. You are either ignorant or stupid. We need massive breakthroughs in:

1. Material sciences and technologies.
2. Electrical grid and transformer station technology.

For it to be anywhere close to coal. We have already picked all the low, and even medium high fruit in these. What we have left is extremely complex stuff that takes decades to just progress in a significant fashion.

It's highly unlikely that we'll have any kind of wind and solar parity with coal before we have functional nuclear fusion plants.

Re:FTFY

[Silentknyght]

...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..

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's totally wrong. It sounds like some sound byte, smacks of broad generalizations and seriously lacks technical understanding. Reduction of NOx and SO2, as well as particulate matter, is all technically possible, but to suggest it's "clean" is totally incorrect. Also, there is no "turning particle exhaust to ash", as combustion particulate is already (either fly or bottom) ash, except where it's "consensable" particulate matter (after it's already left the stack). This latter version is also usually the smallest particulate and therefore most injurious to human health & the environment.

The US EPA keeps records on control technology and related emissions for most coal units permitted in the US: http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/

A quick search shows one unit, with proposed industry-accepted best available control for NOx, emitting (after control) up to 1,100 lbs of NOx per hour. A second unit may emit NOx up to 1,800 lbs/hr. The same search shows emissions potentials of 30-70+ lbs/hr, and that's after industry-best controls at 99.9%; the higher number is for the smaller, more injurious particulate, as it's obviously more difficult to capture. Moreover, NOX and SO2 are among the pre-cursors to the formation of aforementioned smallest particulate matter (see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_web_docket.nsf/Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/CD5F1D01895E1B6585257719006E71BC/$File/Exhibit%2027%20Damberg...3.11.pdf [PDF Warning]).

Re:FTFY

[cayenne8]

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.

Actually, since they would likely work for almost nothing, they'd be competitors for manufacturing, which we can barely do any more as it is.

My larger question is...with our money woes in the US, wtf are we sending money ANYWHERE outside our borders rather than using it to help ourselves of debt, and help our own poor people internally?

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.

Re:FTFY

[Salgak1]

For that matter, one of the major sources of Thorium is coal fly-ash. And I'm sure you've heard the buzz on Thorium Reactors. . . .

Re:FTFY

[lgw]

they'd be competitors for manufacturing, which we can barely do any more as it is.

America's manufacturing capacity is larger than it's ever been - there has never been a decade in which it has fallen. Don't confuse the lack of manufacturing jobs with the lack of manufacturing capacity - automation and technology keep happening.

My larger question is...with our money woes in the US, wtf are we sending money ANYWHERE outside our borders rather than using it to help ourselves of debt, and help our own poor people internally?

What are you smoking? All money is sent to supporters of politicians, internal or external. Old people (some of whom are poor) get the lion's share, of course, but the more poor people dependent on government checks we can create, the better for politicians.

Re:FTFY

[Luckyo]

Disclosure: I have direct family members working in large companies that build various types of power plants.

There is a boom of coal building going in Europe, that is fueled by Energywiende. The so called "energy transition", world's premiere event that is supposed to showcase how wind is functional as base power... is causing the biggest coal plant build up of the century.

It's that inconvenient truth that is rarely mentioned in references that strongly advocate transition. Wind isn't capable of functioning as base power in the first place, even with investments of astronomical proportions that have driven enormous amount of people in Germany into "energy poverty".

Here are some more inconvenient facts:
1. We do not have material science that could create sustainable generators, gears and other mechanics necessary for sustainable wind generator. As of writing this, best we can do is about 12 years before complete power plant rehaul. Coal plants have an average lifetime of 40-60 years.
2. We do not have technology necessary to create functional grid that can support microgeneration on national scale.

Facts can be seen in Germany, which believed the claims of orignal poster, and is now paying the massive bill, will being the biggest builder of coal power in Europe. These are inconvenient and often only mentioned among engineers and builders. After all, who wants to tell their constituents that they burned through untold billoins of Euros, driven hundreds of thousands of people into poverty with insane power prices, and all they can show for it is more and more coal plants that are actually doing the work.

Because that is the reality. Future is in fusion, and transitional power will be coal, nuclear, oil/gas/biomass burners and hydro/geothermal where geographically available. Wind will remain a footnote, that is there to appease the believers, nothing else, nothing more, until we have a breakthrough in science both in terms of power grid technlology and mechanics to make both microgeneration and durability of turbines sufficient.

And that is about as far away as fusion, which is also mainly limited by material science limitations at the moment.

As a result, I conclude that beyond wishful mass-poverty inducing thinking, sustainable wind power is unlikely to ever provide functional transitional power until fusion comes along.

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.

Re:Carbon is carbon

[SirGarlon]

Agreed, developing countries should go straight to nuclear power. Oh, wait a minute, that's not acceptable to the US either...

Re:Carbon is carbon

[TWiTfan]

"No, poor countries should just use their vast wealth and educated populace to build solar panel factories," says my dumbass hippie brother.

Re:Carbon is carbon

[geekoid]

Solar doesn't need vast wealth, or a lot of education.
It doesn't need to be rolled out for gigawatt demand, so you can do one village at a time, and wiring and maintenance is simple enough that it can be taught in a couple of weeks.
With the added bonus that it will create a need for trades people on a per village basis.

Stop thinking in centralized creation for millions of people. The problem with solar in the US is that it's not good enough to give us the amount of energy we use in a centralized fashion.

In a non-industrialized society, It gives them more then the currently use, so for them its a gain.

Re: Carbon is carbon

[TheCarp]

I loved this idea so much I had to find it, took one google image search:
http://twentytwowords.com/2011/06/21/cavemen-and-the-problem-with-living-organically/

Of course there is a great comment by "Jeff" if you scroll down a bit on that page:

So as an evolutionary biologist I guess Iâ(TM)m not much fun to point out that skeletal evidence suggests that most hunter-gatherers before the invention of agriculture actually lived well into their 60âs and 70âs if they made it past child-hood. Unfortunately hunting and gathering can only support small populations and they were displaced by populations that engaged in agriculture. Ag allows for large populations on small amounts of land because of intensification of resource extraction. This led to the rise of cities (and more influentially armies) since not every member of the society had to produce their own food. This also led to extremely poor sanitary conditions and the beginning of the first âcrowdâ(TM) diseases like influenza and syphilis. These types of societies came to dominate human territories and it is these arrangements we associate with ânot living past 30â. Ok Iâ(TM)m done, sorry.

So save that comic for the next time you want to blow an evolutionary biologists top off :)

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?

Re:Why would they fund it in the first place?

[afidel]

Total US foreign aid is under 1% of the federal budget, if you remove the military aid that's largely corporate welfare it's quite literally a rounding error in the scope of the federal budget. You can buy a lot of power plants for the cost of one Afghanistan or Vietnam.

Re:Why would they fund it in the first place?

[Sockatume]

It's financing, not funding. The US government, via the World Bank, provides a loan at an attractive interest rate to a foreign nation for specific projects, and makes a small return on the interest charged.

Re:Why would they fund it in the first place?

[TWiTfan]

It still fails to answer a fundamental question of why a country that can't even pay its own bills, and sinks deeper in debt every day should be spending ANY money on foreign aid. Do you really think anyone is going to be giving the U.S. foreign aid when *they* go bankrupt?

Re:Why would they fund it in the first place?

[LostOne]

Actually, ordinary loans from banks are exactly the same as loans from the Fed. When an ordinary commercial bank makes a loan, they are also effectively printing money digitally. By definition, with a reserve ratio of less than 100% and outstanding loans more than the total assets on reserve, money must have been created to make those loans. In short, "borrowing" from a commercial bank (loan, credit card, line of credit) is also not "real borrowing". Take a look at http://www.positivemoney.org/ for one explanation of why that is the case (yes, that is a UK based site, but the central bank system is the same in the UK). There are plenty of others out there.

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?

The policy is not bad for the poor.

[microbox]

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.