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]

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

[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

[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]).

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?

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.

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?