Environment

Carbon emissions will fall 3% due to recession, say world energy

by Babel-Fish | October 6, 2009 at 07:34 pm

105 views | 16 Recommendations | 5 comments

Well the recession has its good points...

Man-made greenhouse gas emissions will drop 3% in 2009 largely because of the worldwide financial crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today.
Three-quarters of the reduction has been the result of less industrial activity, with the rest coming from countries turning to renewable energy and nuclear power.

But the world's premier energy analysts calculated that to avoid dangerous climate change, countries around the world will have to spend $400bn a year building more than 350 new nuclear plants and 350,000 wind turbines in the next 20 years. They also estimate that by 2020, three-fifths of cars will need to use alternatives to the traditional internal combustion engine. The findings came in a special extract of the IEA's forthcoming annual world energy outlook report, published at the UN climate talks in Bangkok.

However the total deadline of changing our form of transport to clean energy seemingly to slower process in fact everything seems to be related to just a faster snail pace. Then going over to Atomic power stations when we should be looking at far more acceptable solar power sources or wind and wave power.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

PIM of SPAIN

at 02:01 on October 7th, 2009

The problem is that electricity generated from nuclear plants is the cheapest and compatible in price with conventional coal plant generation. All other forms of energy generation are at least double the cost price. Reviving the economy cheaper coal power plants won't be eliminated at all. If the CO2 has to be reduced the best approach is scrapping coal powered plants and replace them with nuclear ones. Once nuclear power is sufficient available the coal can be transformed into synthetic CO2 emission free fuel. Coal is in most of the countries in abundance available, so no need to import oil from the rogue states in the middle East. Keeping the money and creating new jobs in the national economy, providing additional impulses for quicker economic recovery. Nuclear plants are of the same investment magnitude as the coal fired plants.

jefhow22

at 02:31 on October 7th, 2009

I agree PIM. Here in New England, though, sits a few nuclear plants left to rot. Such a waste of money. In Seabrook, New Hampshire the dismantling of the nuclear power plant there makes no sense at all. In the early 70's when people where chaining themselves to the main gate in protest, The Clamshell Alliance, they thought their cause was great. Now, 40 years later, the people are screaming about the high price of oil and energy costs. It seems to have gone full circle. For some reason the people would rather see black soot coming from smoke stacks than the steam generated by this clean and efficient energy alternative.

PIM of SPAIN

at 06:23 on October 7th, 2009

Unfortunately it is the way you described jefhow. Meanwhile the newest 3rd generation nuclear plants are much safer and even cleaner, with much less waste to dispose off. In Finland the latest is under construction and will come under stream next year. It is more a matter of sound media information to bring the greens into line with other thought about this subject, than reporting the strikes they undertake, which is an encouragement for others to follow with more protests.

It are mostly the greens that drive around in clunkers with a smoke stack coming out of their car's tailpipe, but saying and doing are for them different chapters!

CyberJon (not verified)

at 00:36 on October 8th, 2009

PIM: You say: "In Finland the latest is under construction and will come under stream next year."You neglect to say that it was supposed to be finished already but is way behind and may take several years to complete if it is not abandoned. So far it is more than 50% over budget and defects and improper construction techniques are still being discovered. In fact, there is no such thing as a standardized "3rd generation" plant, Every plant built has so many defects and bad design features that the next one has to be changed and "improved" to pass safety standards.They wouldn't want to build the failed design. They would all have to be shut down together This way if they are all different , only one takes the heat and the rest are left alone. The costs are gioiing to be incredible. Even withthe cost or trqnsmiwwion . Outside that, the mining and waste costs as wekk as the great lnegths that they wuull have to go to the discise and seperate.Coal as we know it is dangerous and killing the envirinmentss and the planet we need tj It is all money, folks, As long as the Us