Coal-Fired Power Station and Environmental Problem

The latest environmental debate over coal (to be exact: it's about "a new generation of coal-fired power stations") demonstrates the baffling complexity of eco-friendly decision-making.

Most environmentalists are against the usage of coal for energy. Coal-fire produces great ammounts of geenhouse gases, and it is not a renewable source of energy. Therefore, they strongly oppose investing into coal-fired power stations, they want to close them down. Seems reasonable.

But things are not that simple. First, there are parts of the world which rely rather heavily on coal for their power production and where coal-fired power stations are extremely important source of energy and increasingly so.

UK energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, says that "...world demand for coal is projected to rise by 70% by 2030, an average annual rate of 2.2%, and the bulk of the rise will come from India and China." This is indeed worrying. Wicks concludes that the only solution for the west (he has first Britain, and then Europe in mind) is to develop a technology of "carbon capture and storage" (CCS), by which it is hoped 90% of greenhouse gases from coal-fired powerstations will be cut.

He puts it this way: ""But the real gain here, the real challenge - and if we do not meet the challenge, all is lost on global warming, the stakes are that high - is to bring on clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage."

He criticises environmentalists for being unrealistic. Giving up on coal now and closing down coal-fired power stations in Britain and Europe seems useless - it is completely idealistic to think that China and India will simply follow when these countries are so dependant on coal. Actually, if Wicks is right, it is counter productive: only Europe is in position to develop the CCS technology which could make coal usage drastically cleaner. If we leave this, the ecological disaster is sure on its way.

So, who is right? Enviromnentalists, who demand radical action and abandonment of coal usage? Or the energy minister? The decisions how to tackle this issue are not simple and energy minister's arguments strike me as more balanced in this issue, and actually eco-friendly in the long run as well. Please comment, especially if you disagree - I want to hear arguments for the contrary.