User:Phanly/Sandbox

This page is a sandbox for user Phanly.

It is a space to develop pages to a stage where they will meet the basic requirements of wikipedia pages and survive the scrutiny of editors.

How to do a reference. Click on edit and look at the code after this sentence.

Criticism

Prominent environmentalists including Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believe that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron". Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal extraction, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result pollutants and radionuclides. There are other forms of clean and renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydroelectric which are supported by many of the environmentalist groups and campaigns.

"Clean coal" is a marketing myth at present

"Clean coal" does not exist in any commercial coal fired power station. It is not a current technology. It is an industry's hope for the distant future. Another critical problem with the debate over "Clean coal" involves paid media advertising which tends to paint American coal usage as if the 'clean' product already exists, that the cleaning processes are already in place, and gives the impression to an uninformed consumer that their usage of coal is already 'clean'. Ads directed at online consumers via CNN and other prominent websites repeatedly list the potential economic and ecological benefits of "Clean coal" technology, but do not attempt to imply or inform consumers that the technology is forward-looking and not, to any degree, already in use.

"Clean coal" only diverts some waste streams

Critics of the planned power plants contend that there is no such thing as "clean coal" and that the plant will still release large amounts of pollutants, including mercury, into our air and water supply. This is in stark contrast to renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power, hydropower, geothermal energy, and biomass.

Mining "clean coal" still destroys the environment

Critics point out that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (none of which have and carbon capture and sequestration) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. Above-ground strip-mining has also destroyed millions of acres of natural habitats across 36 states in the last 150 years. Appalachia has been particularly decimated by this practice, which comes in the form of removing entire mountaintops so they can be ground-up to extract any coal that might be present. It is estimated that 750,000 acres (3,000 km²) to 1,000,000 acres (4,000 km²) of hardwood forest, 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of waterways and over 470 mountains and their surrounding communities, in total an area the size of Delaware, have been erased by coal strip-mining from the southeastern mountain range in the last 20 years. These practices continue today as part of the process of extracting "Clean Coal."

"Clean coal" may never work

While elements of the technology exist, generally only at pilot plant scale, there is no guarantee that the technologies will ever be integrated at commercial scale.

"Clean coal" will be too late

"Clean coal" is not expected to be available before 2020. By 2020 the IPCC says emissions should be reduced by between 25 and 40%. The latest science on Arctic Ice suggests that the IPCC has been overly conservative and in that case the upper range of cuts will be required. As "Clean coal" will not be available until after the dates specified by the IPCC it will be too late to stop dangerous climate change.

"Clean coal" will wastes energy

"Clean coal" will require 24 to 40% more coal to be burnt to produce the same amount of electricity to be fed into the grid. This will raise the cost of electricity .

Not enough storage space

There are not enough safe storage spaces to handle the volumes of CO2 to be stored over the next 50 years.

"Clean coal" storage sites are too remote from coal fired power stations

In most cases there is no conveniently located safe storage site for the volume of emissions that will need to be stored over the life of a power station. This means that expensive pipelines are needed to transport the compressed/liquefied CO2, along with all the infrastructure for cooling, compressing and pumping and detecting leaks, particularly in low lying areas as CO2 is deadly and lies invisible in hollows.

"Clean coal" is too expensive

The additional capital and recurring fuel costs will increase the price of electricity by up to 90%.

"Clean coal" subsidies are squandering our taxes

Governments in countries with large coal reserves are hypocritically subsidising "clean coal" research while talking about the need for market based solutions such as cap & trade schemes, even though the emergence of climate change is evidence of what has been called the largest market failure in history due to the coal industry externalising the costs of pollution and its impacts on people and environment. The organisations being subsidised are generally highly profitable listed companies. They are being protected from the free market and regulation of pollutants eg under the Clean Air Act (US).

"Clean coal" emissions storage leaks are likely

Storage of CO2 may lead to unexpected geological instability, contaminate groundwater supplies, and that sequestered CO2 may eventually "leak" up through the ground. There are also concerns that pumping sequestered CO2 into oil and gas wells to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground will lead to further consumption of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, thus adding to global warming.

Coal companies want taxpayers indemnity for death and disaster

Coal companies want taxpayers to bear the risks or their activities in storing any emissions that are captured. This a hidden subsidy that would have to be paid even by taxpayers who use renewable energy. The coal and CO2 storage industries ought be responsible for the cost of their own public liability insurance which is a cost of doing business.

Coal mining is dangerous to human health

The process of extracting coal has changed very little since end of the nineteenth century. Since 1900, over 104,000 miners have died in coal mines, and nearly twice as many have died from Black Lung Disease acquired from working in the mines. There are also innumerable deaths attributed to overburdened coal trucks.

They also point out that there are large amounts of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. Carbon sequestration technology has yet to be used or proven on such a large scale and that it may not be successful,

Based on the predicted combustion of 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative radioactive ash for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be: 828,632 tons of Uranium and 2,039,709 tons of Thorium. 1% of this amount escapes as fly ash.

References

____________________________

This is for Mandatory_renewable_energy_targets

Table of renewable energy and targets

Overview

Country	Current Share	Target	Year	Mandatory	Notes
World	18%
EU-25	14%	21%	2010

Selected EU Countries

Country	Current Share %	Target %	Year	Mandatory	Notes
Austria	62	78	2010
Belgium	2.8	6.0	2010
Czech Republic	4.2	8.0	2010
Denmark	26	29	2010
Finland	29	31.5	2010
France	10.9	21	2010
Germany	11.5	12.5	2010
Greece	13	20.1	2010
Hungary	4.4	3.6	2010
Ireland	10	13.2	2010
Italy	16	25	2010
Luxembourg	6.9	5.7	2010
Netherlands	8.2	9.0	2010
Poland	2.6	7.5	2010
Portugal	32	45	2010
Slovak Republic	14	31	2010
Spain	19	29.41	2010
Sweden	49	60	2010
United Kingdom	4.1	10	2010

CCS

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigate global warming by capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants and storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere Technology for large scale capture of CO₂ is already commercially available and fairly well developed. Although CO₂ has been injected into geological formations for various purposes, the long term storage of CO₂ is a relatively untried concept and as yet (2007) no large scale power plant operates with a full carbon capture and storage system. It is not expected to be available until at least 2020, if at all. It is not expected to be capable of being retrofitted to existing power stations. If ever proven it is expected to increase the cost of electricity by up to 60%. It will be unable to assist in achieving the IPCC's range of emissions cuts by developed nations of 25 to 40% by 2020 that would be required to stabilise global atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm and so is regarded by some major environment groups as a distraction from the early deployment of proven renewable energy solutions like wind power.

Wind farm table

This is a list of wind farms in Australia, with a generating capacity of more than 50 MW, which are operating, under construction, or for which planning approval has been received:

Project	State	Coordinates	Capacity MW	Status	Company	Notes
Alinta Wind Farm	WA	35.31°S 149.14°E / -35.31; 149.14	90	Operating	Alinta
Bald Hills Wind Farm			104	approved
Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm	SA		66	operating
Challicum Hills Wind Farm	Vic		52	operating
Clements Gap Wind Farm			58	Under construction
Crookwell Wind Farm	NSW		97	Under construction

• Clements Gap Wind Farm (58 MW) (under construction)

• Crookwell Wind Farm (97 MW) (under construction)

• Crows Nest Wind Farm (124 MW) (planning approved)

• Elliston Wind Farm (55 MW) (planning approved)

• Emu Downs Wind Farm (79 MW) (operating)

• Gunning Wind Farm (62 MW) (planning approved)

• Hallett Wind Farm (95 MW) (planning approved)

• Lake Bonney Wind Farm (159 MW) (operating)

• Lincoln Gap Wind Farm (124 MW) (planning approved)

• Macarthur Wind Farm (329 MW) (planning approved)

• Mount Mercer Wind Farm (131 MW) (planning approved)

• Mount Millar Wind Farm (70 MW) (operating)

• Portland Wind Project (195 MW) (under construction)

• Shea Oak Flat Wind Farm (59 MW) (planning approved)

• Snowtown Wind Farm (170 MW) (under construction)

• Taralga Wind Farm (105 MW) (planning approved)

• Wattle Point Wind Farm (91 MW) (operating)

• Waubra Wind Farm (192 MW) (under construction)

• Woolnorth Wind Farm (140 MW) (operating)

Economic opinion on global warming mitigation This article is a summary of the economic opinion on climate change mitigation based on major published reports sponsored by government or universities or statements by national or international associations of economists. It does not include opinions of individual economists. It is a similar approach to that of the article Scientific opinion on global warming

Reports concluding mitigation is cheaper than adaptation

Stern Report

Stern Review Stern’s report suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. He states, "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century." In June 2008 Stern increased the estimate to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.

Garnaut Climate Change Review

The Garnaut report was released on September 30, 2008. The report estimated mitigation costs for 450ppm at almost a percentage point more than 550pmm mitigation of the present value of GNP through the 21st century. The report stated that stronger mitigation is justified by insurance value and non-market value benefits in the 21st century and much larger benefits beyond, and that the costs of action are less than the costs of inaction.

Australian Treasury

The Australian Treasury's report on the economics of climate change mitigation was released on October 30, 2008. The report is considered a key input for determining the structure and targets for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The Treasury’s modeling demonstrated that early global action to reduce carbon emissions would be less expensive than later action and stated that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future as emissions fall.