The NSW state government has approved a new power station at Lithgow despite an independent report warning it would increase the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 22.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, a 15.1 per cent rise in NSW's total emissions.
The Arup report, which was commissioned by the Planning Department, found the emissions would be so significant that national efforts to meet carbon reduction targets would be undermined, and the community would bear the cost.
It also found renewable energy sources, such as solar or biomass, had ''not been adequately explored and have not been analysed in a transparent manner''.
The government has argued that only coal or gas-fired generators could meet the state's growing demand for electricity.
The state government’s approval of such an enormous coal-fired power station is, in my opinion, a very misguided decision. The approval seems to consider only the economic impacts of the type of power station to be built and not other factors such as its environmental impacts. Considering the planet is currently undergoing dramatic global warming, a power station which would increase NSW’s greenhouse emissions by 15.1% is not an appropriate solution to the state’s growing energy needs. Renewable energy sources would be the best method of electricity production as they do not produce any greenhouse emissions. However, if this was not possible, due to the high costs of renewable energy, even a gas-fired power station would be preferable to coal as it would produce less than half the emissions of coal.
Currently, renewable energy sources are underdeveloped and incapable of meeting such demmands. If they were able to, im sure every country would have installed them as the sole energy source, as it costs nothing for wind, sunshine, rushing water, etc. The different costs from current energy sources to renewable are attached to research and development, which is also not paid by the government but usually by a company who wants to sell the concept etc.
ReplyDeleteNatural gas would be the optimum option. It does appear that the decision was either made on economic grounds or possibly on grounds of quid pro quo.