Energy 57, Tony la Vina's anti-coal alarmism

Aside from Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam and other big environmental NGOs, one prominent anti-coal (and anti-fossil fuels, anti-mining, anti-...) crusader to "save the planet" is Atty. Tony la Vina, outgoing Dean of the Ateneo School of Government. 

In his 3 recent columns (January 16, January 26, February 06, 2016) in The Standard, he articulated various anti-coal alarmism claims, below. I added some data and 2 articles from WUWT by Eric Worral. 

The various "planet saviours" celebrated big time last December during the UN FCCC's COP 21 in Paris, saying they signed a deal that will further limit fossil fuels like coal. But look at the chart -- coal power is projected to experience the biggest rise and share to total global energy use. See WUWT, Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No! July 21, 2015.

In Tony LV's article today in The Standard, Coal is not least costly technology, he argued that 

"When we factor in the environmental, health and social impacts of coal on communities—as we should—operating coal-fired power plants bear costs that are unfortunately paid for by people who will be affected the most by the ill effects of CFPPs. These costs are not often accounted for in the electricity price because they are considered externalities."

Really? The clear alternative to coal aside from more natural gas (another fossil fuel) is frequent brownouts, frequent electricity outage. And what happens if there is frequent brownout? (a) More crimes at night as criminals love darkness, (b) more road accidents, (c) more fires as more people use candles, and (d) more air and noise pollution as more people buy and use gensets that noisily run on diesel.

Why? Because electricity from coal comprises more than one-half of actual power production in Luzon grid including Metro Manila in the first half of 2015. Another fossil fuel, natural gas, produced nearly one-third of the grid's actual power generation. In the Visayas grid, coal produces almost 40% of power generation there.

Source: Sec. Zenaida Y. Monsada, ENERGY PROSPECTS FOR THE PHILIPPINES, 

EPDP Conference 2016, 12-13 January 2016, New World Hotel, Makati City.

Tony LV also wrote,

"In a previous column, I described how these pollutants harm the environment; the same also result in adverse health impact. Long-term effects of pollutants from CFPPs include respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological diseases."

Really? As of 2014, Vietnam and Malaysia have nearly 2x coal power consumption than the PH. Taiwan and Indonesia have nearly 4x and 6x coal consumption than PH. S. Korea has nearly 8x and Japan nearly 12x coal consumption than PH. 

Not to mention also huge coal power consumption by Germany, Russia, India, USA and China.

Source: BP, Statistical Review Power Data Workbook 2015

Do we see massive health problems on those countries that have more coal plants than the PH? If one is into emotionalism and alarmism, the answer is Yes. If one is into realism and facts, the answer is No. 

Among the silent goals of anti-coal alarmism and emotionalism is to have more climate junkets, endless global junkets, for many years and decades, as "planet saviours" and climate negotiators. Even Japan considers high tech coal plants as saving the planet. More than 1,000 new coal plants in Asia alone coming up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/.../japan-building-coal.../

-------------

See also:

Energy 53, Expensive electricity + mandatory renewables, Philippine case, January 17, 2016

Energy 54, Need for cheaper, reliable energy sources, January 18, 2016

Energy 55, Old renewables and coal are cool, complementary and not contradictory, February 02, 2016 

Energy 56, Cost effectiveness of different energy sources, February 05, 2016

BWorld 38, Climate change and the need for cheap energy, January 14, 2016

BWorld 39, Coal and renewables complement each other, January 26, 2016