Text 1 Coal-fired electricity – the future is clean
Coal is costly, but coming back in to favour – and cleaner
More of the world’s electric power comes from coal than from oil and gas together: a third of Britain’s, half of Germany’s or America’s, three-quarters of India’s or China’s. And the fuel has one huge advantage: it does not come from the Middle East. But thanks not least to China’s rapid economic growth, the price of coal has doubled since January. No wonder the governments of coal-rich countries are content, the firms that dig it up are rubbing their hands, while the users are looking hard for more efficient ways of burning the stuff.
On the supply side, prospects have been transformed. Analysts foresee America’s biggest coal-miner, Peabody Energy, trebling its profits between the first quarter of this year and the last. Europe’s biggest miner, Poland’s state-backed Kompania Weglowa, with 70 000 employees, was losing nearly $30m a month early last year; it is now making a monthly profit of $10m. Giant shippers such as Australia-based BHP Billiton and Xstrata, exporting from Australia and South Africa, have reported surging profits. Even in Britain, which once mined 280m tonnes of coal a year and now digs one-tenth of that, the main operator, UK Coal, can imagine a future for what until recently seemed to be a dying industry.
Users agree. American power companies are returning to coal. But everywhere there is one huge problem: the environment. Even the much-denounced Chinese in fact know that they must clean up power generation, and have begun to do so. The rules in western countries are tight.
Yet coal need not be a filthy fuel. Apart from “scrubbing” emissions, modern combustion techniques can clean them before they start – and use less coal too. A century ago, power plants produced maybe 5% of what their coal could, in theory, deliver; today, about 35%. Pulverising the coal can make this 40- 45%. With a high-temperature burn, over 50% may be possible. Less coal burned, fewer nasty emissions.
Bolder techniques lie ahead. Coal can be burned with oxygen instead of air. It can be gasified (even, perhaps, in situ), the gas going to power a gas turbine, surplus heat to make steam for a conventional one. Noxious emissions can thereby be greatly reduced; even to zero.
There is a mass of research into such ideas. Will it pay? And how soon? Much depends, now, on legislation. The Netherlands subsidises zero-emission electricity; Norway heavily taxes carbon- dioxide emissions. But Britain’s subsidy for “renewable-source” electricity does not go to coal, however virtuously used. So the incentives to speed ahead differ. But within 15 years, new coal plants could be as clean as any others, and just as profitable.
Adapted from: The Economist of 4 September 2004, p. 69
Text 2 Can humanity survive a return to coal energy?
Environmentalist George Monbiot doubts the human race will survive the 21st century, writes Drew Forrest.
He points out that when the Earth last underwent a 6°C warming, in the Permian Age 250 million years ago, 90% of life forms became extinct. “We are looking at a 6 °C increase by 2100 – but it could be as high as 10 °C or 12 °C,” he remarks.
The 0,6 °C rise already experienced has had a major disruptive effect on the world’s climate.
One of the greatest threats to humanity’s future is the reversion to coal as an energy source as oil stocks become depleted, he believes. Being far more carbon-dense, coal is a potent source of climate-changing gases.
Adapted from: Mail & Guardian, 15 to 21 October, 2004, p. 6
Question 1 of 2 2 Points
At the end of paragraph 1 of Text 1 we read ". . . the firms that dig it up are rubbing their hands . . ." The phrase "rubbing their hands" is used metaphorically in this context. What is the probable meaning of the expression here?
A. The firms feel guilty or shy about their actions.
B. The firms are rubbing the dirt from their hands.
C. The firms are excited about the prospects of profits.
D. The firms are afraid of being left out in the cold.