Did anyone else notice that the picture of the power station in this article with the huge “smokestacks” with “smoke” pouring out them and the caption
Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station
is a trifle misleading? There is, in fact, a smokestack in the picture. It’s in the upper left hand corner of the picture and there’s a bit of smoke coming out of it. There might be a smaller one next to it. The large, scary looking things with the plumes pouring out of them are cooling towers and the plumes are plumes of steam.
I have no comments whatever on the article itself or the study it cites. I was just amused by the picture. I’m guessing that the editors didn’t know any better but wanted some alarming power station pictures.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
The paper’s caption is a carefully-worded statement that gives one impression while both obscuring the truth AND being technically true. Such weasel-worded obfuscations are THE signs of the times.
Guessing that editors don’t know better is generally a safe bet.
Okay, after reading the quote you pulled and looking at the article I knew it was BS (i..e I stopped reading and looked at the picture).
1. That is a nuke station, not a fossil fuel station.
2. That is most likely steam, not smoke (if it is smoke we have bigger problems than global warming…or at least people near that plant).
Of course, I have a bit of an advantage over the typical reader…..
Also, many “fossil fuel” plants now are combined cycle natural gas fired plants–i.e. some of the cleanest plants out there (at least in the U.S.). If you want a picture that fits that message go for a coal plant ffs.
Considering it is the Daily Mail, that is the best bet.
Actually, the Daily Mail isn’t that wrong, which is a surprise. Although the cooling towers are obviously releasing steam and not smoke, the plant pictured is the Drax coal-fired power plant in the UK. It is, as far as I can tell, the largest power plant in terms of megawattage in the entire UK. Here’s another picture for comparison. The google earth image is pretty cool too.
Drax? Like the super-villain? Coal really is evil!
Icepick,
I was actually reminded of the guy from Moonraker.
I thought it was a conventional power plant because I couldn’t see a containment structure. So my point remains: that’s a really clean plant. The scary stuff is steam.
Yeah, that’s who I meant. There may be a connection. Hugo Drax (nee Graf Hugo von der Drache) was named after a friend of Ian Fleming’s, Admiral the Hon. Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, KCB, DSO, JP, DL (28 August 1880 – 16 October 1967). Besides being an Admiral and having one of the most improbable names ever, Sir Reginald was also the younger son of the 17th Baron of Dunsany. It seems likely (though I’m not about to spend any more time on this than I already have) that the ‘Drax’ in ‘Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax’ refers to the village that gives the coal plant its name. However, the plant was built long after Fleming had appropriated the name for Moonraker. Both men were also dead before the plant was built.
Wow Ice, I never suspected you were an expert on Bond villain genealogy!
He may have a computer handy.
I thought it was a nuke plant too, though I don’t think water vapour is considered entirely irrelevant to global warming concerns.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
But the models still don’t account for water vapor. They don’t know. They don’t know how to measure it.
Wow Ice, I never suspected you were an expert on Bond villain genealogy!
All hail the mighty Wikipedia*!
He may have a computer handy.
Perhaps maybe!
* This pop culture stuff is its real forte.