Mr Hutton also told the conference organised by the Adam Smith Institute that coal fired generation was needed as backup for when the wind did not blow.
To have it as backup, you'd need to have the wind turbines as your main source. As opposed to not building those turbines and using the coal day in day out.
The station would be "carbon capture ready," though the technology for pumping the carbon dioxide it would create into disused oil or gas wells under the North Sea has yet to be either developed or installed.
OK, let's assume that carbon capture and storage actually existed (which it doesn't).
Let's assume that corporations will choose to store it in places that don't flush out lucrative bonuses of otherwise unrecoverable oil and gas (which all plans so far put on the table do, even when they mean a tenfold increase in the emissions from the project).
Let's assume that there is some pipeline leading from Kingsnorth to somewhere to store it (which there isn't).
If the government really believes this is the way forward, why isn't there any obligation on Kingsnorth to use capture and storage as soon as its available?
Because the government isn't serious. So we have to be.
The opposition to Kingsnorth will be huge. If we can show huge opposition to this one, the other - count 'em - six coal-fired power stations already under consideration will be harder to approve.
Last week the Camp for Climate Action decided to hold their annual ballyhoo at Kingsnorth from 3rd-11th August. Put the dates in your diary.
The very words 'new build coal' should be enough to make anyone realise that the government and corporations are not going to come up with effective solutions. There needs to be pressure, there needs to be action from elsewhere. That means you.