Carbon Capture … If Not That, Then What? Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/31/2008 04:43:00 PM

                                    

Today’s issue of the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico had a story about how environmental groups feel about carbon capture and other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously there is some diversity of thought on this topic among national environmental groups. The story says the National Resource Defense Council is widely supporting carbon-capture technology. Environmental Defense and Environment America both say they would consider supporting carbon-capture technology.

But the Politico points out that Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth oppose carbon-capture technology because it is too expensive.

Too expensive?

First of all, experts agree that generating electricity in 2025 using carbon-capture technology will be equal to the today’s cost of new power generation without carbon capture. (Here’s more information about that finding.)

Second of all, what’s the alternative? For the life of me, I can’t see how any of these groups can say that we’ll be able to meet growing energy demand (both here at home and moreover around the world) without the continued use of traditional energy resources like coal. I’ve been accused of being too optimistic by some of these groups about the future promise of advanced clean coal technologies … but they just want us to believe that renewable power is available to replace coal and other carbon-based fuels at a moment’s notice. Sorry, if that were true, we have more renewables already. (Let me be clear – that is not a slam on renewables, they are an important part of the mix. We just have to be realistic about their limitations.)

Not supporting increased funding for carbon capture technologies clearly seems contrary to the agenda of some of these groups (if indeed their ultimate goal is to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases on a global scale).

                               

Debating Climate Change Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/25/2008 04:40:00 PM

                                    

Did you catch the Democratic presidential debate on CNN earlier this week? It was the most-watched presidential primary debate in cable news history (4.9 million viewers), which is good news for us since we bought advertising during the debate. As a matter of fact, we’re sponsoring coverage of another CNN debate next week.

While we are flattered that there are some people out there who are convinced we can dictate the questions of the debate, the reality is we are merely a sponsor of advertising for the program. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as purchasing an ad in a newspaper doesn’t skew the editorial content of that paper, the same is true here.

Rather than try to keep the issue of climate policy from coming up, as some folks have suggested we are doing, we are putting our effort to ensure that the issue does come up on the campaign trail. In fact, here’s the question we’d love to see get asked in one of the debates: “How do you plan to help America meet its growing demand for affordable and reliable electricity while addressing the climate change issue?”

Isn’t that the question we’re all asking?

Sure, you can have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; but if your plan means that America becomes more reliant on foreign energy resources and the cost of energy skyrockets, what kind of solution is that for the country?

We recognize that there is a shared commitment between electricity generators and those that they serve to reduce utility greenhouse gas emissions. The conversation now is about how best to do that in a way that meets the stated environmental goal, protects access to affordable, reliable energy and ensures energy security.

So let’s be as clear as possible — not only do we want the candidates to address questions regarding energy, environment and the economy, we can’t think of single more important question in the 2008 presidential debates.

                               

Why efficiency alone is not enough Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/22/2008 04:34:00 PM

I’ve been following the energy and environmental debate for nearly 20 years, and I have to say that I’ve never met the advocate for energy “inefficiency.” Some people seem to think that energy efficiency is a new thing and that if we just embrace energy efficiency alone … it will be the solution to all of our energy challenges.

Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Here’s why: The “efficiency only” argument fails to address growth in population.

By 2042, America’s population is predicted to grow by 100 million.

Even if we somehow we were able to reduce personal energy consumption by 25% to 50%, by 2043 we would still be significantly behind the curve because of population growth. In that scenario, each person would have to cut energy consumption by as much as 75%.

Let’s face it 400 million Americans can’t live on less energy than 300 million Americans (who are already using energy efficient appliances and consumer electronic devices).

Energy efficiency is a great thing, but efficiency alone is not the answer. So when you hear people who say it is, ask them how their math accounts for population increases?

                               

Don't say the 's' word Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/18/2008 04:22:00 PM

                                    

OK, somebody got off script. I’m not sure how this happened, but suddenly a lot of presidential candidates and the surrogates are saying that their climate policies are going to force the American people to S A C R I F I C E.

Not since President Carter put on a sweater and asked Americans to turn down their thermostats have we seen evidence of a failed energy policy.

The reason the “S” word is being batted about is because finally folks are starting to get the message that it is not possible to meet America’s growing energy needs without coal.

I’m sorry, but a lot of people are already sacrificing. They’re making the hard and difficult choices between heating and eating this winter.

I don’t buy it. In an energy rich country – a country that uses technology, not fear, to meet our challenges - we don’t have to make a choice between affordable, reliable and secure energy and a clean environment.

We can have both, but only if we have policies that allow us to avoid unnecessary sacrifice.

Our nation’s climate policy needs to be based upon spurring investments in technology … not asking Americans to sacrifice.

                               

Why Are Some Groups Against Technology? Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/17/2008 04:15:00 PM

                                    

Here's a story coming out of southwest Georgia that makes you question the effort of environmentalists who try to block construction of modern coal plants.

Developers have plans to build a coal-based power plant with modern pollution controls. The facility, which Longleaf Energy Associates plans to build in rural Early County, would use the most up-to-date scrubbing technology.

Environmental groups — including the Sierra Club, GreenLaw and Friends of the Chattahoochee — tried to block the company from building the plant. That's right — environmentalists wanted to stand in the way of a plant with state-of-the-art pollution controls.

Well a state court ruled last week that environmentalists had no grounds to fight the plant. Click here for the ruling, which rejected the arguments from the various groups.

I hope this decision means that more and more people are seeing that clean coal projects can provide affordable and reliable electricity to meet our nation's ever growing energy demands while keeping our environment cleaner that it has been in decades.

                               

No need to be shy when touting clean coal technology Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/09/2008 03:37:00 PM

                                    

As you know, we’ve been stopping by as many campaign events as we can to help voters tell presidential candidates to make clean coal a part of their energy platforms.

Candidates should feel proud to voice their support for clean coal technology. There is a strong constituency supporting them when they talk about addressing America’s energy future with a fuel source that is affordable and domestically abundant. After all, the United States has more coal than any other fuel.

Politically, it’s smart to side with clean coal. It helps candidates when they talk about keeping energy costs low. It will help them on the stump to speak out in favor of clean coal technology

But it’s also the right thing to do. If candidates — Democratic or Republican — care about ensuring that our country is not dependent on energy supplies from volatile regions of the world, then they should support efforts to make coal as clean as possible.

Remember: If we don’t develop the technology here, it won’t make its way to China, India and other places in the developing world that will continue to use massive amounts of coal no matter what we do in the United States. And if we want to solve a global issue such as climate change, China and India must be part of the solution.

                               

Giuliani on Clean Coal Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/08/2008 03:33:00 PM

                                    

With the NFL playoffs taking place at the same time, I wonder how many people watched the presidential debate on Saturday.

If you missed it, here’s one point I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention: I tuned in just in time to hear Rudy Giuliani tell ABC moderator Charlie Gibson that American needs to increase investments in clean coal technology.

As you know, we don’t endorse any of the presidential candidates, but it was nice to hear the former New York mayor mention clean coal as a way to help the country become less energy dependent on volatile parts of the world. With other candidates also seeking for America to become more energy independent, it’s my hope that voters will be hearing more about clean coal along the campaign trail.

                               

Hydrogen from Coal — An Even Better Idea Today Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/04/2008 03:19:00 PM

In the summer of 2006, we released a story about the need for projects like FutureGen to produce hydrogen from coal. At the time, oil was pushing $80 per barrel (a record back then) and we thought it was important for Americans to understand that coal can be used (cleanly, I might add) for more than just producing electricity.

Today as I was scanning the news, I saw that oil topped $100 per barrel. Looking back at our old spot, I’m proud of how we got the message so right two years ago.

We need to change our way of thinking if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Knowing that technology will allow us to use coal to produce electricity, capture and safely store carbon, AND produce hydrogen for things like hydrogen fuel cells is more relevant now than ever.

For those people who still have not made their New Year’s resolution, allow me to make one for you: view our story from two years ago and then raise your right hand and say, “In 2008, I resolve to start thinking about how American coal can be used cleanly (and in ways that I never imagined) to make us energy independent.”

Here’s wishing everyone a happy New Year!

Lesson from Iowa — voters want change Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/04/2008 03:17:00 PM

                                    

Last night, political pundits watching the results of the Iowa caucus were talking that the theme of this upcoming election was going to be change.

As most of you know, ABEC has been active on the ground in Iowa and other early primary/caucus states because we’re talking about change too. Like most of the candidates I heard make speeches last night, we’re talking about protecting America’s energy independence. We’re talking about helping American working families and strengthening our economy by keeping energy costs low. And — despite the fact that some of critics are failing to notice — we’re talking about the signature environmental issues of our generation: using advanced technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the utility sector in response to climate change concerns.

If we are to have policies that protect our energy independence, keep energy costs low, and protect the environment, we have to change the debate. Accomplishing all of these goals does not mean less coal, it means more investment in America’s most abundant energy resource … coal.

I can make that statement because we have a great record over the past 30 years of doing just that. We’re expanded the use of coal to meet America’s growing energy demand, improved air quality, and kept electricity prices low for consumers. With success like that, I guess I’m surprised that anyone doubts we can do more going forward.