Don’t Believe Everything You Read, Redux Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/29/2008 02:21:00 PM

                                    

Just last week I wrote about not taking everything you read at face value. This is especially the case when it comes to interpreting opinion poll findings.

Many surveys are inherently biased – and this is precisely the case with two recent studies conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the Civil Society Institute.

The polls, which surveyed residents of North Carolina and Indiana, assert that support for building new coal-generated power plants is weak in each state. They also suggest Indianans and North Carolinians believe a focus on other forms of energy should occur before any new coal plants are built.

But remember, it’s easy to get the answer you want – just ask the right question.

For example, the ORC study states that 75 percent would pick clean wind or solar energy if they “could decide where to invest money in new electric power generation for Indiana.”

Here at ACCCE, we are all for the development of new forms of energy. This country is going to need all of its energy resources in the coming years.

But what if the same people were asked this question: “Would you support a power plant fueled by an unreliable source that may go dark for days at a time and fail to meet your electrical needs?”

I think it’s safe to say the answer would be a resounding “no!”

But that is a real issue when it comes to wind and solar power. As we reported here, when the wind recently stopped blowing in Texas, customers lost power. For the time being, wind and solar just aren’t viable options.

So next time you see the results from an opinion poll, remember to consider the source.

                               

The Train Keeps On Rollin’ Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/23/2008 05:32:00 PM

Note: While ACCCE does not endorse any of the presidential candidates, we are stopping by as many campaign events as we can to spread the message of our commitment to clean.

 

Well, with the competitive presidential primary season still not over (for the Democrats), we’re packing up our Clean Coal Vans and heading off to Indiana and North Carolina.

It’s been an amazing year already — who knew when we dispatched our first van in Iowa early in January that we’d be headed into May with one political party without a nominee? We have learned a lot from our many campaign stops, including the fact that no matter who ultimately becomes the next president of the United States, each remaining candidate has acknowledged a clear understanding of the role clean coal technologies will play in our energy future.

So if you’re a reader of Behind The Plug and live in either of the next two primary states, keep your eyes open for our vans and your mind open for discussions that may force you to discard your preconceived notions about role that clean coal technologies will play in your energy future.

                               

Coal Use On The Rise Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/23/2008 10:43:00 AM

                                    

This Wall Street Journal article points out that coal usage in the United States increased faster than power output last year. While electricity use rose by 1.6 percent from 2006 to 2007, coal use increased by 1.95 percent.

As you can see, coal is stepping up to the plate and showing its ability to provide America with affordable power for a long, long time.

Remember: the United States has more coal than any other fuel. And we've got more coal than the rest of the world combined has oil.

I was actually quoted in that article. For those of you who don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription... I said the power industry has made tremendous gains in reducing many pollutants from power plants and that "we recognize the next challenge is carbon dioxide."

                               

Clean Coal USA Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/17/2008 04:34:00 PM

                                    

I am pleased to announce the formation of a new organization — the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).

ACCCE will bring together the efforts of ABEC and the Center for Energy and Economic Development to continue the mission you’ve come to expect of shaping public opinion with respect to the use of coal to generate electricity.

Additionally, we will join other national associations to lobby federal policymakers on policies designed to reduce human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

ACCCE supports the timely adoption of federal carbon management legislation—and recognizes that a mandatory cap-and-trade program is one option—so long as such legislation appropriately addresses 12 principles our organization has adopted. We have posted these principles on our new Web page… take a look!

http://www.cleancoalusa.org/

                               

In this game, credibility is key Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/16/2008 04:33:00 PM

                                    

Innovest, a financial analyst firm, recently released a report on Sierra Pacific Resources, ripping its plans to continue the development of two coal-generated power plants in Nevada.

As it turns out, Innovest's report was less than credible. The report's author failed to even talk to anyone at Sierra Pacific. And as pointed out by Stephanie Tavares in a great In Business Las Vegas article, it is full of holes, miscalculations and fuzzy assumptions.

Innovest won't even say who paid for the report.

Here's what we know: the report followed the party line of many special interest groups, who claim that coal has no place in America's future.

As we've discussed here before, they fail to consider all of the facts. The lack of objectivity in the report (and frankly the timing of the release of similar reports in other parts of the country) have even caused some to think that maybe Innovest's client could (I said could because, as I said, Innovest won't say who they did the study for) be a natural gas company that is simply trying to increase market share for natural gas and therefore drive up fuel prices.

More than anything, the article proves that the press can still be a great watchdog. But it also serves as a lesson: there are two sides to every story - including the energy debate - and it is important to consider both of them.

                               

Debate prep Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/14/2008 04:31:00 PM

                                    

According to this Reuters article, ABC's Charles Gibson has been cramming for the past several days in preparation for hosing Wednesday’s presidential debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The story says he’s been studying up on carbon sequestration. "It's a subject I don't know a whole lot about, and it probably won't come up," Gibson said. "But I don't know beans about carbon sequestration, so I read up on it."

Good for Gibson!

And for the record, I hope it does come up at the debate. I’d like to hear the candidates talk about it.

                               

The Clean Coal Race Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/10/2008 04:30:00 PM

                                    

It’s like an arms race but for clean coal: whoever can develop reliable carbon sequestration techniques first will have a leg up on marketing this technology to the rest of the world – especially in places where electricity demand and coal use are rapidly increasing.

The BBC just published an article about Australia’s first underground carbon storage facility. Their dedication to carbon sequestration testing may prove to be a future financial boon if they can export their technology to places like Pakistan, which has a booming appetite for electricity and what has been estimated as the world's third-largest known coal reserves.

It is unlikely that a developing nation such as Pakistan will develop clean coal technology on its own. In order to save money, traditional coal-generated power plants – the cheapest option – will most likely be built. But if proven clean coal technology was readily available to developing countries building new power-generation stations, nations like Pakistan could start out ahead of the game.

Remember, no matter what is happening here in the discussions over coal, there is no stopping its use in developing countries. We already export coal – and if we lead the way in creating and implementing the best ways to use it, we’ll be exporting U.S.-developed technology as well.

                               

Technology Called The Key To Climate Change Challenge Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/03/2008 04:29:00 PM

                                    

Interesting reading in Scientific American this week.

Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote:

Technology policy lies at the core of the climate change challenge. Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people. The key is new low-carbon technology, not simply energy efficiency.

We routinely receive comments that our commitment to promoting CCS technology simply is a “ploy” to ensure profits for “big coal.” At some point, regardless if you believe simply renewables and energy efficiency are the cure-all to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions, it ultimately becomes entirely counterproductive to argue against the need to develop clean coal technologies.

According to Dr. Sachs:
Early demonstration projects are likely to be many times more costly than later ones, and will almost certainly require some public funding. Broad public acceptance and support will therefore be crucial for the technology. Yet to date, the U.S. government has failed to get even one demonstration CCS power plant off the ground, and various private initiatives are currently stranded, all because of the lack of public support and financing.

Let's not forget that coal production and usage is not going away as a global issue, and the sooner we develop these technologies, the sooner we can share these new technologies with other countries. Instead of wasting valuable time protesting funding for critical new technologies, isn’t the planet better served if all that time and energy were put toward finding ways to ensure the funding and deployment of these essential new technologies?

                               

Who Has Time for April Fools? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/01/2008 04:09:00 PM

                                    

Did you come here today looking for a nice April Fools Day joke?

Hey, we enjoy an appropriate joke as much as the next guy. And I’ve seen some good ones today!

But unlike some folks, we are focused like a laser on how to meet America’s growing energy demands while keeping power affordable in an ever-shaky economy… a subject that does not lend itself to parody well.

Quite frankly, we don’t find the country's economics and environment a laughing matter. We spend our scarce "down time" promoting national policies that help keep energy costs down for working families, small businesses and those on a fixed income.

Has anyone seen our latest study on the cost of energy prices?

Unfortunately on this April Fools Day, American families who can least afford budget-busting energy prices are getting hit the hardest.

And that is not a laughing matter.

                               

Stick To The Facts Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/01/2008 04:07:00 PM

                                    

I find it somewhat ironic that critics at the Sierra Club and elsewhere call our America’s Power campaign “misleading” but never can provide one single fact that is inaccurate.

Why do journalists use that quote in their stories without asking the critic to elaborate and provide a claim to back up the statement?

They are entitled to that opinion, but opinions won’t keep the lights on!

These critics say we should use more renewable energy resources (we support renewable power), but get away without providing any credible energy forecasts to support their claim that renewables like wind and solar could significantly replace traditional energy resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

You see, I’m all for a debate — but it needs to be about the facts.

Here are the facts as I see them:

• We rely on coal today (about half of our electricity is produced by coal). Is there any debate on that subject?
• We’re going to need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future, both here in the U.S. and around the world. Does the Sierra Club or anybody else have any forecast that shows that not to be the case?
• Generating electricity from coal is less expensive that other energy alternatives. Does the Sierra Club doubt the U.S. Department of Energy data backing that up? Given everything that is going on with today’s economy, I’d love to see someone try to say that low-cost energy is not important to our economy and working families.
• To date, the use of technology has made it possible to produce more electricity from coal to meet our country’s growing energy demand with fewer emissions of pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air laws. (This does not include greenhouse gases, but I’ll get to that in a second.) Again, can the Sierra Club contradict that fact?
• Finally, we believe that by continuing to invest in technology, we can reduce emissions even further, including the capture and safe storage of CO­2­.

As I look at forecasts provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and a host of other credible independent sources -- we’re going to need to use coal for the foreseeable future. And just as it has up until this point, advances in technology will allow us to use coal with fewer emissions – including eventually the capture and safe storage of carbon.

Does the Sierra Club (or anybody else for that matter) have any widely accepted facts to debate those points?

Or in other words, do they have a plan that will allow us to meet our environmental goals, keep the lights on and still ensure that we can pay the bill at the end of the month?

If so, I haven’t heard it yet.