Archive for April, 2009

When It Comes to Energy Investments, Here’s Our Two Cents

We know we have our critics, but the least our critics can do is get their facts right.

Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress wrote a rambling post on his blog about the amount of money ACCCE members spend on research and development but failed to keep his facts straight.

Weiss said that ACCCE members “spent less than two cents in research on ‘clean coal’ for every $1 of profit” – where did he get these figures? Did he have a comparable number from other energy sectors? (Because it has always been my experience that the private sector funding, at least for federal R&D programs, has always enjoyed higher private sector participation than say, other energy sector projects.)

Also, how did Weiss account for the high number of projects going on in the private sector without any public funding that is not easily known to the public because they are developing proprietary technologies? (I was just on a panel last night with one such entrepreneur.)

The figure Weiss quoted is useless without the context of other industries or any consideration for these other factors. It shows that he’s just repeating the “party line” if he was to run down coal, without providing any credible alternatives.

Also, Weiss didn't address the fact that many ACCCE members are highly diversified companies with revenue and investments coming from many sectors of the economy (not just coal), meaning they may invest varying amounts of their research and development budget on clean coal technology (CCT).

Calling GE (an ACCCE member) a “coal company” is like calling JP Morgan Chase “a place where you get change for a dollar,” and I’ve pointed this out to Weiss several times, but he still ignores this huge flaw in his work.

And remember, CCT (as coined by Congress) refers to an entire suite of technologies that work to produce electricity from coal while achieving significant reduction in air emissions. For years, this has meant reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other gases. And the next generation of CCT will include technologies that capture and store CO2.

By the way, I tried to post this comment on the Center for American Progress Web site, but unlike our blog, Weiss’ article won’t accept comments.

Next time around, I hope Weiss is a little clearer.

29 April 2009, 3:07 pm | Posted in Carbon Capture, Clean Coal, Technology | 11 comments »

Comparing climate change goals to weight loss

In her remarks commemorating Earth Day yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paralleled global climate goals to weight loss. It may seem like a goofy analogy, but the secretary has a point:

"Oftentimes when you face such an overwhelming challenge as global climate change is, it can be somewhat daunting. It’s kind of like trying to lose weight—which I know something about. It's kind of like trying to lose weight — which I know something about. Where you think, you know, 'Oh, I only have to lose X number of pounds.' But it can seem like such a faraway goal."

Secretary Clinton goes on to imply that we can achieve large goals by breaking them down into smaller, easier to hit targets. This stair-stepped approach is one we’ve been talking about for months: 1) slow emissions growth; 2) stop emissions growth; 3) reverse emissions growth.

The idea of setting ourselves up to succeed is one that ACCCE has been talking about for a long time, especially in regard to developing climate legislation.
By working together to develop commercial carbon capture technologies and set incremental standards for utilities, we can reach our long-term global emissions reductions goals while protecting American families and businesses from higher energy costs.

24 April 2009, 12:04 pm | Posted in Climate Change | No comments »
Tags: , , , ,

Shouldn’t the facts matter?

I know that there are just some people who are opposed to coal, and opposed to using it, regardless of the facts. I guess that is their prerogative, but does that mean they can say things are clearly untrue?

Last week in an interview on PBS, anti-coal author Jeff Goodell said that a coal plant built today is really no different that a coal plant built 30 years ago.

Then, last night on the Ed Shultz show, Dan Weiss from the Center for American Progress and I were both being interviewed on the subject of clean coal when Dan Weiss made the same statement. While I was quick to try and point out why Dan was wrong, I didn’t have to—Ed Shultz himself challenged Dan on that point.

The fact is, both Jeff Goodell and Dan Weiss are wrong. New coal plants built today emit fewer pollutants in terms of traditional pollutant emissions (those currently regulated under the federal Clean Air Act ) and are more efficient in terms of CO2 (fewer emissions per unit of energy produced). As I said last night, this is the same principle as driving a more fuel-efficient car (something that I’m sure Dan and Jeff both think is a good idea, but their anti-coal bias keeps them for seeing why this matters when it comes to coal plants).
In the long-run, this is important because increased efficiency will ultimately mean less CO2 will need to be captured and stored.

The facts do matter. That is why we are very careful to provide substantiation for the facts we use as we promote this dialogue. And you can keep us honest in that regard. But when you post to the blog, we’re also going to hold you to the same standard. If you’re just sharing your opinion, be prepared that we’ll probably ask you to back it up with some facts.

21 April 2009, 6:27 pm | Posted in Clean Coal, Energy Issues | 14 comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

| Page 1 out of 7 | // Older Posts >