When It Comes to Energy Investments, Here's Our Two Cents Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/29/2009 03:07:35 PM

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.

Comparing climate change goals to weight loss Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/24/2009 12:04:25 PM

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.

Shouldn't the facts matter? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/21/2009 06:27:36 PM

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.

Energy enthusiasts find common ground on emissions Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/20/2009 12:30:00 PM

If you watch some of the more negative television ads out there talking about energy issues, you’d get the idea that people who work on renewables don’t like the folks working on coal R&D projects that much. Well, luckily, what we see on TV isn’t always a good representation of what happens in the real world.

During the sessions at George Washington University’s symposium for accelerating greenhouse gas reductions, we were struck by how much respect was observed between researchers who were working to advance carbon capture and those who were working to advance renewable energy.

During his presentation on solar energy, Ken Zweibel, director of GWU’s Institute for the Analysis of Solar Energy, said that people studying renewables and people studying carbon capture were not all that different—they both have the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation. The difference, he said, is that they are approaching the issue from two different angles.

If you follow the media’s interpretation of how the different energy sectors interact (or perhaps, by the commentary on some environmental blogs), you might think that we all fight like cats and dogs or tear down one another's research.

Today was living proof that that’s simply not the case. In fact, Mr. Zweibel said at the start of his solar energy lecture that he would “hate to see CCS be taken off the table” due to regulatory disconnects or hold-ups, and that solar energy is another option on the table to help us reduce CO2 emissions from electricity production and increase domestic energy production. Said Zweibel: “We need our energy here [in the US].”

And he’s right—we absolutely need all of our domestic energy sources to meet our growing energy and environmental challenges. We’re happy to have been part of the symposium at George Washington University and to have gotten the chance to work alongside these great thinkers and innovators.

How will carbon capture affect your utility bill? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/20/2009 08:00:00 AM

I know, I talk a lot about the need to keep the compliance costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions affordable, and there is really some promising news on that front.

At George Washington University’s Accelerating Greenhouse Gas Reductions symposium, Professor Ed Rubin from Carnegie Mellon University gave attendees an update on carbon capture and sequestration technologies, including cost estimates and the overall importance of the technology in our low-carbon toolkit.

From the outset, Professor Rubin stated that “coal will not go away for many decades” and that alternative sources would not easily be able to achieve the large CO2 reductions needed to stabilize CO2 concentrations.

“[CCS] would allow continued coal use as a bridge to a more sustainable future,” said Professor Rubin, noting that CCS was also a potential link to carbon-free transportation, as the cheapest way to make hydrogen was from coal (hydrogen, of course, is seen as a possible alternative to traditional gasoline).

Moreover, Professor Rubin said that economic models show that including CCS in a portfolio of low-carbon energy options significantly reduces the costs of mitigating climate change. If we were talking about needing to hit smaller reduction numbers, he said, we’d be talking about a different type of solution.

But just how much will carbon capture technology cost? And how will it affect your utility bills?

Professor Rubin said that if we apply today’s carbon capture technology to a gasification plant, the initial capital and generating costs would increase 30 to 50 percent. However, these are not increases consumers would immediately see in their monthly utility bill, as utility bills reflect costs from a mix of electricity generation.

In the long-term, CCS has great implications for the cost of electricity, said the professor, who cited DOE figures that CCS could potentially reduce the total cost of electricity by 19-28 percent.

While the benefits of commercial-scale CCS are many for the economy, climate and our national security, Professor Rubin along with the other panelists noted that we need to start walking the walk—and that government action is needed to help us remove legal and regulatory impediments that slow our technological success.

Who will win the race to commercial CCS? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/18/2009 11:05:00 AM

In the last few decades, we’ve seen countries race to develop new technologies, from state-of-the-art weapons to putting a person on the moon.

Now, it seems we’re in a race to see who will develop the first commercial-scale (~500 MW) coal-based power plant equipped with carbon capture and sequestration technology. The U.S. is close, with its myriad carbon capture demonstration projects; and the UK and Australia are also staking their claim in the CCS race. But who did Carnegie Mellon Professor, Ed Rubin say is a wise bet?

China.

It seems hard to believe that the developing nation who has in the past shunned a commitment to reducing emissions may be the first country to build a commercial-scale plant with carbon capture technology.

Speaking at George Washington University’s Accelerating Greenhouse Gas Reductions symposium, Professor Rubin said that the US has been “talking the talk” in regard to deploying commercial CCS, “but not walking the walk. As far as I can tell, no one has put $1 million in a lock box for commercial carbon capture.”

So how can the US reemerge as a global leader in technology and innovation?

Professor Rubin cited policy as an obstacle in CCS deployment, saying that it will not occur without a strong policy driver. The upside? The recent stimulus package and draft climate change bill have included money and incentives for carbon capture.

Professor Rubin concluded his session by saying that the West is “an important source of leadership” for carbon capture. We know we can guide the way.

Pew Center: Government action needed on CCS Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/17/2009 11:01:21 AM

It seems that everywhere you go, more and more people are talking about carbon capture and storage (CCS) as being a key and essential element in meeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.

At George Washington University’s greenhouse reductions symposium this week, Steve Caldwell, regional policy coordinator for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, outlined a few provisions their group would like to see included in upcoming climate change policy.

Caldwell acknowledged that carbon capture and sequestration technology, while not a silver bullet, is critical to reducing costs associated with greenhouse gas abatement. To get there, Caldwell outlined a number of policy recommendations, including government action on CCS to:

• Resolve key legal and regulatory barriers

• Fund commercial CCS demonstrations

• Deploy by 2015 5 GW of coal-powered plants with CCS and at least one pulverized coal retrofit

• Create a dedicated and protected trust for CCS programs

As we’ve said before, the government plays an essential role in helping us get carbon capture technologies to market—and that includes helping to secure funding and policies that help insulate the public from some of the financial risks that come with technological advancements.

Washington Post: Chu disagrees with Al Gore when it comes to coal Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/17/2009 10:16:30 AM

For the second time in a week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has come out in support of clean coal technology (CCT) – this time in an interview with the Washington Post.

Most interestingly, the Post says Chu disagrees with his friend Al Gore when it comes to CCT.

While Chu believes “we really have to take the lead, the technological lead” in the development of these technologies, Gore has spent millions of dollars in ads denigrating the progress made with CCT.

Chu went on to say he wants to “try to develop technologies that can get a large fraction of the carbon dioxide out of coal. Start with 70, 80 percent and build up to over 90 percent, but start now and try to get it out,” before adding he believes we will be successful.

Along with CCT, Chu spoke of the importance of our solar and nuclear industries. We’re glad our energy secretary recognizes coal’s importance in our country’s energy mix – and like us, he knows we can’t solve the puzzle we face with one fuel alone.

Click here to watch Secretary Chu’s interview with the Post in its entirety.

Clean coal and America’s economic recovery Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/15/2009 04:38:11 PM

President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University this week, and while he focused primarily on the economy, he mentioned clean energy as one of the pillars of his recovery plan.

This isn’t the first time the president has stressed energy when speaking about our economy. Way back in February, Obama told Congress we need to invest in all of our energy resources – wind and solar, advanced biofuels and clean coal.

And he’s right; investment in new energy technology will undoubtedly be a boon for our country’s economy. And clean coal will be a big part of that.

In a report conducted by BBC Research and Consulting, a coalition of key labor groups found that deployment of advanced coal-based electricity generation facilities (power plants) equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions could generate $1 trillion of economic output and create between 5 million and 7 million man-years of employment during construction and a quarter of a million permanent jobs.

As we’ve reported before, President Obama and key members of his administration have expressed their support for CCT on multiple occasions, and its potential economic and environmental benefits make it clear why.

Twittering live from greenhouse gas symposium Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/15/2009 11:24:13 AM

We're currently at the Accelerating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions symposium, hosted by George Washington University.

The morning session has been focused on carbon capture and storage, with lectures from Steve Caldwell, regional policy coordinator for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change; and Edward S. Rubin, alumni professor of environmental engineering and science at Carnegie Mellon University.

Follow along on our Twitter feed for real-time updates, and stay tuned to Behind the Plug for key takeaways from the symposium.

Salazar: There is clean coal technology Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/13/2009 06:12:23 PM

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told CNN’s John King there is clean coal technology (CCT), but that we need to do more to develop carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

We are glad that Secretary Salazar realizes that there is more to CCT than the capture and storage of carbon, and share his sentiment that we need to continue to invest in the development of CCS technologies.

He goes on to say that coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia, and that President Obama – through the stimulus package – has invested a significant amount of money into finding ways to use coal more cleanly.

It’s great to see America’s leaders voicing their support for CCT, and we look forward to working Secretary Salazar and the rest of the Obama administration in solving the energy puzzle facing America.

NRDC recognizes importance of clean coal technology Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/11/2009 01:00:00 PM

It’s no secret that several environmental groups have chosen to join in a campaign that ignores the progress made through the use of advanced clean coal technologies. But that doesn’t mean that all environmental groups feel the same way.

Just like any other issue, opinions differ. And some prominent environmental groups have begun to advocate for a government push to deploy clean coal technologies.

Last month, National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) hosted workshops advocating more spending on clean coal research.

These groups both know coal will remain an important fuel for years to come. In fact, an NRDC climate expert told the Wall Street Journal that clean coal technology and carbon capture "is both needed and feasible."

Affordable electricity as important as ever Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/10/2009 03:58:43 PM

With all the talk of climate legislation, it’s important we not forget the effects new regulations could have on American consumers.

Thanks to the use of low-cost coal, many Americans have long enjoyed the benefits of affordable electricity. Unfortunately, many consumers could see their utility bills rise significantly under some proposed climate legislation plans.

The New York Times recently explored how Missourians could be adversely affected by higher electricity rates. In the article, several Show Me-staters explain their concerns over climate change, but worry that the costs associated with new legislation will fall on those who can least afford it.

Here at ACCCE, we support federal climate legislation, but we also know that American consumers must be insulated from skyrocketing electric bills. To that end, we crafted our climate strategy based on several legislative principles – which include cost-containment measures to protect both individual consumers and our economy.

Affordable electricity is a bright spot for many in these trying economic times. Let’s do all we can to make sure it stays that way.

Are green jobs bad for the economy? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/09/2009 04:29:28 PM

Reuters’ environment blog has posed an interesting question: do green jobs cannibalize other jobs?

The idea comes from a Spanish study on renewable energy that found that “creating green jobs actually destroys jobs in other sectors—and most of the time doesn’t lead to permanent employment.”

What’s more, the study found that every green job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs and that only one in 10 positions were permanent.

What this study says to me is that we can’t have an energy policy that puts jobs at stake, especially given the economy. While adding renewable resources to the energy mix makes sense from some perspectives, the ultimate goal needs to be ensuring reliable, affordable energy.

If we take our eye off that goal and bring about changes in the energy mix that result in higher energy costs, we’ll lose more manufacturing jobs (in energy-intensive industries) than we create green jobs. And as the Spanish study shows, the jobs lost could be more long-term and higher-paying than the jobs created.

Coal integral part of energy mix in 2050, study finds Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/09/2009 08:00:00 AM

We’ve been saying for quite some time that coal, which supplies half of the country’s electricity, will remain part of this nation’s energy mix. Today, yet another study illustrated our point.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) found that while we’ll be living in a low-carbon world come 2050, a sizeable portion of our energy will indeed come from coal. The snapshot of our energy landscape come 2050 includes nuclear plants and coal-based plants supplying two-thirds of our energy, with carbon capture technologies in place to remove CO2 emissions.

What about renewables? EPRI projects that wind and biomass will supply about a quarter of the electricity while “solar will not play a significant role.” Revis W. James, the director of EPRI’s Energy Technology Assessment Center said that wind and biomass are the only renewable sources likely to have cost low enough to compete, at least in the short-term.

The EPRI report (covered here by New York Times’ blog, Green Inc.,) also noted that the cost of CCS will be shaped by new regulations, construction costs and geography. As we’ve said before, as with any technology, it’s always more expensive when it first comes out (think about plasma TVs). That’s why demonstration projects are so important—they allow us to drive down the cost of technology and ultimately deliver environmental benefits at an affordable price to consumers.

When you get down to brass tacks, the fact remains that we need all of our domestic energy sources to fuel America’s clean energy future. And we need to come together on the issue of energy to develop technologies that protect the planet and create American jobs. We’ve done it before—we can do it again.

Steven Chu: Invest in CCS Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/08/2009 05:19:52 PM

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu told reporters this week that the U.S. should invest in carbon capture and storage technology.

"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum," Chu told the Wall Street Journal following an appearance at an Energy Information Administration conference.

Chu went on to say he expects the United States and countries such as India and China to continue using coal to generate electricity.

That is just one more reason to be sure we keep putting dollars into funding clean coal technology research. Remember, the U.S. already exports coal – and if we continue to lead the way in creating and implementing the best ways to use it, we won’t only be exporting the fuel, but U.S.-bred technology as well.

Secretary Chu makes good points all around, and he’s right that these technologies are a worthwhile investment – as we’ve talked about here before, they have historically paid off.

Can wind power replace coal? Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/07/2009 03:03:27 PM

When it comes to energy, it’s important to understand the difference between the potential and the capacity of a given energy source.

Case in point: U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was quoted on April 6 as saying that ocean winds along the East Coast could generate as much as 1 million megawatts of power – roughly the equivalent to the output of 3,000 medium-size coal plants.

Press accounts (which I am sure the anti-coal activists will seize upon) say that, according to the secretary, if wind power were fully developed, it could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-based power plants in the U.S.

But wait (as the late Paul Harvey would say)…there’s more. The secretary’s spokesman said that his remarks were misrepresented. From the Washington Post:

A spokesman for Salazar said Monday evening that the secretary does not expect wind power to be fully developed, but was speaking of its total potential if it were.

In fact, in the same article, Secretary Salazar expressed the need to keep all energy options open, saying “we need to look at all forms of energy as we move forward into a new energy frontier.”

So what’s the deal? What’s the difference between wind potential versus actual capacity and why is it important?

Wind’s greatest challenge is intermittency. In fact, public utility commissions (in regulated states) generally require that you build 300 megawatts of installed wind capacity for every 100 megawatts of required capacity that you need to meet. Why? Because wind is rated at basically 1/3 reliable (in most cases) due to intermittency (only producing power when there is sufficient wind speed).

So does that mean we shouldn’t expand wind power? Not at all. We’ve said many times before that it’s going to take all of our domestic energy resources to meet our growing energy demand (again, echoing the comment made by Secretary Salazar yesterday). But we need to get off the idea that wind and coal are competitors—they’re not. They’re complimentary energy sources.

UPDATE 4-8-2009: The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog echoed our sentiments on this topic. An excerpt:

[Secretary Salazar] contends that the offshore wind potential just in the Atlantic—the easiest region to develop–totals about 1,000 gigawatts.

Let’s put that in context. The entire electricity-generation capacity of the U.S., including coal, gas, nuclear, hydropower and other renewables, is just over 1,000 gigawatts. There are only about 1,400 coal plants in operation in the U.S., accounting for about 336 gigawatts of power. So that would indeed be a lot of wind.

[B]ut wind power, even offshore wind power, isn’t the same as coal or nuclear. Offshore wind farms in Europe are lucky to generate 40% of their listed capacity. So that limits that mid-Atlantic resource to about 74 gigawatts. And that doesn’t even consider the technical and economic hurdles that still dog offshore wind power and make it less competitive than its onshore cousin.

Read more.

UPDATE 4-10-2009: Late yesteday, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal discounted Sec. Salazar's statement. From USA Today:

The governor said coal plays a critical role in the nation's energy, despite any creative hypotheticals by those in the Beltway.

"That potential (for wind energy to replace coal) is never going to be realized," Freudenthal said. He also noted that Salazar's comment was out of step with other messages from the Obama administration.

The federal economic stimulus package includes millions of dollars to develop technology for clean coal programs and for carbon capture and sequestration.

Read more.

Coal is 'a vital resource,' says Obama's pick for EPA's air office Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/03/2009 03:13:13 PM

Gina McCarthy — President Obama's pick to head U.S. EPA's air office — talked to a Senate committee yesterday about the important role coal has in America’s energy future.

Here’s what she had to say: “I agree with the president in his assessment that coal is a vital resource to the nation and it will remain so for a considerable amount of time.”

We look forward to working with McCarthy and all of President Obama’s team on striking a balance between reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting America’s energy security and holding down energy costs for consumers.

Our thoughts on the new draft climate bill Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/01/2009 02:01:43 PM

Yesterday, Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey released a discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which aims to reduce emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 through a cap-and-trade-based plan. The draft also includes additional funds—to the tune of $10 billion—to develop carbon capture and storage technology.

How does ACCCE feel about the draft bill?

Well, we can't assert an official position until we've combed through all 600-plus pages of the document, but we’re encouraged that the discussion draft focuses on coal’s critical role in meeting the country’s growing electricity needs. Coal comprises half of our country’s electricity mix, and generates that electricity at one-third the cost of most other fuels—two factors that can’t be overlooked, especially as Americans struggle to make ends meet.

We’re also pleased that Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey have included provisions for the development of carbon capture technologies, which are essential to helping us meet our long-term emissions reductions targets, as noted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

As we’ve said before, ACCCE supports national carbon management legislation that reduces emissions, creates jobs, preserves fuel diversity, gets us closer to securing energy independence and protects consumers against higher energy costs.

With that in mind, we look forward to working with Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, other members of key House committees, their Senate colleagues and the Obama administration to develop policies that help us meet these goals. Stay tuned to Behind the Plug for more news and updates.

Read the ACCCE statement about the Waxman-Markey discussion draft.