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.

Comments

[Roses, WA]

Coal plants in the USA are under a lot of pressure to reduce any and all emmissions not just CO2. This frees up capital for R&D to build it better, as well as cheaper. This new and improved technology can then be sold to other developing countries like India and China that are under much fewer constraints. If we keep the industry going here instead of shutting it down completely then it can benefit the whole world.

I think the Navajos who just had their permit for a new plant yanked out from under them by Ecology would agree :-)

[Monica from ACCCE]

Roses: You’re right about exporting these technologies to developing countries. For example, in the effort to improve the quality of life of its citizens, China will be using its huge indigenous reserves of coal. Unless a country like the United States develops clean coal technologies and makes it possible for developing countries to use them, other efforts here in the U.S. will continue to be dwarfed on the international level.

[Socrates]

I don't understand the rush to reduce CO2? I understand that the US is the source of only 4% of Earth's CO2. Is that true? If emmissions from China/India/Asia are increasing at 5% annually, a level of 0% in the US will not alter the planetary level of greenhouse gas.

I also understand that 80% of the CO2 is from animal herds and agricultural sources, which are never measured or addressed.

I also read that 80% of all CO2 has been suddenly emited from volcanoes in the last century.

Is any of that true? Is this whole thing a scam to fund research and force massive investments and taxes onto the US economy? It seems futile, but the debate goes on as if there was a public benefit to be pursued.

What is the cost/benefit?

[Jerry]

I've been reading the BTP for some time now and quite agree with most of the goals.However,after reading today's email stating that G.E. is a member of ACCCE I would like some more facts about their involvement. G.E. seems to back policies I'm opposed to, not to mention owning NBC and having Immelt on an advisory board for the Obama administration.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Socrates: As I’ve said before, 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.

At the end of the day, I can really only comment on what we’re doing in this sector to reduce emissions from coal-based electricity, as that’s what I know best. And I can tell you that we’ve used clean coal technologies to make today’s coal-based generating fleet 77 percent cleaner in terms of emissions currently regulated under existing Clean Air Act programs per unit of energy produced. We say this is a great start, but we know we can do more. The next challenge is reducing carbon dioxide emissions with the next generation of clean coal technologies, which recent studies have shown will also create millions of new American jobs—something this country needs right now.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Jerry: The member of ACCCE is a unit of GE called General Electric Capital Corporation. This wing of GE serves consumers, retailers and businesses around the globe. Here is a full list of our members — over 40 leading companies from the electricity generation sector, the transportation sector, coal producers and other manufacturers and vendors.

[Zach]

It's interesting that we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions and creating jobs in the same breath. Here's another way to do that: Start building more renewable energy resources, like wind turbines and solar farms. Maybe we'll be stuck using dirty coal for a while, but more renewable energy means less pollution, less foreign oil, and more jobs to create the turbines and solar panels. Oh, and to modernize the grid so we can take full advantage of that. That has to be our future.

[Allie]

Socrates: Something Monica seems to have forgotten to answer in her response to you, the US has 4% of the world's population, but produces a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Zach: When people talk about alternative energy resources, they usually mean solar and wind. These are not replacements for coal. Electricity is produced in base-load power and peaking power. Base-load power is the energy necessary to keep the electricity grid energized and meet a constant demand. Peaking power is energy that comes on and off throughout the day, when electricity usage and energy demand goes up. Peaking power uses intermittent power resources like solar and wind that produce electricity only when there’s sufficient direct sunlight or sufficient sustained wind speed. For base-load power, you must use so-called hard-path fuels such as coal, which can provide power 24 hours per day.

Technology is going to evolve, and coal is one of those unique bridge fuels that will take us to that next energy renaissance. As a matter of fact, coal may fuel the next energy renaissance. For example, hydrogen can be produced from coal.

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

You can also check out this study, Economic Benefits from Advanced Coal Electric Generation.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Allie: Everybody likes to continue to repeat the myth that America is the biggest polluter in the world. That is not true — China passed us and left us dead in the tracks, and India is right behind them.

That’s why, 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 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.

[Stephen J Draper]

Raton New Mexico 87740 has the greast coal High BTU Low sluffer the mine was closed 12years ago alot cover ups with clean air act money Ted Tunner Chevren Crop List is big they dont care how they hurt. But to day with two earth quaks because their drilling the meathane gas from the Coal vain so much damge under ground so many people cover things up .you can cotact me at 575-445-3862 thanks for the ones that turely care. Truely Stephen j Draper