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.

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.

Coal and algae, the ‘perfect’ clean energy pair Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/22/2009 12:53:14 PM

Whoever said coal couldn’t be a part of a green energy future must have missed this recent spot on NBC Nightly News.

Algae—the green slimy stuff you find in ponds and lakes—is being tested as an alternative fuel source for cars. In fact, experts believe that algae has the capability to displace petroleum diesel to the tune of 66 billion gallons of oil. What’s more, algae grows remarkably fast. Rather than harvesting once or twice a year, scientists can harvest algae every couple of days.

The caveat of this fast-growing super fuel? Giving it enough to eat. Every pound of algae consumes more than two pounds of carbon dioxide. The solution: grow the algae where there’s CO2 to spare.

Scientists conducted a small-scale test at an Arizona plant, pumping CO2 from a coal-fired plant into a tank of algae. The result was enough for one scientist to declare, “We’re able to convert a renewable product into fuel and at the same time consume CO2—it’s a perfect story.”

Wyoming clean coal plant to provide 'economic boon' Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/09/2009 11:44:42 AM

As you know by now, advanced clean coal research is taking place all across America.

In Wyoming, researchers at the University of Wyoming and General Electric Co. are planning a $100 million research plant to develop new clean coal technologies. As the Associated Press reported this week, “It should be an economic boon for wherever the plant is built.”

Here’s what Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) says about the facility, to be called the High Plains Gasification Advanced Technology Center: “As the demand for electricity continues to rise, this question of managing carbon while still utilizing coal is an issue we will be confronting for many years to come. I am confident that the research developed at this facility will help us answer some of these questions and keep coal in the mix of cleaner and more secure domestic fuels long into the future."

We’ll let you know more about this project as it progresses.

Obama’s environmental balancing act Posted by Joe Lucas on 01/08/2009 02:17:22 PM

Last week, The New York Times provided some additional insight into President-elect Obama’s upcoming obstacles. The chief challenge: striking “the right balance between his environmental goals and his plans to revive the economy.”

This balance is something we’re all striving for. At ACCCE, we understand that there’s no silver energy buckshot. The president-elect himself has recognized the critical role that technology will play in an emerging climate policy, and we strongly support his plan to invest in the demonstrations of full commercial-scale carbon capture and storage projects.

Keeping our options open sounds like a good strategy to me—especially given that 50 percent of our electricity is produced using coal. I’m not sure why anyone else would suggest doing anything to the contrary.

Britain says yes to new coal-generated power plants Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/22/2008 05:19:31 PM

British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said his country will continue to build new coal-generated power plants with an eye toward retrofitting those new coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration technology when those technologies are fully operational.

"I will not take a position which ignores our security of supply needs,” Miliband told the Financial Times. He also stressed the need to drive the technology into new plants "as quickly as we can.”

Secretary Miliband has the right idea here. In fact, we’ve stressed the same thing since the beginning.

America needs to continue to build new coal plants because new plants create a market for advanced clean coal technologies. And that means supporting additional funding for clean coal technology programs – especially carbon capture and storage projects.

We’re going to need all of our available energy resources – wind, solar, nuclear and coal – to meet future energy needs. We'll also need to continue to promote energy efficiency, but at the end of the day coal use will continue to grow both here at home and around the world in order to meet electricity needs. 

There has never been an environmental challenge facing the coal-based electricity sector for which technology has not provided the ultimate solution. In fact, today’s coal-generated power fleet is 77 percent cleaner than ever before, and we're moving forward with new technologies that can be used to retrofit new and existing coal plants to meet requirements to capture and safely store CO₂. 

Sour grapes for enviros Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/11/2008 11:03:10 AM

Last week, a group of environmental special interest groups launched an ad attacking clean coal technology.  Some of the environmental activists who frequent our site (why they visit, I'm not sure since they seem to already have their minds made up on this topic) seem to believe that commercial represents the greatest contribution to cinematography since Gone with the Wind. 

This week, we've had a fun little Web feature with the Clean Coal Carolers, and these same activists have found some negative things to say. 

 Here's the problem:  These folks were in no way prepared to have the clean coal message so strongly embraced during the 2008 election.  You'll recall that both Barack Obama and John McCain (who was not known to be a strong supporter of the coal industry) continuously talked about how the use of coal promotes energy independence. And both talked about their commitment to investing in new advanced clean coal technologies to help meet the challenge of reducing CO₂.

Since the election, President-elect Obama has shown no sign of backing off the commitments he made on the campaign trail. 

As for us, we're going to continue to talk about promoting energy independence, keeping energy costs affordable and investing in the technologies that will make coal an even cleaner energy option for America.

Companies spending millions on new clean coal research consortium Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/10/2008 12:01:48 PM

Some of our readers still want to know whether our member companies are pursuing clean coal technology projects. You bet!

Last week, three of our members—Ameren, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy—announced that they will form a consortium to research advanced clean coal technologies.

Based at Washington University in St. Louis, the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization will bring together myriad of experts, including researchers, professors and government organizations, all in efforts to research and advance clean coal technology. We talked to the Wash U folks back in October, at which time they tipped us off that big news was afoot.

In its press release, the university said it has committed “more than $60 million in the past year to advance education and research related to energy, environment and sustainability.” Further support will be provided by Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, who will contribute $5 million to the consortium with an additional $2 million from Ameren, to be paid over five years.

Research and projects are expected to include:

· Co-combustion of coal with biomass or oxygen (which can lead to reductions in carbon emissions)
· Approaches to carbon capture and storage
· Pilot-scale facilities

In a statement, Washington University Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton said, "From a university perspective, this is an exciting way to take coal — one of the nation's most abundant energy resources — and put it to work for the public good. The university will also work to build public understanding of the energy options for the future. The Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization will place St. Louis as the center for clean coal research."

We couldn’t agree more and look forward to hearing about the progress.

Basin Electric sounds off on Reality Coalition Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/09/2008 01:05:52 PM

This week, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (an ACCCE member) countered the Reality Coalition’s claim that clean coal technology doesn’t exist, citing two of its own clean coal initiatives, the Great Plains Synfuels plant and a proposed large-scale carbon capture demonstration project.

From the press release: “The Synfuels Plant is the only commercial scale gasification plant in the United States and home to the largest carbon capture project in the world. More than three million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured annually and piped to Canada for use in enhanced oil recovery.”

The demonstration project is underway at the Antelope Valley Station, where it will capture CO2 from a traditional coal-based power plant.

Basin Electric CEO Ron Harper closed the statement by adding, “It’s not about ‘us versus them.’ Our end goal is the same as some national environmental coalitions: near-zero emissions generation. We just differ in our beliefs about how to go about it.”

Clean energy shouldn’t be all or nothing, says MIT professor Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/24/2008 02:58:00 AM

When it comes to reducing emissions from coal-fired plants, we can’t allow perfect be the enemy of the good.

Howard Herzog, a professor at MIT, echoed the same sentiment during a panel discussion at the International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies in D.C. yesterday.

Said Herzog: “By insisting on the perfect thing, we’re creating the worst thing, which is a stalemate. It doesn’t have to be full [carbon] capture versus no capture.”

From the ClimateWire report:

In their soon-to-be-published research, Herzog and fellow panelist Ashleigh Hildebrand, a graduate student in chemical engineering at MIT, found that grabbing 45 to 65 percent of carbon dioxide from a coal generator, as opposed to the often-proposed 85 to 90 percent, would provide an incentive for investors to get moving on the technology while achieving emissions parity with natural gas.”

The fact is, we'll need to find policies that allow us to meet growing energy demand while reducing emissions from our chief source of baseload power, we should support it.

We agree — an all-or-nothing mentality will get us nowhere.