The ACCCE's Magical Mystery Carbon Storage Adventure

Fri, 2008-05-23 18:43Page van der Linden
Page van der Linden's picture

The ACCCE's Magical Mystery Carbon Storage Adventure

Want to learn more about coal? Check out our resource page on the Top 5 Clean Coal Myths.



Hey, kids, it's time for another bedtime story from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a.k.a. the ACCCE (the organization formerly known as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices)!

Today's story is told by ACCCE's vice president for communications, Joe Lucas, in a spin festival er, opinion column in the Fort Wayne, Indiana Journal-Gazette.

Clean coal is crucial to energy future

He talks about the importance of coal-generated electricity and jobs in Indiana, and then goes cherry-picking, throwing in a Credibility-Building Science Quote™:

In a recent issue of Scientific American, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and of the United Nations’ Millennium Project, writes: “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 (CO2) emissions and an expanding global economy. The key is new low-carbon technology, not simply energy efficiency.”

Lucas rapidly claps his hands over his ears and ignores the most important part of Sachs' article… as in, the rest of the science. Sachs' Scientific American discussion includes:

CCS [carbon capture and sequestration], for example, depends on the ability to capture carbon dioxide at the power plant at low cost, transport it by pipeline over significant distances, and sequester it underground safely, reliably and durably. All these components are close to deployment, but each faces major challenges. Carbon capture is most promising for new types of coal-fired plants (notably, the types called integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, and oxygen-combustion) whose cost and reliability are yet to be proved. A vast new network of carbon dioxide pipelines would require major regulatory and policy support, with environmental and property rights hurdles. The geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide at large scales must also be proved, carefully monitored and environmentally regulated.

Sachs is clearly in favor of CCS, but at least he discusses the problems, and acknowledges that things are still in the nerd (experimental) stages.

Let's get back to Lucas' bumbling spin:

The question isn’t whether we’ll use coal (we will); the question is how we’ll use coal. The answer is, “cleanly.”

With the right investments in technology, coal will help power America through the 21st century with ultra-low emissions, including zero emissions of pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air laws and the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.

 […]

We need to explore all options from coal to nuclear to natural gas and wind.

However, coal will remain a part of America’s energy outlook for the foreseeable future and beyond.

He ends the column with “the [Democratic] presidential candidates agree…”, as if obvious pandering by (non-energy scientists) Senators Obama and Clinton somehow lends credibility to Lucas' argument.

What a confusing mix of cherry-picking from a scientific discussion, empty statements on “how coal power is really clean”, and “if politicians think it's great, then it must be!”

Not terribly convincing, Mr. Lucas. You're trying very hard to sell the ACCCE's fantasy that coal is “clean”, and that CCS can work.

It can't. The science is clearly against everything you and your friends are saying.

Get ready for the uphill battle of your life. We're the clean, green, fighting machine that's looming in your coal-smudged headlights.

Cross-posted on our affiliate site, Coal is Dirty.

Comments

Page,

You may have caught Mr. Lucas in a bit of cherry picking in his reporting on Scientific American’s report on CCS, but you have to admit that the whole argument for claiming that man-made CO2 is at the bottom of climate change, or that reducing it will make a significant difference, is itself a classic case of such cherry picking, and it is having results of catastrophic proportions.

The industrial world is being turned upside down by those who have managed to sway public opinion, and that of world politicians, that the blame for global climate change lies at the feet of emissions from coal-fired power plants and similar fossil-fuel burning systems.

I’ve seen data presented by both sides, and it appears to me that the global climate change being witnessed is much more closely correlated to sun spot activity than it is to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I’d be careful about who you accuse of cherry-picking science when it comes to the subject of CO2 and global warming.

Meanwhile, we should all be joining in support of a national commitment to produce as much clean liquid fuels from coal as we can to start to make a dent in the amount of imported oil that it takes to keep our oil-guzzling economy working.

We should also return to putting the focus on known criteria pollutants from coal-fired power plants, and move as quickly as possible toward adopting IGCC as the environmental standard to minimize these pollutants.

Harry Jaeger

Harry,

Let’s see, where do I start?

First of all, if you claimed to be a scientist, I would have to wonder if you, like the rest of the climate change deniers and free marketeers, have a copy of this on your bookshelf (see the condensed lesson here ).

Either that, or you, like Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, have chosen to ignore that your beloved sunspot theory has been repeatedly refuted (sorry if I ruined your day there).

Now, if you’re so skeptical of whether or not climate change is actually caused by carbon emissions, why do you say this:

Meanwhile, we should all be joining in support of a national commitment to produce as much clean liquid fuels from coal as we can to start to make a dent in the amount of imported oil that it takes to keep our oil-guzzling economy working.

Why are you advocating “clean liquid fuels” if you don’t think that carbon emissions are causing any problems? Because one of the core beliefs held by coal-to-liquid technology proponents (like you) is that “it’s clean”, and reduces carbon emissions (which is simply not true ).

You’re rather confused. I appreciate your effort to make a coherent argument, but I’d take it back to the drawing board and try again once you can get your talking points straightened out.

Oops, html didn’t work… a book you might have on your shelf:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

And the condensed version:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Page,

“…core beliefs…’it’s clean’, and reduces carbon emissions…”

You really are dense. Like all warmists, you equate combustible with “unclean” i.e. a source of CO2.

“Clean” fuel releases minimal REAL pollutants (SO3, NOx, mecury vapour, particulates etc.). The amount of CO2 released is irrelevant except to members of the cult.

Go and stand in the corner until you learn to speak the English language well enough to understand the posts of sane people.

Harry,

Don’t be too shocked by Page Van Der Linden’s shrill, hectoring response. She comes by her condescending, sneering attitude the old fashioned way: She’s a “contributing editor” for the far-left website Daily Kos. So, she fits right in, here at this PR website, when you think about it.

Her supercilious attack on you could have been worse. Check out her near-psychotic rage at some poor guy, just for expressing the opinion that he preferred Obama over Clinton:

“As in, sick of bullshit like that which you’ve put forth here.

I’ll remember you, when the planet has warmed beyond repair, and (sic) civilisation is no longer what it used to be.

I mean, global warming is going to result in increased human diseases… maybe your selfish little ass will care then?

Because it’s your fucking life that’s on the line, not just the polar bears, although with humans like you around, I like animals better.

You’re a waste of oxygen.”

http://tinyurl.com/5ul77z

Yes, nice people, these “progressives”.

and not hypocritical at all.

Well Steve, apart from being intellectually superior to almost everyone who posts on Desmog, what grivous sins has the guy committed?

What little sliver of evidence do you have that he is either indecent or hypocritical?

Just curious.

Do you want me to go through old threads and dig out his content-free attacks? Shall I do that? That would show him to be indecent and, because of his complaint here, hypocritical – agreed? Are you going to require that I do that? How many of these should I dig up? Are you seriously asking me to do it?

For another example of hypocrisy, I can recall off the top of my head two instances where he described a sort of pleasure in violence done to people like me. He wrote something like, [persist with that and someone is liable to shoot you in the face – wouldn’t want that to happen] in one instance and [my 4x4 rides over bicycles well] in another, both in response to things I had written. Of course, this was shortly after he had written something like, [you lefties are hateful of the human species and want to do away with anyone who disagrees with you].

“Do you want me to go through old threads and dig out his content-free attacks?”

What?! But that’s the very foundation of Desmogblog. Or haven’t you read any of their postings?

“That would show him to be indecent and, because of his complaint here, hypocritical”

Knock yourself out. But for the sake of argument, let’s say I am “indecent” and “hypocritical”? What of it?

I’m not presenting myself as a moral crusader who’s self-appointed mission is to save all life on Earth, and to thwart the nefarious plots of denierificationalists. Therefore my character, good or ill, is of no relevance here. But the authors of this site are presenting themselves as moral crusaders, so that makes their characters very relevant. All the more so, since their modus operandi consists entirely of attacking the characters of their ideological enemies. They painted the targets on their own backs, which makes them fair game.

“He wrote something like, [persist with that and someone is liable to shoot you in the face – wouldn’t want that to happen] in one instance”

Here’s the exact quote:

“Oh, so there’s a “humane” way to deny someone their rights? I hope you first remember to make “humane reductions” in the right of people to defend their liberty. Otherwise, once you start meddling, they might have a tendency to shoot people like you in the face. Wouldn’t want that to happen.”

So here I am, pointing out to you that people will have a tendency to defend their liberty, of which people like you wish to deprive them, with violence, if necessary.

That is a simple statement of fact. What is it about my pointing this out to you which you find “indecent”? Does the fact that people will defend their freedom with violence offend you? Or do you find the concept “indecent” that people will defend their liberty at all? My guess is the latter.

“and [my 4x4 rides over bicycles well] in another, both in response to things I had written.”

No, that’s not what I said, Steve. Here is the exact quote:

“By sheer coincidence, my 4x4 also “does very well” with commuter bikes.”

How you twist my words! What I was referring to (obviously!) is my truck’s large capacity for carrying bicycles in the back for when I am assisting cyclists who have suffered a punctured tire or are too exhausted to continue under their own power. I also keep a large cooler, from which I dispense, free of charge, nutritious organic snacks and cruelty-free bottled water to cyclists who are bravely saving the planet. It’s the least I can do, while I drive them to their destination.

And here you would insinuate my selfless act of charity is a bad thing! You should be ashamed of yourself, Steve L.

“Of course, this was shortly after he had written something like, [you lefties are hateful of the human species and want to do away with anyone who disagrees with you].”

Are you suggesting this is also not a simple statement of fact? Stalin’s gulag system and the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge say otherwise. Yes, I know, very tasteless of me to remind you.

Gee, Rob, I’m so happy you remember all the good times. Too bad you didn’t post the links for the full threads (but if someone wants they could search now, with exact quotations. Your rebuttal is off the mark somewhat, since my paragraph on violence was related to your hypocrisy, not your indecency.
Not that I care. You ask, what of the fact that you’re indecent and hypocritical? You have a fan who thinks repeating “Little-more” is clever, and he asked if I had a sliver of evidence. Obviously it was important to him whether or not you are indecent and hypocritical. Ask Zog why.

And Fails.

“Your rebuttal is off the mark somewhat, since my paragraph on violence was related to your hypocrisy, not your indecency.”

Since I don’t advocate violence in any of my statements which you (incorrectly) paraphrased, how does that make me a hypocrite?

“Not that I care.”

Evidently, you care enough to have posted two comments on this irrelevant subject. So far.

“You ask, what of the fact that you’re indecent and hypocritical? You have a fan who thinks repeating “Little-more” is clever, and he asked if I had a sliver of evidence.”

Again, what of it? Firstly, I don’t know that ZOG thinks I’m clever. Apparently, you’re a psychic. And what if he does? What of it?

What ZOG did say, is that I am intellectually superior to you – which is a correct observation. No need to take it personally. I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve been curb-stomped by someone else’s IQ.

And what if I am, as you say, “indecent” or “hypocritical”? Maybe I talk back to my mother? Maybe I’ve punched a baby? How is that material?

My character traits are not at issue, no matter how much you’d prefer otherwise. I don’t parade myself as anyone’s moral superior – whereas people like Page Van Der Lunatic do exactly that.

“Obviously it was important to him whether or not you are indecent and hypocritical. Ask Zog why.”

No. Obviously it’s more important to you. He’s only posted one comment, in reply to yours. You’ve already posted two – so far.