ABEC — Apr 1 2008 03:12 PM

Hey, we enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy. And I’ve seen some good ones today!

But unlike some folks, we are focused like a laser on how to meet America’s growing energy demands while keeping power affordable in an ever-shaky economy… a subject that does not lend itself to parody well.

Quite frankly, we don’t find the country's economics and environment a laughing matter. We spend our scarce "down time" promoting national policies that help keep energy costs down for working families, small businesses and those on a fixed income.

Unfortunately on this April Fools Day, American families who can least afford budget-busting energy prices are getting hit the hardest.

And that is not a laughing matter.
http://www.americaspower.org/News/Behind-the-Plug

Kevin Grandia — Apr 1 2008 03:55 PM

"focussed like a laser on how to meet America's growing energy demands while keeping power affordable..."

What about climate change and the massive role the coal industry plays in that? Might want to expand the aim of your laser there coalman.

A Siegel — Apr 1 2008 04:41 PM

Over at ABEC, do you even think about the "costs" of asthma? Of cancers caused by coal pollution? About the war on Appalachia via mountain-top removal? About the mercury making tuna verbotem for pregnant women? Or, give a second's thought about the world you're creating for your children? For mine?

And, when the economy was strong, you were focused like a laser on preventing real action to improve America's energy situation via energy efficiency & renewable energy. Now, that the economy is weak, your answer is the same.

Ken Coal — Apr 1 2008 04:45 PM

You tell 'em, ABEC

Some people disparage our industry benefactors as "Big Coal", but you and I agree that the answer to America's energy needs is even "Bigger Coal." We at ABECC applaud and support what you and our ABEC brethren are doing to convince people of the power of coal. They don't call it "black diamonds" for nothing, am I right?

ABEC — Apr 1 2008 05:19 PM

@Kevin Grandia

The issue of global warming is probably the single biggest challenge facing America’s energy sector. This issue not only affects electricity generators who use coal, natural gas, and oil to meet their customer’s electricity needs, but also could likely impact the types of cars we drive as consumers.
http://www.americaspower.org/News/Behind-the-Plug

But the fact remains, there has never been an environmental challenge facing the coal-based electricity sector for which technology didn’t provide the ultimate solution – and those who are familiar with the advancements in carbon capture technology recognize that meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector is not likely to be the exception to that rule.

Kevin Grandia — Apr 1 2008 06:00 PM

Shell Oil: "[Shell] doesn't foresee CCS being in widespread use until 2050."

MIT study: "the first commercial CCS plant won't be on stream until 2030 at the earliest."

So is ABEC then committed to a moratorium on new coal plants until CCS technology is commercially viable?

Kevin Grandia — Apr 1 2008 08:07 PM

Hello, Joe? Where'd you go?

I'm also interested in what you think about China. Should they continue to burn coal, or continue to invest heavily in renewable energy?

ABEC — Apr 2 2008 10:31 AM

If we had abandoned the use of lamps in this country 30 years ago, we never would have developed the compact fluorescent light bulb. The only way that you can develop technology is if there’s a need for it, and if we’re not building coal plants here in the United States, where’s the drive to develop clean carbon-capture technology? There has to be the marketplace for the technology in order to drive development of the technology.

Developers planning new power plants know they’ll have to operate the facility for about 30 years to pay off the costs. In addition, it will take about 10 years to site it and build it. Developers know that sometime within that 40-year timeframe, there is going to be a regulatory requirement for plants to capture and store carbon. They are planning for that technology to come about, and current plans for new power plant make sure that the schematics leave room for the carbon-capture control of the future to be installed.

In the meantime, our increasing electricity demands dictate that we must start the process of building new plants now, which is why developers leave room in the schematics for future technology.http://www.americaspower.org/News/Behind-the-Plug

Keith Farnish — Apr 2 2008 11:12 AM

ABEC don't like being shown the truth. Here is what may have started it:

http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/03/21/americans-for-balanced-energy-choices-belching-lies-about-coal/

"Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: it sounds sensible enough, balancing the different kinds of energy with the need to massively reduce the amount of energy consumed. Except that ABEC is doing nothing of the sort. Like the Oregon Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute (notice that they are all “institutes”, a nice homely monicker, but also rather close to “institution”) before it, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a very public front for the coal industry.

"The idea of such setups is to provide a friendly face for something that is inherently unfriendly: the coal industry in the USA is responsible for 36 percent of all national carbon emissions. This has been the same since 1990, despite the headline claims that the coal industry is getting cleaner - and that is precisely why I have changed the image above from the ABEC website to read 0.0% CLEANER rather than the absurd 70% CLEANER on the original front page. You can find out more about their claim on their web site...

"Except you can’t, because they don’t justify the “70% cleaner” claim in any way: maybe it’s sulphur dioxide, maybe it’s sooty ash, maybe it’s something else - it most certainly isn’t carbon dioxide, the pollutant that really matters!"

Remember the term ASTROTURF: ABEC is an Astroturf of the worst kind.

They didn't like my article, but failed to attack the crux of it because the article was correct and they didn't have a leg to stand on. Have a look at the comments for a good laugh...

Erik Taxpayer — Apr 2 2008 11:43 AM

Dear Mr/Mrs ABEC; Aren't there enough coal plants already in existance to warrant the development of CCS technology, why do we need to build more? Isn't there other means to create energy out there that doesn't NEED CCS or deliver the high cost of pollutants that coal ensures us. Hmmm, somehow wind, bio-fuels, oh and let's not forget the old reliable, energy efficiency spring to mind.
Now to comment on an earlier statement you made, what exactly do you consider an "environmental challenge"? Are the layers of dirt, rock and soil (aka: a mountain) over a coal seam seen as as "environmental challenge"? Would your new "ultimate solution" to fix this be MTR mining?
And finally, why do you think the "issue of global warming is probably the single biggest challenge facing America’s energy sector"? Do you see it this way b/c it's cutting into your profits and construction of new plants or b/c you are trully concerned with global climate change and how much your industry contributes?