I Believe... "Clean Coal" is PR Spin

Mon, 2008-04-21 12:06Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

I Believe... "Clean Coal" is PR Spin

We put together two quick youtube “video responses” to the new coal industry front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's (ACCCE), slick “I believe” advertising. Interestingly, the President of ACCCE, Steve Miller is claiming that the, “folks in the ads are a lot like most of us.”

Does Miller mean most of us are like actors in a commercial paid for by the coal industry?

Here's our video responses:

Previous Comments

I don’t know how to be any clearer about who we are and where our money comes from! We say so near the top of the press release we sent out announcing the launch of our new organization!

For that matter, you glossed over the REAL news about the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:

For the first time, we have over 40 coal-related companies agreeing to federal regulation of carbon dioxide, provided our 12 principles are met.

And for the cynical among you, those principles are available for anyone to see: http://www.cleancoalusa.org/docs/beyond/

So would you be willing to put across the top of your ads: “Paid for by the coal industry and power producers” - or something to that effect? 

Why do all of these coal companies have to pay you to do these ads? Why doesn’t Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the US, run these ads under their own name? 

The ads themselves point people to americaspower.org.

And right there on the site is who funds the group:
http://www.americaspower.org/Who-We-Are/ACCCE-Members

You’re assuming that the average person who sees about 5 commercials every 10 minutes or so every half hour is going to take the time to go to your website and click through to the section outlining funders.

That’s not going to happen - not even close.

And again, why do all of these coal companies have to pay you to do these ads? Why doesn’t Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the US, run these ads under their own name?

“And again, why do all of these coal companies have to pay you to do these ads?”

While we’re on the subject, why does someone need to pay a shill working for a PR company, such as you, to promote the political doctrine of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

It seems odd that such a supposedly cataclysmic phenomenon would need slick Vancouver public relations firm to promote it’s existence?

They don’t need to persuade people that AGW is happening, because every well-informed person knows it. The new purpose of this site is to attract trolls like yourself, Rob, and to study them…

I’m confused at the question. The company you named has its own ads. It is also part of a coalition of more than 40 companies promoting coal use for electricity.

The catch being that coal with carbon storage is the most expensive form of electricity available. (Hence why FutureGen was canceled)
greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2

Hell, even without carbon storage it’s already atleast 3x more expensive than it was 5 years ago, now that the 2005 Clean Air Act laws have kicked in.
greyfalcon.net/costlycoal

And then of course the regulation I’d imagine they are agreeing to is the Lieberman-Warner bill, which incidentally gives huge grandfather allowances to coal plants.

Aka, they are in favor of legislation that
1. Makes it so that they don’t have to do anything different
2. Asks them to do something different, but doesn’t ask them to pay for it

_

Either way you put it, they are against paying for carbon emissions.

_____________

Considering a small fraction of today’s coal plants would require a liquid carbon distribution system LARGER than our existing petroleum pipeline system.

All you have is a pipe dream.

Or more specifically a claim that they are willing to do something, as long as it’s so impossible that they will never have to do it.

Give it up. Desmog is a smear site.
That’s what they do.
They don’t need reason or facts or logic.
They just smear anything related to carbon no matter what it is.

Besides, nobody pays any real attention to them.

Um, desmogblog was in the new york times 2 weeks ago, the globe and mail on the weekend and was voted one of the top 50 ecoblogs in the world by the London Times.

And our little Troll spends more time on this site than he does at work by the looks of things.

I just said nobody pays attentention.
I find it very amusing.
Just not credible.

I watch Science fiction TV as well, but I don’t believe it.

Take a look at the circulation of the national inquirer.
Same thing.

“nobody pays attention?
Um, desmogblog was in the new york times 2 weeks ago”

Yup. Apparently, nobody pays attention. –

New York Times anticipates newsroom layoffs

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) – Newsroom layoffs are foreseen at The New York Times after the newspaper’s attempt to reduce positions through voluntary buyouts fell short of its 100-job target.

In a memo sent to employees Tuesday afternoon, Assistant Managing Editor Bill Schmidt said: “[E]very effort to handicap the outcome suggests that we are almost certain to fall short of the number of volunteers we will need. If that is indeed the case, as we expect it will be, we will – regrettably – be forced to resort to some limited number of layoffs within the core newsroom.”
New York Times Co.’s flagship newspaper, struggling along with the industry to stem losses in advertising sales as more readers turn to the Web for news and information, said in February that it would need to cut its newsroom staff by about 100 positions.

Those videos are a great response to the Clean Coal commercials. I hope people don’t buy into their “spin” campaign.

I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming (I don’t plan on buying a hybrid). Has anyone seen that www.EarthLab.com is promoting their Earth Day (month) challenge, with the goal to get 1 million people to take their carbon footprint test in April? I took the test, it was easy and only took me about 2 minutes and I am planning on lowering my score with some of their tips.

I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do. If you know of any other sites worth my time let me know.

Take the Nature Challenge: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/

“Take the Nature Challenge: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/”

Yeah, and while you’re doing that, Suzuki will be motoring across the country in his diesel rock-star tour bus, promoting his latest book of New Age poetry. Gore will continue gad about in his private Challenger executive jet, and ride in limos.

But, damn it, just take that Nature Challenge. No excuses, now.

“I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming”

This seems a strangely impotent and facile response to what Global Warming enthusiasts often claim is an apocalypse. It would appear that you don’t take the problem very seriously, given your half-hearted emphasis on only doing things that are “easy” and “simple”. How on Earth do you expect us skeptics to take your claims seriously – since you obviously don’t take them seriously yourself?

I think what’s plain here is that, despite the most strident rhetoric, Global Warming enthusiasts, deep down, in some vestigial subconcious remnant of common sense, grasp the obvious fact that absolutely nothing they, or the entire population of the planet do, can possibly control the climate. And so, you resort to empty symbolic feel-good gestures, that do nothing other than give you a warm feeling of self-importance and imaginary moral superiority. “Simple” and “easy”.

“I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do.”

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

Earth Day Festivities in Edmonton on Sunday were a complete and utter failure.
The Sheeple really aren’t that stupid after all.

There is hope.
This may indeed just be a lot of feel good hot air being expelled by a majority that would like to be viewed as green as long as it does not cause any inconvienience.

On the Coal issue, there is a company in Alberta that is very close to producing a coal powder that burns as clean as natural gas.
Still can’t touch neuclear but….
Stay tuned.

What was your’s?
While I and most other AGW realists care just as much as the alarmists about a clean environment, I just can’t bring myself to care about carbon.
It’s plant food.

Stop Poluting, but feed the plants!!!!\
We all need to eat.

Which plants exactly are thriving in the upper atmosphere, and taking advantage of the 747 megatonnes of carbon dioxide released through Canadians’ activity in 2005 alone? Or the remaining 98% percent produced elsewhere in 2005? (Ref: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080422/d080422a.htm) Or better yet, all the CO2 produced in the past 100 years?

Plants don’t actually grow in the upper atmosphere Hugh.
Fortunately, there is lots of CO2 at ground level to help the plants.
As long as you guys don’t screw that up too.

And yet you have claimed that increased CO2 emissions are assisting plant growth. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Unless you are an obstructive simpleton, that is.

Lets see if this makes any sense:

“They focus on the “bonus allowance program” – which would issue free allowances to utilities who build plants with CCS based on the tons of CO2 sequestered. Their conclusion: this program would be very costly (between $68 and $110 billion through 2030) but would result in a small number of new plants with CCS (no more than 48 gigawatts by 2030).

The reason for these large costs is that utilities would receive windfalls far greater than the added costs of CCS itself. Some one-gigawatt plants, for example, would receive free allowances worth $4.6 billion. These allowances would enable utilities not simply to finance the added costs of CCS but to offset emissions at existing coal plants, delaying reductions that would otherwise be required under the bill’s declining emission caps. Despite the windfalls received by specific utilities, CCS would not, in fact, be required at any new plant and conventional uncontrolled coal plants could continue to be built.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/18/151251/454

____________

In short, of course Coal companies think it’s a great idea.

Because they don’t have to actually pay for anything.

And, regardless of whether the tab is picked up by the evil utilities or by the benevolent “gummint, the cost will ultimately be borne by consumers when they pay either their power bills or their taxes.

Unless of course they switch to cheaper sources of energy.
Like solar thermal, and geothermal.

Finally, one of the UN members stands up and states what the real goal has always been.
How refreshing:

Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.

And your comment reveals your own underlying paranoia. You are afraid of losing some money.

But I am very afraid of socialism.
It is a creaping cancer that is much worse than communism.
Worst possible that could happen to our society.
Could not and will not live in a cesspool of socialist decay.

And in your view, then, anthropogenic global warming is another facet of this socialist decay?

“… cheaper … like solar thermal and geothermal.”

Goodness mercy me, why didn’t I think of that. Of course that explains why people are lining up to do the home-based thing. LOL

Heh, I’d be the first to admit that home retrofit solar panels aren’t going to get us very far.
_

Thinfilm CIGS panels coextruded in commercial flat roll roofing might be worthwhile though.
http://greyfalcon.net/pv

But where the real kickass is at, is in centralized solar thermal, ideally with heat storage.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://www.esolar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9vkkFNkE44

Dish solar without storage though might be competitive for day-time power.
http://greyfalcon.net/csp4
http://greyfalcon.net/csp

_

Geothermal, now that’s just damned wonderful where you can get it. Better reliability than a coal plant, and it runs 24/7.
For instance, Geothermal provides more renewable energy to California than all the other renewable technologies combined, many times over.
And this is after you take into account that California has over 90% of US’s solar electricity.
technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17236
geo-energy.org/publications/reports/November%202006%20Geothermal%20Power%20Production%20and%20Development%20Survey.pdf
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/techtalk51-17.pdf
greyfalcon.net/geothermal
rasertech.com/uptospeed/
_

For instance, Google of course is getting in on the action trying to really kick this stuff into high gear.
greyfalcon.net/google greyfalcon.net/google2

I had an opertunity to do a cost benefit analysis on a solar panel for an office building about 6 months ago. The panel was state of the art, chosen by a government agency and promoted as the best of breed.
The output was rated at 1000 watts nominal.
The measured putput was 450 watts average duing the day.
The cost payback on this 28,000 dollar unit was 350 years using projected power costs.
Bottom line:
We could light the board room on sunny days for $28,000.
We decided there were more effective ways to make political statements.

We do have Geothermal heating however and that works ok. Not great, but ok and it’s payback is somwhere before the building is due to be bulldozed at least.

There is hope however. A company in Ontario is about to release solar panels that are 48% efficient. Thats twice as good as the best available now.
And there is talk from a research team in Isreal about a solar conversion technology that is over 800 times more efficient than that.

One day it will be ready for prime time. Just not today.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/137821-Israeli+company+makes+solar+energy+viable

[x]

Labour’s climate policies depend on carbon capture and storage to provide energy and jobs, despite serious concerns about the practice.

Coal burning will power Britain under a Labour government through the use of carbon capture and storage...

read more