I just got an e-mail saying that in the next few weeks congress is going to vote on a bill that would help companies make gasoline that is derived from coal. The argument is that getting our gasoline from coal will help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce global warming emissions with "carbon sequestering" technology. The bill would provide millions in construction loans for new "liquid coal" plants, and would also require the government to purchase fuel made from liquid coal for 25 years.

In my opinion, it would be a huge mistake to pass this bill. We need to start using less coal instead of more coal. A study from MIT concluded that making gasoline from coal doubles the amount of carbon produced, when compared to making gasoline from oil. Also, there are no power plants or manufacturing plants that utilize carbon capture and storage, which so far seems to be nothing but false hope.

Here's a good article about liquid coal if anyone wants to read more information:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

If your are against the idea of liquid coal, MoveOn.org has a petition you can sign that they are sending to congressmen and senators.

 

Hi Mike,

Germany during WW-II used coal gasification techniques to make the gasoline they needed for their armies. There was also a 'coal shale' project in the late 1970s that could have also converted another form of fossilized hydro-carbons to more useful fuels. Although I'd like to avoid carbon emissions, I also realize the technology to make the leap isn't really on the show-room floors today.

Rather than 'stand in the way' of someone else's efforts, my focus is on 'getting in front' of the technology we need. So step one is to make sure my Prius is as efficient as possible. Then use 'lessons learned' to make our house that much better. Then along the way, see if I can make a little 'spare change' making my solutions available to others.

Bob Wilson

 

In the post-WW2 period South Africa embarked on a large-scale oil-from-coal project, since the country had never found any significant oil deposits. The aim was to render itself less dependent on foreign oil imports (Apartheid was the reason). They adopted the German Fischer-Tropsch process, and built Sasol which supplied (supplies?) a significant proportion of the country's oil and gasoline needs. It certainly can be done economically, but may not be an environmentally friendly way to make gasoline. It may be a good use for "dirty" coal, however! And, of course, Canada is now producing increasingly significant amounts of oil from Alberta's enormous "oil sands" deposits.

Stan

 

If I understand the processes correctly, it might lead to a way for some carbon capture. Since it also captures the other coal contaminants, it is a much better solution than having coal-plant exhaust increase the mercury level in a watershed.

So I won't 'stand in the way' of what those folks want to do as much as try to lead the way to where we need to be. IMHO, that should be fuel efficient transportation, housing, agriculture and industry.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, the arguments for making liquid coal always include discussion of carbon sequestration, but according to my information it is not actually part of the process of making the fuel- it's a promise that they are making to mitigate the worst effects of the process itself based on nacent or imaginary technology.

While we're on the subject, this might be an appropriate place to share a letter I sent to my Senators this morning. If you are interested in taking action on this legislation, and making yourself heard, there is nothing wrong with signing the MoveOn petition, as Mpress suggests above in the original post. However, writing an individualized letter usually has a bit more of an impact. My letter is far from perfect and I haven't gone back to polish it up, but feel free to adapt anything from my letter that interests you. You can find direct links here to contact every Senator:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

and here to contact every Representative:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator Obama,

I wanted to contact you as the Senate begins its energy debate. I have every confidence that you will be in there fighting for policies that will reduce America's emissions of greenhouse gases, cut our wasteful energy use, aid in the fight against climate change and oil dependence, and put us on the road to a more sustainable and responsible future. Your positions on these issues have always made me proud to have you (and Senator Durbin, as well) representing me in our national government. I just wanted to write to let you know my thoughts on what I believe are some key points that will almost certainly be important in the coming days.

First, although we live in Illinois, a state that has a proud tradition in agriculture and a huge amount of corn production, reflexively supporting corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel would be a mistake. The scientific arguments are many and varied, and I have no credentials to make my analysis particularly credible, but I refer you to the writings of Michael Pollan, who has famously estimated that each bushel of corn costs a half gallon of gas to produce. Our current agricultural subsidy system skews production so much that ethanol can still be made from corn fairly cheaply in terms of the consumer price, but the ecological costs are enormous. The wasted energy (corn-base ethanol is nowhere near as energy efficient as cellulosic ethanol or other types of ethanol), the hugely water-intensive process of corn production, along with the enormous amount of pesticides and oil used to grow corn make this far from an environmentally friendly answer. Support legislation that promotes ethanol, by all means, and other renewable bio-fuels, provided that it is done right, with the highest standards of energy efficiency, and the least negative environmental impacts in other ways. Do not, however, support any position that would greatly increase the amount of corn-based ethanol used for fuel, or set up corn as the ethanol standard in the US, when other countries have, more wisely, relied on better methods. Short term economic gains for a few big agricultural companies in Illinois are not worth the economic costs and the consequences in the long run of making such a change, even from something as damaging as oil use.

Second, the issue of coal is a very big one right now. The President is fond of talking about 'alternative' fuels instead of renewable ones, and it is certainly true that American coal interests mean that a switch to burning more coal and less oil would mean that a higher proportion of our energy needs would be met domestically. However, this is the ONLY good thing that can be said about this idea. Coal is not renewable, it has horrible emissions, and its production and use as a fuel, even in whatever liquid form the latest research can come up with, will emit enough carbon to add greatly to our already-urgent global warming problems. Moving to liquid coal fuels, and specifically supporrting the proposals to spend huge amoutns of money for infrastructure investments to subsidize private liquid coal and other developing coal-based technologies, while fractionally better than the existing coal plants, would be a huge waste of resources that could be far better allocated. Any gains to the environment from such ideas are almost certainly more than offset by the environmental harm that higher coal-based emissions would cause, and domestic energy production is simply not a panacea that will cure those problems.

Keeping these points in mind, I trust you to find a way to work towards a bill that will give us an energy policy that finally makes sense in our country. Working towards sustainability and looking at the big picture to understand the real costs from our enormous consumption of energy is vital to our nation's future in so many ways. It is on this issue that we need leadership the most in America right now, and my family and I are relying on you to provide that leadership.

Good luck, and best wishes,

 

I'll chime in my two cents worth here a bit...

While I dont know much about gas from coal, except from the MIT report I've read (and a Newsweek article), I gotta think that the energy and effort would be better spent elsewhere, like cleaner, renewable energy sources rather than a dirtier one just because we have lots of it.

Bob, you say let them go about what they need to do and in the process they *might* find a way to make that gasification cleaner...but in that process, millions of tons would be release before/if any carbon can be sequestered. My opinion is that the effort needs to be focus where our future needs to be. We have lots of coal power plant already running. Let carbon sequestration technology spun from there, not by starting up "more dust" to do it.

I really look up to all your posts about efficiency Bob, but we need to turn away from fossil burning for our transportation sector - it's too inefficient! Wouldnt gas from coal just adds another "conversion" inefficiency into an already bad one?

I'm with leahbeatle on this one...renewable, not just alternative energy. I'll go to MoveOn and put my opinion in on this one.

 

By the way, I am a realist. If coal to liquid fuel is economical I am all for it. Fewer US dollars going to foreign nations, possibilities to sequester the nasty stuff and we are all still on the road to energy nirvana.

 

Save the money and give us PHEVs NOW, even if it takes a law!!