Coal Synfuel Scam costing taxpayers billions: TIME Magazine Expose

[philb]

The Great Energy Scam," TIME, Oct. 13, 2003
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493241,00.html


The Coal Synfuel Scam: A Magic Way to Make Billions
TIME, Sunday, Feb. 26, 2006 By DONALD L. BARLETT, JAMES B. STEELE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167738,00.html

Coal sprayed with stuff and called synfuel to get tax credit intended for production of new energy resources to reduce energy dependance. But the scam synfuel has less net energy than the original coal, and the taxpayers and rate payers pay double for a product that results in less energy. Although TIME has done this major expose, big political contributions to the right places have kept the scam going and ripping off billions from the public for the benefit of a few.

Apparently Florida Utilities were the major players in this. I hear that someone is asking the Florida Public Service Commission to deal with the scam by Florida utilities in a petition being considered currently. Docket 060658.

[spag68]

1. This is stupid

Over 25 years ago a test plant doing coal to gas was built in Western Pa. and made the stuff with little pollution. Although it still is not as clean as solar or thermal solutions, it could be used as a bridge to a real pollution free energy future. It produced competitively priced fuel then when oil was 15 to 20 dollars a barrel.

[philb]

4. Appears you don't understand whats going on here- this is pure scam

They take plain coal and spray gunk on it. Call it synfuel.
The feds pay them a subsidy about the same as price of coal.
They sell the gunky synfuel to a utility to burn in coal plant, at small discount since its lower quality than the original coal.
There is also a fairly large net energy loss, the synfuel results in less energy than the original coal.
So the program is a pure scam, reduces U.S. energy independance rather than enhancing it.
Ratepayers and tax payers pay twice as much for the energy as for coal, but get less energy.
Lose/lose situation for ratepayers and taxpayers.
The scamers get billions in illicit windfall profits.

See the TIME articles.

[NickB79]

5. Unless you consider CO2 as a pollutant

In which case coal-to-liquids operations are incredibly polluting.

[razzleberry]

2. better than oil from the middle east .n/t

[Nihil]

3. Maybe on your planet but not on this one. (n/t)

[NickB79]

6. Barrel for barrel, oil from coal generates more CO2 than oil from the ME

So from a global warming perspective, it is WORSE than oil from the Middle East.

[philb]

7. This thread has nothing to do with oil from coal, this is about coal called synfuel- no liquid fuel

this material is worse than coal in all measures and at twice the price
Its just gunky coal called synfuel at a much higher price, subsidizing energy waste.

[NickB79]

8. I was replying to razzleberry, who stated this was better than ME oil

I thought he was referring to liquefying coal, since that would be a substitute for ME oil. Can't really run a car on solid coal.