No subsidy for a filthy fuel (liquefied coal) - Boston Globe

[Eugene]

Source: Boston Globe

GLOBE EDITORIAL

No subsidy for a filthy fuel

June 12, 2007

THE EFFORT to reduce US dependence on Persian Gulf oil often
overlaps with efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases of fossil fuels,
since improved efficiency and renewable energy achieve both goals.
But one proposal for replacing oil -- by using coal as a raw material to
produce motor fuel -- has many advocates in Congress even though it
would actually increase overall carbon dioxide emissions. In the energy
bill now pending on Capitol Hill, Congress should reject any subsidies
for liquefied coal.

-snip-

The coal industry wants help from Uncle Sam because liquefied coal is
still far too costly to be competitive. A recent MIT study on coal
estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build the plants needed to
replace just 10 percent of US gasoline consumption. Bills before
Congress would provide government-backed loans for plant construction,
subsidy protection against drops in oil prices, and a long-term contract
to supply the Air Force with the alternative fuel. Coal-state lawmakers,
including Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are pushing for
the measures.

All of this largess, though, would replace gasoline with a fuel that would
generate about twice the carbon dioxide emissions of gasoline. Even if
the plants were built so that their carbon dioxide emissions could be
captured and then stored underground, the Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that liquefied coal would still emit about 4 percent
more carbon dioxide than gasoline.

The United States has immense coal reserves -- enough to make it
the Saudi Arabia of this fossil fuel -- so proposals for liquefied coal
have become the unkillable Draculas of US energy policy. Instead of
pursuing this highly polluting misuse of coal, though, the industry
and its allies in Congress should be doing more to promote the use of
gasified coal as a replacement for conventional coal in the generation
of electricity. With carbon capture and storage, this process achieves
great reductions in greenhouse gases.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/06/12/no_subsidy_for_a_filthy_fuel

---

NOTE: The editors are more credulous about CO2 burial
than many of us here.

[Strelnikov_]

1. $70 billion to build the plants needed to replace just 10 percent of US gasoline consumption

And we have spent, what, $2T in current and future costs to attempt to secure a yet unsecured, what, 3 Mbbl/dy oil supply in Iraq, for a few rich oligarchs.

I think the Government should probably build the $70 B to build this 1 Mbbl/dy of liquefaction capacity to hold in reserve in the event of a catastrophic loss of liquid fuels (war, drought, etc.). And why can't the plants be operated at partial capacity as 'conventional' coal fired electric plants to recoup part of the cost, burning the producer gas in turbines when the liquefaction capacity is not required.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. If I'd seen this yesterday, I'd have recommended it...

I received an email yesterday asking me to phone my senators and express support for the bill; and NO mention was made of the use of liquid coal as a viable alternative. But the message was apparently approved by Jesus. :grr: