gh Congress. As its name suggests, CTL uses a chemical process to convert coal into a liquid, which can then be further converted into fuel for cars and planes. In an age when alternatives to petroleum are being hotly pursued, coal seems to make sense--especially given the huge reserves in this country. But it doesn't.

Coal production is twice as polluting as petroleum production, and accounts for more than half of the nation's deadly greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, to build the 5-10 proposed new plants necessary for CTL conversion would cost more than $3 billion per plant. Add to that the proposed daily output of 50,000 barrels of liquified coal--in a country that currently burns 9 million barrels of gasoline per day--and you have math so stunning you feel like you should look over your shoulder to see if you're on Candid Camera.

Paradoxically, CTL fans argue that the process can be a "green" alternative, thanks to carbon sequestration (also known as carbon capture and storage-CCS). This entails capturing the CO2 as it's emitted and storing it underground via a long injection tube or some other costly method. But here too, there are major drawbacks: the costs dramatically outweigh the gains, and there isn't enough data to determine whether carbon sequestration is harmful or not. One of the few such large-scale operations in the world is Norway's Sleipner West project in the North Sea, which has only been around since 1996-not even an embryo in science years.

CTL supporters the world over insist that safe, nearly impenetrable areas can be found underground or undersea that would hold the CO2 for "at least" few thousand years. The tricky word here is "nearly." What happens if there's a fluke earthquake? A rogue missile? If a hole is punched in the protective layer above the sequestered CO2, we'll be right back where we started: dying from an excess of greenhouse gases.

How dumb do coal proponents in the government think we are? Pretty dumb, clearly, since we're not supposed to notice that three of the bill's co-sponsors in the Senate come from among the top five states in coal reserves: West Virgina (Byrd-D), Wyoming (Enzi-R & Thomas-R), and Illinois (Obama-D). Essentially, we'd be throwing money and effort at CTL to avoid shutting down the coal industry--a decision some fearmongers say could cause a global economic disaster.

Well, I think that's silly and I'll tell you why: we can adapt. We built a country on our ability to adapt, and we can do it again. We can try proven, economically responsible alternatives like solar, wind, biomass, and biofuel, and easily avoid disaster while reducing our CO2 emissions at the same time. We just need to give these cleaner alternatives a fighting chance. Truly "green" energy-usage percentages are low because the government hasn't thrown its weight behind these alternatives. So what's it going to be: spend even more of the money we don't have on wildly expensive, untested, low-output systems, or spend much, much less on proven, efficient, lasting systems? The answer may mean no less than the fate of the world.

Tags: coal, congress, environment, green, obama, petroleum

7 Comments

Recent Posts

The Coking of America (6/19/2007)

Iron Man: Monitoring the Machine (6/18/2007)

Follow the Money: Second Life Gets Sued (6/17/2007)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

bcrocket — 8:48AM on Jun 20th 2007

1. You forgot Nuclear. There are new technologies on the drawing board that are inherently safer and actually consume waste from older plants. They also produce hydrogen as a byproduct that can be used to jump start the hydrogen economy. With the eventual conversion of cars to electricity or Hydrogen fuel cells. Nuclear maybe the only way to provide enough electricity to meet demand. Wind and solar are just to diffuse and unreliable to be practical as other than a supplement.

Shelley Wilcox — 9:11AM on Jun 20th 2007

2. Wind and solar and energy storage technology are on a vertical improvement curve and will therefore be several times more useful in 2 to 5 years time. Nuclear will always have horrible potential disatrous outcomes - what a great target for terrorists. You can never just bury the spent fuel and forget it. I'm in Nova Scotia Canada and we are developing the best wind and tidal power on the planet to ship to the US northeast. Whether our mutual heads of government like it or not, we have to do TODAY what will make our planet humanly habitable 100 years from now.

gary — 11:07AM on Jun 20th 2007

3. I believe that all types of power alternatives should be looked at.

Should an industry like the coal industry be condemned for tying to clean up coal as a cleaner more useful fuel? I am not sold on fuel from corn and other agricultural products only. My question; would this raise the price of food to feed a hungry world? Iam not sure that is why I ask. Maybe by working together ,even mixing some of these fuels together like the oil industry is now involed in , it will work out after all.

We have to use what we have and in a responsible way. We should take care of the world. To close I would just like to say this is only my opinion as a coal-miner. For what its worth I worship Jesus Christ not the environment.

James — 12:27PM on Jun 20th 2007

4. Though the idea of wind and power has allways looked as the end all answer it is anything but that. The reason that there is so many goverment incentives that push for these is the fact that most are not economical. Less than 10% of electricity comes from the combined efforts of wind, solar and hydro. These are also dependent upon the conditions of the enviroment which means that it would require major storage facilities.

Coal may be a horrible answer to the Idealist who wants a perfect energy solution but it is improving. Though today we burn more than 10 times the coal that we did in 1970 our emmisions are less than half making it an improvement of over 500%. In 2012 also all plants will be required to have carbon scrubbers.

On the final say of injecting it into the ground before any of this is done a comprehensive Structural report is done on the geology. They do not inject it into a fault with a high porosity so that when an earthquake occurs it releases.

Since this is a field I am in I feel that often it is neglected by all the easy answers discussed above but is misunderstood on a mass scale. I ask everyone interested in this matter to please research the "solutions" more carefully.

Patrick — 4:22PM on Jun 20th 2007

5. this whole thing is basically the same thing as with oil. the big coal and oil companies want to squeeze every last penny out of the us. wind, solar, and water are all very good alternative, but like people have said it depends on the environment. personally out west in like new mexico, arizona, california, nevada, where the subn is shining like 90% of the time i think solar is a very real solution. there are also some very windy places too were wind energy could be used. there are green answers out there people just have to actually want to do it. i mean if oil and coal companies are going to spend billions of dollars on new refineries, mines, and drilling site then why cant someone spend a couple billion on an efficient solar panel, or wind generator

jon — 4:45PM on Jun 20th 2007

6. please remember that since we ALL use energy, we are all part of the problem. It is very disheartening to have industries dvelop new tachnologies, and then have the citizenry complain about their implementation. An example? The reaction of Maine citizens in Mars Hill to the recent wind turbine site there. Let's be honest, in Aroostook County, you can plant and dig potatoes, or you can be unemployed. Are the wind turbines ugly, yep, can they be seen for miles, yep, do they make noise, yep, do they kill birds and bats, again, yep. However, do Americans want to grow the economy, support their families, and continue to deplete fossil fuel resources, yes. The state of Texas has hundreds of wind turbines, authorized by the present president while he was governor there, yet he is constantly pilloried by the press. The potential for wind power and tidal generators is only as limited as our imaginations and the financial resources needed to realize that potential. Nuclear power, why not? have standardized plants and start the permitting process NOW, while you get the wind farms off the ground, as well as the tidal genarators as well as solar power. Coal, why not? Like nuclear, it's domestic and you don't spend billions defending it in Iraq. I work in an energy industry and no one wants to spend $$$ ion infrastructure, write your politicians and demand it!thanks for listening, enough said

ernestdelmoe — 7:39PM on Jun 20th 2007

7. Why are greenhouse gases supposed to be deadly? I don't believe that there is anyone who has "died" from greenhouse gases. Also, if we continually worry about everything bad that "might" happen, nothing will ever get done. Which is to say nothing will ever get solved. CCS is a technology which has the potential of contributing toward greater energy independance. But worrying about some vague future possibility of an earthquake or rogue missile only eliminates another possible solution to our problems. Any new technology will involve risks. We cannot make progress without risks.