The Coking of America

Netscape Home The Netscape BlogNetscape NewsQuake

The Coking of America — Jun 19th 2007

By Alexia Prichard

"It was a town of red brick, or of brick that would have been red if the smoke and ashes had allowed it... It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves forever and ever, and never got uncoiled."
--Hard Times, Charles Dickens

At the moment, a bill promoting "Coal-to-Liquid" (CTL) is quietly making its way through 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

22 Comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

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.

dgoodii — 11:06AM on Jun 20th 2007

3. Nuclear is the only answer that will meet the needs. If those whom call them selves conservationist continue to block any realistic talk on power and extraction of the resources of this country. None of these groups are willing to look at the true picture. All forms of power "ALL" current sources have inpact on the environment. Wind is not green, hydro is not green, they all involve massive amounts of energy to get them going. The overall

gary — 11:07AM on Jun 20th 2007

4. 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.

Al — 12:00PM on Jun 20th 2007

5. I am a big proponent of looking at all energy sources as Gary mentioned, but using liquid coal is a short term solution as it is not a renewable source of energy and we would ran out of it same way as we will with oil. Solar, wind power, fuel cell and biofuels are more sustainable in long term.

James — 12:27PM on Jun 20th 2007

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

Wm J. Rountry — 9:26PM on Jun 20th 2007

10. Go for It: Coal to liquid!.

Do I as a Tax Payer, need to SEND MONEY?.
"Absolutely NOT"!.

If the Coal Industry, wants to bring {CTL} to market; "BRING IT ON"!, IT'LL SELL!.

All Available Fuel sources should be accessible by the consuming public.
Work on the (Co2) afterwards!.

Every Resource: "ON" this Planet!, Is FINITE!.
It is[all are] GOING to Run OUT!.

So: The greater the CHOICES', And Wider Dispersal,(to consumers'); It just allows for more time!. [and possibly take care of the co2/carbon problem in the process]!.

To eventually come up with a "POWER PLANT"[Engine-Motor], that does not need any of these!.

What ever happened with the research, "INTO" Synthetics'??.
CTL: Is not a Synthetic as far as I know!.

The longer the Carbon-co2: Issue stays out There , The more a pack of Liars The Government and Business Begin to Look!.

As it is now: It starting to Read as A "BAD" Science-Fiction" Fairy Tale!{co2/carbon issue}.

Robert BENARD — 1:01AM on Jun 21st 2007

11. Why is it that nobody looked into South Africa's effort to produce gasoline out of coal. They did it some 20 years ago and where quite successful then already.

tim — 1:39AM on Jun 21st 2007

12. how long ago was the last ice age? 10,000 years?

Why was it called the ice age. It was colder then I'm guessing. What happened to the Ice? It melted. Why did it melt? Planet got warmer. Why did the planet get warmer? People polluting...oh wait NONE of today's technology existed back then. Which brings us the whole concept of 'global warming'. What heppend 10,000 years ago. It sure wasn't human activity. Something NATURALLY occured to make it happen. Today's temperature readings could still largely be attributed to that.

Another problem, I NEVER hear the word conservation in today's vocabulary. Houses are getting bigger. I'm sitting on a desktop computer writing this when I could be on a laptop using less power. I always keep hearing demand goes up.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see roofs or solar panels and fields of wind generators. Who's going to pay for it? I think it was mentioned earler in this post, nobody wants to invest in infrastructure.

As 'bad' as coal may seem, it does actually improve every year in terms of the decining pollution rate per unit of energy created. Let's say 10 years ago you made 5 tons of pullution for 100 million watts of power. Now it might be 3.9 tons for that same 100 million watts. As a 4th year mechanical engineering student, I get power publications detailing these ongoing improvements in technology that the general public doesn't see or doesn't understand. People just hear the word coal and they instantly get negative images. efficencies are improving.

john bibbo — 1:52AM on Jun 21st 2007

13. i am for coal to lig and coal to clean gas the middle east problem ia not going away enless we make it go away allof rhe clean alternent is anew way to starts anew interterstrctor for a stroger north american new jobs for the groing 300000000 million people living here thank you john bibbo

jon — 7:39AM on Jun 21st 2007

14. please read the article "Why We Don't Conserve Gasoline" by J. Taylor and P. Van Doren in the latest issue of Pipeline and Gas Journal. Briefly, they contend that the 1949 price of a gallon of gas (27 cents), adjusted for inflation, is equal to $6.68 in 2007 dollars. I find their thesis interesting because while it doesn't argue about alternatives, price-fixing, or exploration, it simply concludes that we have more disposable income, so we don't really give a damn about conservation. "The percentage of personal income that Americans spend on driving has been relatively consistent over time; 10.2% +/- 1% since 1960." Source: Pipeline & Gas Journal June 2007/ www.pgjonline.com

ladykelien — 12:18PM on Jun 21st 2007

15. Anyone watched the science channels program on the little ice age? Why did it happen? Because the polar caps melted rushing fresh water into the oceanic stream that controls much of our weather no matter how cold the water was because it was fresh it wouldn't sink below the warmer salt water which stopped the current from flowing so there was no warm water coming in from the tropics to heat up the water cycle over Europe the whole middle ages was pretty much a frozen one. 500 years of Ice and snow with very short summers. But, eventually enough of the fresh water was frozen, that the current was able to start flowing freely again allowing for the world to warm back up. Some scientists say that the earth takes care of itself others say to much green house gasses will keep it from happening and we will just continue to pump in the green house gasses so the Ice age can't happen again. This is what I know, The earth does take care of itself. Florida and Louisana tried to make the wetlands liveable and the earth let them for a while but she eventually got tired of it and the hurricans got worse much worse. Katrina distroyed half of New Orleans and Rita cleaned up enough of the toxic problem that people can now start living there again when they didn't think it would be possible for a very long time. Will another ice age be hard? Oh absolutely. Global warming is better but eventually as we know with every pendulum that has ever swung, you can't have one extream without the other and the only way to come back to center is to learn from the mistakes we made that got us out on the edges to begin with. Our goverement is stupid. We all know that. Its nothing new. The intellegent people are smart enough to stay out of the political machine. But, one way or the other the earth will take care of itself even if it means she has to rid herself of the Virus known as humanity.

shane — 2:23PM on Jun 21st 2007

16. has no one heard of Peak Oil?

The world has peaked in its oil production. Oil prices will only go up as reserves continue to dry up, and demand remains constant or increases.

look up a graph of US oil production for the past 50 years - it PEAKED in 1970!

We arent looking to alternative fuels because they are cheap, we are looking for alternative fuels because the OIL is RUNNING out.

swinadian — 5:56AM on Jun 22nd 2007

17. Please, Please, Please, people of America get your head out of your asses and look around at what is happening all over the world.
Everyone was really worried when the Y2K was coming. Was that because you were afraid of losing your money? Guess what, that money you were so worried about losing, you probably have spent it on your over inflated gas prices.
It's unbelievable to me that you are more worried terrorists coming and hurting you, than you are about the thousands that have died in Hurricanes and natural disasters in your country alone.
There is scientific fact now out there to prove that we are doing massive amounts of damage to our home,EARTH. ALL of us live on this planet, don't ruin it for a little bit of pleasure......

doncatt — 9:33AM on Jun 22nd 2007

18. Why the dickens quote a mid-19th century writer who apparently spent too much time in Pittsburgh while on his only trip to the U.S.? Have you seen that city lately? Things can get better and usually do. No creator wants his work to go bad. Suppose the next brainstorm is Heavy Green Ground Gas that even Pennsyvania's Amish farmers and U.S. national park directors can ooze over their acreage to feed their crops and our forests? -- doncatt

Poetry — 3:07PM on Jun 22nd 2007

19. We need to use as much nuclear power as possible as soon as possible. It's the only viable solution. Beware of watermelons. They are green on the outside and red or communist on the inside. Their purpose is to destroy capitalism. That is why they only suggest things that will not work.

justin — 4:27PM on Jun 22nd 2007

20. I am sure that everyone knows, that the world will eventually be dried up of its resources. The more we use our non-remewable resources, the closer we are into trapping ourselves to a corner, that there will be no other solution to turn to.

We MUST look towards solar,wind,hydro and all other renweable energy sources.....

Coal and Oil is sharply decreasing by the thousands each year, and at the rate we are going, it is not going to lead to a very great future. EVERYBODY has to act NOW while there is still a chance to be at the safe zone. If we turn and pool our money into developing more efficient and powerful solar power plants or wind-gens. we can solve this epidemic.

The world has to stop wasting millions or even billions of dollars of hard earned money on useless thing, and look towards spending it wisely. I am a student just about to start my second year of highschool, and even I know that we are in this kind of serious situation.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

At NewsQuake!, the Netscape staff blogs about breaking news of every stripe. Looking for context, commentary, and lively reportage? You’ve come to the right place.

RSS News Feed RSS Feed / Send us Tips