Liquid Coal a Crude Substitute - 4/2/08

In the U.S. coal is in abundance and easily obtainable. It is the U.S.'s largest domestic energy source. Raw coal currently generates about half of the electricity in the U.S., but at the cost of increasing global warming emissions. Many electricity generating plants are ordering coal turbines over natural gas.

Liquid coal was used by the Germans in World War II due to limited access to petroleum supplies. Countries including China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, South Africa, the United States, and Australia have large coal deposits that would last 100 to 200 years at current rates of exploitation. With continuing violence in countries with large oil reserves, countries are looking for alternative domestic energy with extreme urgency, but at what cost.

The coal industry in the U.S. is now pushing liquid coal as the answer to our energy demands and independence from foreign oil. Their plan would convert hundreds of millions of tons of coal into liquid transportation fuel, but at what price to our environment.

The coal industry is claiming liquid coal has the same amount of carbon as gasoline, which is true after it is processed. What they leave out is most of the CO2 emissions, occurring in the “production” of the liquid coal. This would greatly add to our already apparent global warming problem. Global warming will create tremendous consequences on food production and the availability of fresh water. The better solution to reducing our oil consumption is generating electricity from coal and capturing the CO2, then using that electricity to recharge plugs in hybrid cars and electric cars.

The coal industry is asking the government for 500 million dollars for each liquid to coal plant, 100 billion dollars in a loan guarantee program, and a 200 million dollar tax credit per plant. They also want the military to be required to buy a certain amount of liquid coal at a set price. Many believe this is putting good money after bad, making the investment in liquid coal an immoral and irresponsible decision. Big coal cannot raise the money they need in the private sector, so they are going to congress to lay the bill and put all the economic risk on the American public.

To replace only 10% of our oil consumption we would need to increase coal production by 40%, which would scar our land and water resources.

According to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, our global warming emissions must be reduced 80% by 2050 to avert the catastrophic impact of climate change. This can be achieved by the promotion of a number of programs including: energy efficiency, renewable electricity resources like wind and solar, and coal to electricity, capturing the CO2.

Liquid coal would take us in the wrong direction by increasing those emissions.

More About Liquid Coal:
Video: Liquid Coal Wants to be the New Oil, but it's a Crude Substitute
Liquid Coal as Transportation Fuel
Can Liquid Coal from Alaska Help the U.S.
China Leads the Way Coal-to-Liquid Production

Back to the Resources Page