Coal to Liquid and Natural Gas

I've wanted to post something for a while regarding the push by my indicted Governor Ernie Fletcher and the other assorted characters to get a huge tax package passed in Kentucky for plants that turn coal into liquid and/or natural gas. The little info that I've heard about it is pretty scary. Basically an expensive(taxwise) and dirty stop gap measure that's mostly just a way of putting off the real tough decisions needed for our energy, environmental and jobs needs. We live in Kentucky though where coal is king and tough political decisions are for someone else. From the whiny and spineless actions of my National Democrats lately(Ben Chandler, BOO!) I don't have much hope for the local ones. Jodie Richardson may just keep them in line long enough to do something good. I won't hold my breath though. We'll see.










Photo NPR.

Here's a piece of a pretty good Larry Dale Keeling article published a few days ago:
--
Double the trouble, at taxpayer expense

"..On the environmental side, the polluting properties of coal - starting with mining and lasting long after burning - and the large amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces more than twice the global warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost double that of ordinary diesel. As pundits have pointed out, driving a Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline."

Although the immediate motivation for the incentives legislators will consider in a special session tentatively scheduled to begin August 13 is a coal-to-natural gas plant currently under consideration by Peabody Energy, those incentives would also apply to coal-to-liquid facilities (as well as to more environmentally friendly forms of alternative energy).

Of course, no coal-to-liquid plants are likely to be built without massive federal incentives and a guaranteed demand for the fuel that's produced. But the recent push in Congress to commit to such a course at the cost of billions of dollars to American taxpayers prompted Scientific American editors to say:

"This is unacceptable at a time when leading scientists from all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at least 60 percent over the next half century to avert the worst consequences of global warming. Instead of spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting industry, we should be investing in efficiency and renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming today."..

Continue here.

..
Here's that Scientific American Article:
Liquid coal would produce roughly twice the global warming
emissions of gasoline.

-