Coal to Liquid Plan Means a Kentucky Fried Earth

An announcement today for plans to construct a $4 billion coal to liquid fuel facility in Kentucky is a sign of the desperate times America is in.

Converting coal to liquid fuel has not been used on a large scale since the 1930's when Nazi Germany developed the technology because the country had lots of coal but no petroleum of its own.

But the sell-job is well underway right now in Kentucky to re-frame coal to liquid as a miracle answer to America's energy woes.

One proponent of the Kentucky project went so far as to state that:

"(This) will allow the United States to become energy independent and free of foreign oil, and money going overseas can actually be invested back in the United States."

In the same vein is this quote from a local Kentucky newspaper:

The coal industry and its supporters say such efforts could help wean the nation from its reliance on foreign oil for transportation. They insist that the technology would strengthen national security and be cheaper than petroleum.

The United States currently burns through about 20 million barrels of oil a day. The Kentucky coal to liquid plant is projected to produce 50,000 barrels a day -- a far cry from the grand promise of energy independence. Pardon my rough math (and love of simply stated facts) but based on the coal to liquid model being proposed in Kentucky, we would need to build at least 120 such projects to produce 6 million barrels of oil a day -- at a start-up cost for all the plants of around $480 billion.

Doesn't look like much of a silver bullet to me.

And then there's the costs to our environment -- the one we'll passing on to our children.

No amount of words will make the processing of coal into a liquid fuel clean.

But that hasn't stopped Kentucky project cheerleaders, like Pike County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford from trying:

"Our goal is to not put anything out in the ozone," Ruther­ford said. "We know there is no concept in this world right now that does that, but there's a lot of research going on."

And this in the local newspaper:

"... they are committed to having a plant that is as environmentally conscious as possible. They say they will choose a company that is also environmentally friendly."

Not much assurance when you consider that we have yet to be able to make regular-old coal-fired electric plants environmentally friendly. Now we are to somehow think that an even dirtier process like coal to liquid will somehow turn into a green, clean energy machine?

Beyond the obvious implications of increased mountaintop removal coal mining and hazardous pollution (like the ever-increasing amounts of mercury being pumped into the air) that would result from a coal-to-liquids scheme, using liquid coal as a transportation fuel would nearly double the amount of global warming pollution per gallon of fuel compared to petroleum.

At a time when the world's leading scientists say we need to cut our emissions by at least 80 percent to curtail destructive climate change, the idea of nearly doubling global warming pollution from liquid coal fuels ought to be tossed aside as a no-brainer.

As the folks at the Natural Resource Defense Council (turn your speakers down, an auto-play video starts when you click) point out, "it would be the height of folly to invest in just another technology that drives us further down the path to dependency on carbon fuels."

Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia

Comments

[robbor]

the coal and oil producers all say "Yeah, I see the multitude of benefits switching over to green energy systems but in the meantime excuse me while i inject this syringe of fossil fuel into my vein." The producers of carbon fuels are just plain dangerous to us.

[TimmySlagle]

I don't get your point Kevin.

Your major objection to Coal Liquefaction (besides pointing out that the NAZIS did it) is cost.

The coal to liquid process costs about forty dollars a barrel. If a plant can produce 50,000 barrels a day, and sell it for $140, that means a 4 billion dollar investment will be paid back in about two and a half years. After that, the investors will be earning $1.8 billion dollars a year profit. That's not a bad return on investment, quadrupling your money in just ten years.

And as long as the investment capital is private, what's your beef?

[GreyFlcn]

re: TimmySlagle
"And as long as the investment capital is private, what's your beef?"

@ Kevin Grandia:
"using liquid coal as a transportation fuel would nearly double the amount of global warming pollution per gallon of fuel compared to petroleum."
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png

Thats a pretty big "beef" if you ask me.

[Raymondf]

These so called experts, are wrong I have lived in West Virginia all my live 65 years, was born(by a mid-wife) and raised here. West Virginia is a beautiful state, all mountain top mining when finished, is reclaimed by the coal companies, and wildlife is abundent. Some even have lakes on them, at no cost the taxpayers. One mountaintop mine in West Virginia has a 8,000,000 dollar High School built on it. Lord knows we need the space to build in this state it's hard to build housing on a side of a mountain. Why not have the mines mine coal then reclaim the land(which is the mining laws) and have room to build. Lumber companies can come in and clear cut and not have to do anything except leave the dead wood laying. West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, and Wyoming is clean coal with very little harmful emissions. Each of those states I named have enough coal already being mined to supply this country for 100 years. So why not use the coal to liquid technology sounds great to me.

[research]

a reclaimed mountain top is a pile of rubble, not mostly solid rock. Water filters through leaching out heavy metals and contaminating the water supply. Where does the burned ash go?

http://www.nrdc.org/coal/19c_water.asp

Radon gas is emitted from a vastly larger surface area, and the porous rubble pile allows it to escape to the surface. I would test your High School for radon.

I don't see why we should believe you, whoever you are, over the many organization and experts who have studied the situation scientifically. You provide not links to support you assertions.

Why bother with coal when wind power is cheaper and faster to install?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[TimmySlagle]

"Why bother with coal when wind power is cheaper and faster to install?"

Because you can't run a Chevy Malibu on wind.

[research]

Why bother with coal? 20GW of wind were installed in 2007 at 1.4$/average watt. Far cheaper then even old dirty coal plants,. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[GreyFlcn]

So whats the difference between the infrastructure for Liquid Coal, and Cellulosic Ethanol?

Apparently nothing. (!) They are exactly one in the same.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.pdf

And given the inherent scarcity of biomass, and the nonscarcity of coal, that does question the sanity of advocating for the rapid institutionalization of infrastructure which intends to stick around for atleast 15-30 years.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
http://greyfalcon.net/mythsofbiofuels

Much less the implied assumption that biofuels are green or sustainable at all to begin with.
Especially when considering the global aggregate effect.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol10
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil.pdf

Expecting them to close up shop, just because their fuel isn't green would be an entirely naive assumption. Especially since this is a global issue. We don't write the laws for China, India, Africa, and the rest of the of the world.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Synfuels are one of those dumb ideas that crop up every time we get into a national energy 'debate'. With a return on invested energy a small fraction of that of petroleum, gas would have to get somewhere north of $20/gal. for it to make sense to even look at synfuels.

Face facts people, for the forseeable future the petroleum powered, ICE vehicle is going to be the most capable,cheapest and GREENEST option for the personal automobile. At that my friends is the REAL problem.

[worldsforgottenboy]

Kevin,

"Coal-to-liquids" is actually a very good idea, as long as you don't use coal. The heart of this process is a reactor which mixes carbon monoxide gas and hydrogen gas to produce liquid fuels, and the gas can be produced from renewable biomass fairly easily.

If it is done right, "gas-to-liquids" is a viable path to convert the US economy to renewable fuels without a 10 trillion $ infrastructure & vehicle fleet investment. It is the right technology on the wrong track, basically.