Liquefied Coal: Too Insane to be taken Seriously .:. grubbykid.com

Liquefied Coal: Too Insane to be taken Seriously

Exploit, originally uploaded by Andreas Reinhold

So this week's energy source du jour is Liquefied Coal, which has been getting a great deal of coverage in the Times:

Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.
...
The M.I.T. team expressed even more skepticism about the economic risks. It estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption.

The study estimates that the construction costs for coal-to-liquid plants are almost four times higher than the costs for comparable petroleum refineries, and it argues that cost estimates for synthetic fuel plants in the past turned out to be “wildly optimistic.”

I thought the whole, let's throw eleventy-billion dollars at the coal industry idea was merely insane. This was before I saw this graph below, illustrating the comparable carbon footprint of liquefied coal to other energy sources, which without a doubt moves this proposal squarely into the batshit insane category:

That's right: by using liquefied coal as a fuel source, we would increase the release of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 119%! Let' be real: by the time any subsidy bill works its way through Congress, any sort of language mandating carbon capture will be long gone. Not to mention the literally billions of dollars needed for research, development and execution of liquefied coal on an industrial scale. Even the National Coal Council isn't on board this deal:

Ironically, for all the hype, liquefied coal is hardly the cheapest or easiest way to achieve energy security. According to the National Coal Council, an advisory board to the Department of Energy filled with coal executives, a tremendous coal-to-liquid push — involving $211 billion in investments over the next 20 years and a 40 percent increase in mining — would allow the United States to replace just 10 percent of its oil supply. By contrast, using that coal to generate electricity for plug-in hybrids would displace twice the oil and emit a fraction of the carbon.

So, now that we've all agreed liquefied coal is a bad idea, can we please bring the grownups into the room and get on with some actual ideas about creating new and sustainable energy sources?

Comments

Jw says:

Bring on the Liquid Coal, I say!

I've always had a desire to experience the downfall of mankind. Is there a technical term for being a member of a species yet still desiring its total and unbiased extinction?

Posted by: Jw at May 31, 2007 9:35 AM #

Jeff says:

I really don't understand why we can't just light cow farts and use the heat from the flames to power immense boilers full of crisco and harvest the fat-steam to drive giant pistons to produce our energy. But this is probably why I'm not an energy "expert."

The Times article also overlooks the environmental damage caused by mining the coal, which should be factored in when considering what a huge boondoggle this whole clean coal thing really is...

Posted by: Jeff at May 31, 2007 12:36 PM #

sweetchuck says:

The human body itself produces heat and energy. Why not try to harvest this somehow? Each person can be his own battery. Come to think of it, I may have seen this in a movie somewhere...

Posted by: sweetchuck at May 31, 2007 12:51 PM #

Jeff says:

Been watching a lot of "Small Wonder" on DVD lately sweetchuck?