In This Issue:
Court stops sales, planting of genetically engineered alfalfa
Healthy markets lead to healthy communities
House, Senate block liquid coal subsidies
Latest mad cow problems show need for labeling
Legislation would protect landowners
Legislatures move oil and gas reform bills
Legislature, livestock and trade
Holding animal factories accountable
House renewable energy bill introduced
WORC develops biofuel recommendations
House,
senate block liquid coal subsidies
“Liquids from coal would be too expensive, take too long, and would worsen global warming,” WORC Chair Donley Darnell wrote in a letter to members of Congress after the House vote.
“Building commercial-scale liquid coal plants would require huge public
subsidies and massive amounts of water, yet would yield far less fuel, far
fewer economic development benefits, and far fewer jobs per dollar invested
than will biofuels plants, wind farms, or energy efficiency.”The motion would have recommitted H.R. 547, a straightforward bill to fund EPA work on biofuels research and development, concerning fuel standards and infrastructure, by changing the subject of the research from clean, renewable biofuels to include all “alternative fuels,” specifically including liquids from coal.
In March, Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) tried to amend a Senate bill implementing the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission by attaching billions in subsidies for liquid coal in the name of national security. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) used his power as sponsor of the 9-11 bill to stop Senator Inhofe from introducing his amendment.
Making liquids from coal is incredibly expensive. A liquid coal plant capable of producing 80,000 barrels of fuel a day – smaller than most U.S. oil refineries – would cost $7 billion, according to the Department of Energy. “Every public or private dollar invested in oil shale or coal-to-liquids is a dollar unavailable for much more productive investments in more efficient cars and clean renewable biofuels,” WORC’s Darnell wrote. “We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sharply over the next few decades, not spend billions of dollars on new ways to increase emissions.”
Carbon dioxide could be captured at liquid coal plants, and it may be possible to pump it underground (a process known as carbon sequestration). Even if that works, however, the same amount of carbon dioxide will come out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks which run on fuel made from coal as cars running on petroleum fuels. In the best possible case, this means that liquid coal would produce 8% more carbon dioxide than the petroleum-based fuels they would replace over their full lifecycle (well to wheel). Without carbon capture at the plant, liquid coal would produce approximately twice the greenhouse gases produced by conventional fuel, accelerating global warming instead of slowing it.