A couple of heavy-duty energy wonks from Carnegie Mellon have this to say:
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is considering enacting policies to subsidize the production of transportation fuel from coal-to-liquid projects. Tepper School of Business researchers determined plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are a far better and less costly choice.
-- Generating electricity from coal with carbon capture and sequestration and replacing the fleet with plug-in hybrid vehicles could enhance energy security by reducing 85% of motor vehicle gasoline use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle travel by 70%.
-- Even the most carbon-intensive scenario using plug-in hybrids has substantially less greenhouse gas emissions than the best possible coal-to-liquids case.
-- Nearly three-fourths of the existing light-duty vehicle fleet could be accommodated as plug-ins without requiring additional power plants through off-peak charging.
What strikes me is that I've never heard anyone not in the employ of the coal industry dispute these points. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate argument on behalf of CTL, just slogans meant to distract attention from old-fashioned big-money lobbying. A damn shame's what it is.
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 8:11 am
11 Jun 2007
Read this one this morning.
Kinda floored me.
(They also don't like grain based ethanol either)
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:41 am
11 Jun 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:23 am
11 Jun 2007
Roland Clift will tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants is a "scam".
Clift, professor of environmental technology at Surrey University, sits on the scientific advisory council of Defra, David Miliband's environment department.
He will tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
"We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70-300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction."
holy shit!
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/11/uk-scientist-rola ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1909827.e ...
Permalink
chaudtheclod Posted 1:37 pm
12 Jun 2007
"Today's incorrect story in CongressDaily 'Senate Debate Is Likely To Test Party, Regional Priorities,' misstates Senator Obama's position on the development of coal-to-liquid fuels. Senator Obama recognizes that global warming is one of the most significant problems that we face. He supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from all sources by 2050 and a 10% reduction in the carbon emissions of transportation fuels by 2020. Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment."
http://www.heatison.org/index.php/content/blog_entry/obam ...
Permalink