This is why we need to focus more on "Climate Security" rather than "Energy Independance".

Since Coal is an "Energy Independance" winner.
But a "Climate Security" loser.

If they are so determined to go with coal then why not create the rather simple technology to produce coal/water Synfuel and run our vehicles and trains and planes on that? Cost is .27 cents per gallon as opposed to 3.19 a gallon and there is no highway use tax on Synfuel that I know of.

It is true that the CO2 produced would be pretty much the same as with petroleum based fuels but at least we could end our dependence on oil forever. Then we can get rid of coal as a second step.... mwahahaha :D

Mike,

You are talking about a liquid coal.  A process, that, even with carbon capture, still creates MORE CO2 emissions than regular gasoline.  Without CCS it creates over TWICE as much CO2 as petroleum gasoline.

It is MUCH less effective for both energy independence AND reducing CO2.   Using coal, with CCS, to make electricity for plug-in hybrids beats it by a mile.

Liquid coal would be a disaster.  It would be harmful for the country and the world.

-Christopher

Christopher, actually some studies on CTL+CCS show a slight reduction in lifecycle CO2, but that is not the important point.

The important point is that the same plants that are doing CTL+CCS can incorporate a biomass component in thier feedstock mix, as many players in the CTL space are now starting to do, and actually produce a fuels with a dramatic reduction in lifecycle CO2. This process is the only process I am aware of that is both commercially ready and technically capable of producing a fuels with a lifecycle neutral CO2 footprint.

It is unfortuante that the NRDC and others continue to conspicuously omit this fact in thier discussion of coal-derived synthetic fuels. Seems kind of counter to thier supposed goal of driving implementation of large-scale fuels production with a reduced or neutral carbon footprint...

They would much better serve thier mission if they were to call for responsible development practices, as opposed to distoring the truth via omission, to try and stop an emerging industry that has a realistic major piece of the solution to both our energy security AND our climate change problems.

Move off of foreign oil.  Get it locally, get (more) coal locally and use it (somehow) as fuel.  This isn't what most people (here) are going to want to hear but if most of the government is trying to fix the environment over the next 50 years.  We need to stabilize our economy before we are able to stabilize our ecology.  Bring things in house, pull back from the world community a bit, get our house together and then worry about getting the larger house together.  After we're able to stand on our own two legs we can start investing in ways to get ourselves off of the current "dirty" standards.