Here's a little chart for ya
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png

-David Ahlport

What's the diff between coal and refined coal? Note they lumped biomass with biofuels. That should not be done. Liquid biofuels are energy intensive and environmentally destructive. Not the same as burning waste wood for cogeneration of electricity.

http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I'm surprised that the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) -- the association of ethanol producers -- did not make it onto the list. And while Poet (the new name what used to be called Broin) makes it onto the list, Archer Danniels Midland (ADM) -- with Poet, one of the top ethanol producers in the United States -- does not.

I'd like to know more about what criteria was used for selecting what lobbying groups appeared on the CRP's list.

As for coal, I'm not surprised. After the 1973-74 oil crisis, all alternatives to oil were given the label "alternative energy". I once worked for the Alternative Energy Division on the International Energy Agency (IEA). The industries it analyzes (and still analyzes) included all electricity-producing sources of energy, plus natural gas and coal.

These are only my personal opinions.

So almost a year ago, Gil Friend asked   Which is a better investment? Continuing to pour major subsidies (which according to some analysts may exceed the industry's revenues) into to an industry with massive environmental impacts? Or using that budget to acquire, shut down and write off the industry; to pay decommissioning and cleanup costs; to provide transition investment and training to affected communities; and to invest in the renewable fuels and energy sources to fill the gap?
We should keep asking at every mention of the word, shouldn't we?

Actually, David (GreyFlcn), refined coal is not "a catchall for Pulverized Coal, and Fluidized Bed coal, and IGCC." It is a legacy of a law enacted by Congress in the wake of the 1979 oil-price crisis to jump start a synfuels industry.

The kind of synfuels industry that they hoped would emerge never got beyond the pilot-plant stage, even though it managed to absorb billions of dollars in public funds. But because of a loophole in the law, companies found that they could still claim the credit merely by treating coal with solvents or other substances. And, almost 30 years later, they are still doing just that.

Here is one succinct summary of how it works:

The loophole is the "synfuels" tax credit for companies that reprocess coal to create new synthetic fuels. But the law's provisions are so vague that corporations have been able to claim the tax break even if their reprocessing doesn't work, doesn't reduce our dependence on oil, actually uses oil products in the so-called reprocessing, is never marketed ... or is just plain silly.

How silly? So silly that the IRS has given the synfuels tax credit to companies that have done nothing but spray starch or diesel fuel or even Elmer's glue on coal.

Congressman Lloyd Dogget tried to abolish the decades-old "Synfuels Loophole" in 2005, but you can guess how successful he was at that.

And people wonder why some of us get nervous when people advocate NEW subsidy programs for their pet energy sources, claiming the subsidies will only be temporary?

These are only my personal opinions.