(Wusstet Ihr eigentlich das der von Silverado entwickelte Prozess fast völlig ohne Beigabe von Chemikalien und anderen Zusatzstoffen auskommt ?)
Environmental groups, energy board battle over liquefied coal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3678.html
By: Jean Chemnick
April 24, 2007 05:23 PM EST
Congressional determination to change America's energy portfolio has sparked a fierce debate over what constitutes clean energy. On the transportation fuels front, the question is whether liquid coal should be admitted to the exclusive club of energies that could benefit from federal efforts to wean the nation off foreign oil and clean up the environment.
The coal industry, unions and the Department of Defense say that any serious attempt to replace oil must include coal, because the resource is so plentiful in the United States. To support their message, they are deploying coal-state governors, military officials and lobbyists to Capitol Hill to meet with members. Their opponents, environmental groups, say they are playing defense, trying to convince a Democratic Congress with both green and coal-state sympathies that liquid coal emits enough carbon to speed up global warming.
Coal is liquefied when it is brought to a very high temperature, becomes gas and is then combined with chemicals to make a fluid that functions like gasoline. The process was invented in the 1920s by two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch. Currently, it's used heavily in South Africa.
The struggle over whether -- and how -- to foster a similar industry in this country is not tied to any single piece of legislation. Such amendments could be attached to a variety of bills now moving through Congress. Alice McKeown, who is in charge of the Sierra Club's efforts combating coal liquefaction, said the issue really gained momentum this year. She said her group hadn't anticipated being in the middle of this scrimmage so early, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's commitment to pass an energy bill by summer has spurred activity in several committees, making it necessary to keep an eye on all of them.
In the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) is expected to offer an amendment that adds liquefied coal to a bill that would increase the current renewable fuels standard; under this law, a certain amount of fuel used for transportation must come from renewable fuels, such as ethanol. As introduced by committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and ranking member Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the measure focuses only on biofuels, but Domenici and several other members have expressed support for broadening the standard to include liquefied coal.
Bills to stimulate commercial interest in liquefied coal have been introduced in the House by Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), with energy and air quality subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) as a co-sponsor, and in the Senate by Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The latter came largely from the recommendations of the Southern States Energy Board, an interstate compact representing the coal-rich South and Caribbean territories, said its director, Kenneth Nemeth.
The board's wish list includes guaranteed military purchase of liquefied coal fuel, a reflection of the Pentagon's interest in the commodity. The Air Force is in the process of certifying its entire fleet to use liquefied coal, a process that will cost $142 million and is scheduled to finish in 2010. Air Force Assistant Secretary William C. Anderson said he has been recruited by coal-state delegations to sing liquefied coal's praises.
"The Air Force needs sovereign air power," he said, and that requires a domestic supply of fuel that cannot be interrupted by terrorists or unfriendly governments.
The private sector is going to the mat for liquefied coal, too. Seven lawmakers spoke at the launch of the Coal to Liquid Coalition on March 28, which was held on Capitol Hill. Spearheaded by the National Mining Association, the group is a consortium of unions, corporations and associations that either are connected to the coal industry or are big fuel users. Carol Raulston, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said the coalition had touched base with a lot of people on Capitol Hill, including Bunning and Obama.
All this has proved a bit unnerving to some environmentalists, who three months ago celebrated the inauguration of a Democratic Congress with considerable fanfare. Now they are seeing some of their best friends on other issues jumping on the coal-to-liquid bandwagon. Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said the issue was particularly tough because coal-state Democrats, such as Boucher and Rahall, want to make sure their states play a role in any energy legislation.
"It is one of the biggest defensive plays we're doing," he said. "This is possibly the worst energy choice we could make, in terms of its impact on global warming."
Green advocates cite an Environmental Protection Agency report released this month that showed that even if current technologies are used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide created during the coal liquefaction process, the fuel's well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions would be nearly four percent higher than those of conventional gasoline. Without those technologies, the EPA found that coal-to-liquid fuel emitted more than twice as much carbon as what Americans get at gas pumps now.
Raulston of the National Mining Association said none of the prospective producers in the coalition plan to build plants without carbon mitigation. Industry advocates say technological advances in the works now could be ready when the first coal-to-liquid plants open for business in five or six years.
The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council aren't convinced, and they're busy trying to bring Capitol Hill over to their way of thinking. The Sierra Club is writing letters and meeting with lawmakers and their staffs, McKeown said. It also signed on to a Natural Resources Defense Council ad campaign that ran in Roll Call earlier this year, called "How to Give Americans Bad Gas."
While acknowledging the two groups cannot spend nearly as much money as the opposition, McKeown said the facts of the issue are on their side.
"If we got worried about all the money, we wouldn't be around," she added.
|
Thread abonnieren
