Coal to Liquid Technology

8/14/2019 Coal to Liquid Technology

1/22

Caiello/Schirmer Coal to Liquid Technology Neg 1 /22Arx Axiom Debate Club

Coal To Liquid Technology Neg

Table of ContentsStrat: ..........................................................................................................................................................2Flow: .........................................................................................................................................................3Intro Quotes:..............................................................................................................................................3

Intro Quote: CTL bad other options better...................................................................................3Intro quote: CTL = Untried, expensive and environmentally damaging.....................................3

CP:..............................................................................................................................................................4CP Extension..............................................................................................................................................4

CP advocacy biofuels/vehicle efficiency.....................................................................................4On average CTL = 80% more emissions than gas. Ethanol on average = 20% less emissions.

Cellulosic ethanol on average = 85% less emissions...................................................................4Bio fuels are always better than CTL ..........................................................................................5Biofuels could meet 25% of US demand for alternate fuels........................................................5!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives are better than CTL.............................5!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives can reduce oil dependence by 3million barrel a day......................................................................................................................6Bio fuels and CTL create the same amount of C02, but bio fuels capture carbon as they grow.6Biomass to liquid fuel is better than coal to liquid......................................................................6Advantage of Biomass over CTL: emissions after production. CTL = normal gass Biomass =lower............................................................................................................................................7CTL + CCS not even needed: renewables + efficiency standards remove need for coal............7Alt Energy CP Advocacy.............................................................................................................8

Solvency.....................................................................................................................................................9Complete Cost of CTL over 95$ per barrel.................................................................................9CTL Fail: China (water shortages)...............................................................................................9The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuelpreclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond oil...........................................9Reverse Plan Advocate: US should not subsidize any CTL......................................................10Investors consider CTL too risky...............................................................................................10

CCS Solvency..........................................................................................................................................11Carbon Capture makes CTL even more expensive....................................................................11CCS only partially offsets carbon emissions for CTL...............................................................11Aff Spike Turn: Carbon Capture Impossible before 2029.........................................................11Local opposition prevented German carbon capture from working..........................................12Even with carbon capture CTL still produces 8% more C02.....................................................12CCS is completely untried and crazy expensive........................................................................12CCS very expensive: details in card..........................................................................................13CCS so impractical US cut pilot project after cost rose to $1.8 billion ....................................13CCS could result in C02 leaks which are a health hazard ........................................................13CCS could take 15 to 20 years to truly implement....................................................................13CCS not a short term option.......................................................................................................14CCS impracticality led to the rejection of FutureGen...............................................................14


2/22


US cannot approve more coal plants in the hopes that CCS will be workable anytime soon...14CCS isn't used by any big power plants only demonstration projects. Utilities don't want toinvest .........................................................................................................................................14

Disadvantages..........................................................................................................................................15Emissions DA......................................................................................................................................15Emissions from CTL very high..................................................................................................15CTL = much higher carbon emissions.......................................................................................15Without CCS CTL results in almost double the C02 emissions................................................15

Water Sustainability.............................................................................................................................16CTL uses water unsustainably...................................................................................................16

More Coal Use.....................................................................................................................................16CTL would lead to more coal mining which would be terrible.................................................16Coal is deadly: over 300,000 American's have been killed by coal mining and pollution isterrible........................................................................................................................................17Coal is ecologically decimating and environmentally devastating............................................17Coals Disadvantages..................................................................................................................18CTL = expensive........................................................................................................................19Weighing: Emissions, costs and water use DAs outweigh benefits of CTL.............................19CTL could displace cleaner alternatives with the wrong policy................................................19Federalism: States are already addressing the alt energy problem............................................20Masking DA: CCS could create false sense of security, + undermine workable methods ofdecreasing emissions .................................................................................................................20

Strat:

T (S= limits + bright line between energy and enviromental policy). Weighing isbig here... Maybe a states CP? Free market? Should the federal government bemandating production of coal? Isn't that a free market thing? If it works won't it bedeveloped by entreprenures and if it doesn't work why should the government doit? CP w/advocacy = ethanol/biofuels... run T on environmental policy vs energypolicy and a neg philosophy or weighing mechanism of environmental impacts.Goal: get aff to accept w-m because of the pressure created by the T press andthen use the enviro water/carbon DAs to outweigh aff ads.. Or second best casescenario: aff rejects weighing mechanism and proves T press. Turn aff CCS spikew/ fact that CCS doesn't exist, and then what remains is a nontopical mandate.http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_cons

idered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlCongressional Hearing:http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgidbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:27378.wais~ get the other hearing The benefits and challenges of producing liquid fuel fromcoal : the role for federal research : hearing before the Subcommittee on Energyand Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, House ofRepresentatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, September 5, 2007.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgihttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:27378.waishttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgihttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:27378.waishttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.html


3/22


Flow:

Intro Quotes:

Intro Quote: CTL bad other options better

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in waysthat advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) WhyLiquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February 2007http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf (TC)

The coal industry is touting a plan to transform millions of tons of coal into dieseland other liquid fuelsan expensive, inefficient process that releases largequantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our air. Fortunately, better, cleaner

options exist to reduce Americas dependence on oil: efficiency, smart growth,and renewable fuels.

Intro quote: CTL = Untried, expensive and environmentally damaging

US News and World Report, Marianne Lavelle Coal-to-Liquid Technology EnticesCongress June 2007http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070613/13coal.htm (TC)

The idea that everyone's suddenly talking about on Capitol Hill is coal to liquid, apricey technology that hasn't played a significant role in the global energy picture

outside of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While the liquid fuel that isproduced is a clean-burning diesel, environmentalists are aghast at the carbonemissions and water use involved in the process.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070613/13coal.htmhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070613/13coal.htm


4/22


CP:

CP Extension

CP advocacy biofuels/vehicle efficiency

Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRIs (World Resource Institute) projecton carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experiencemanaging energy proejcts to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and theAmericas, with a heavy focus on China Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, andEnergy Security. World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security

There are alternatives to CTL that are already available, and achieve the same

objectives as CTL without the adverse environmental impacts.

Vehicle Efficiency. Improving vehicle efficiency can cost-effectively reduce theneed to import oil and simultaneously slash GHG emissions. The U.S. corporateaverage fuel efficiency program (CAFE) cut this countrys oil demand by nearly 3million barrels a day between 1978 and 1985. No significant changes have beenmade in the requirements since then, however. CAFE and other vehicle efficiencymeasures offer the greatest opportunity to serve U.S. public interests holistically,yet a lack of political leadership has left these options largely unused.

Biofuels. Non-grain based ethanol and biodiesel are other options that cansimultaneously improve energy security and global warming concerns, providedthat adequate environmental safeguards are applied. Cellulosic ethanol isparticularly promising, and policy measures enacted today can ensure a morecertain future.

On average CTL = 80% more emissions than gas. Ethanol on average =20% less emissions. Cellulosic ethanol on average = 85% less emissions

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofitorganization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in

1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices inBerkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.When Carbon Counts, Biofuels BeatLiquid Coal November 13, 2007 (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html

Liquid coal, for example, can release 80 percent more global warming pollutionthan gasoline, the report found. Corn ethanol, conversely, could be either morepolluting or less than gasoline, depending on how the corn is grown and theethanol is produced. On average, corn ethanol can reduce emissions about 20
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html


5/22


percent, though there is uncertainty due to differing land use practices. Thecleanest alternative, cellulosic ethanol from grasses or wood chips, could reduceemissions by more than 85 percent

Bio fuels are always better than CTL

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofitorganization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices inBerkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.When Carbon Counts, Biofuels BeatLiquid Coal November 13, 2007 (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html

Biofuels have a Jekyll and Hyde reputation depending on what study you readand what assumptions you make, Monahan said. But liquid coal is a loser no

matter how you look at it.

Biofuels could meet 25% of US demand for alternate fuels


The report evaluated two scenarios for alternative fuels, one carbon-intensivemeaning that it would produce significantly more global warming pollution thanburning gasoline -- and the other low-carbonmeaning that it would producesignificantly less. The analysis assumed that alternative fuels will replace 37billion gallons of gasoline, about 20 percent of the fuel UCS projects Americanswill consume in 2030.In both scena rios, conventional biofuels would meet 25percent of the demand for alternative fuels. In the carbon-intensive scenario, theremaining demand would be met by liquid coal. The carbon-intensive scenariowould increase emissions by 233 million metric tonsequivalent to adding about34 million cars to the road, the number of new cars and light trucks currently soldnationally over a two-year period. By contrast, the low-carbon scenario relies on

advanced biofuels to meet 75 percent of the demand. That would cut globalwarming pollution by 244 million metric tons, akin to taking 35 million of todayscars off the road

!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives are better thanCTL

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in waysthat advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) Why
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html


6/22


Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February 2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

America can have a robust, effective program to reduce oil dependence withoutliquid coal technologies. By investing in a combination of efficiency, renewablefuels, and alternatives to driving such as public transportation, we can reduce ouroil consumption more quickly, more cleanly, and in larger amounts than we couldwith coal-derived liquids.

!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives can reduce oildependence by 3 million barrel a day

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in waysthat advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) Why

Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February 2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

In fact, Securing America, a report published by the Institute for the Analysis ofGlobal Security and NRDC, found that a combination of more efficient cars, trucks,and planes; biofuels; and smart growth transportation options can cut oildependence by more than 3 million barrels a day in 10 years and achieve cuts ofmore than 11 million barrels a day by 2025

Bio fuels and CTL create the same amount of C02, but bio fuels capturecarbon as they grow

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofitorganization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices inBerkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.When Carbon Counts, Biofuels BeatLiquid Coal November 13, 2007(TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html

At the tailpipe, gasoline, liquid coal and biofuels release about the same amountof global warming pollution. But there are dramatic differences in the amount ofpollution emitted by extracting a raw feedstock and refining it into a finished fuel.

Biofuels can have an advantage over liquid coal and gasoline because plantscapture carbon dioxide, the most common global warming gas, as they grow.

Biomass to liquid fuel is better than coal to liquid

Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues andauthor of Coal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCSClean Energy Program) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program)Coal Power in a Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html


7/22


Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists isthe leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs of

the countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable bothenvironmentally and economically.) (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

A much better option would be to use the same process (gasification andcatalysts) to create transportation fuels from non-food biomass. Because thecarbon in biomass was recently absorbed from the atmosphere through theprocess of photosynthesis, biomass-based fuels have the potential to greatlyreduce life cycle emissions relative to petroleum-based alternativesas long asbiomass production avoids substantial releases of CO2 from direct or indirect

changes in land use.

Advantage of Biomass over CTL: emissions after production. CTL =normal gass Biomass = lower

Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues andauthor of Coal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCSClean Energy Program) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program)Coal Power in a Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy OptionsUnion of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists isthe leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs of

the countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable bothenvironmentally and economically.)(TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

Because the processes of converting biomass and coal into liquid fuels employsimilar technology, the two can also be processed together to create a fuelreferred to as coal-and-biomass-to-liquid (CBTL). But this option does not alter thefact that the best biomass-based fuels have substantially lower emissions thanpetroleum, while liquid coal can only hope to achieve parity with petroleum.Processing coal and biomass together simply dilutes the potential emissionsbenefits of biomass-based fuels.

CTL + CCS not even needed: renewables + efficiency standards removeneed for coal

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


8/22


Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists isthe leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs of

the countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable bothenvironmentally and economically.) (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

While determining what role CCS can play in the nations energy future, theUnited States can meet its growing electricity demand cleanly and cost-effectivelyby increasing investments in energy efficiencyand renewable power. We have already shown how these technologies can helpthe United States notonly avoid the need for new coal plants but also dramatically reduce the use of

both natural gas and coal allowing 181 older coal plants to be retired whilesaving consumers billions of dollars every year.

Alt Energy CP Advocacy

Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues andauthor of Coal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCSClean Energy Program) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program)Coal Power in a Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy OptionsUnion of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists isthe leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs ofthe countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable bothenvironmentally and economically.) (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

State and federal governments should immediately adopt policies requiring thepower sector to increase its investment in renewable energy and energyefficiency. These policies should include new or stronger renewable electricitystandards (which require utilities to obtain a growing percentage of their powerfrom renewable sources) along with energy efficiency requirements and applianceefficiency standards aimed at reducing retail energy demand by a growingpercentage each year. The federal government should provide far more R&D and demonstration
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


9/22


funding for energy efficiency, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geothermal,wind, tidal, biomass, biofuel, and energy storage technologies. This fundingshould reflect the scale and urgency of the threat posed by global warming, and

should be allocated based on each technologys potential to reduce emissionswithout harming the environment or public health.

Solvency

Complete Cost of CTL over 95$ per barrel

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) an internationalnon-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world byserving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. AAASPolicy Brief: Coal-to-Liquid Technology The AAAS Center for Science, Technologyand Congress June 2009 (TC) http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range,

according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expendituresa 10,000 barrel-a-day [coal-based liquid fuel] plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told,the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining anequivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomeseven more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel,according to the Department of Energy.

CTL Fail: China (water shortages)

World Resource Institute (Environmental Think tank) Weighing US Energy
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/


10/22


Options: Coal-to-Liquids 2007 (TC) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337

China is currently constructing several large CTL facilities and experimenting with

a largely untested version of the technology (direct liquefaction). It is now widelyacknowledged that China will have difficulty deploying CTL on a massive scaleunless the issue of water usage is resolved (each gallon of CTL product requires10 gallons of process water). In its high scenario, the Energy InformationAdministration forecasts that 1 percent of U.S. oil needs will be met with CTL fuelsin 2025.

The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to moveAmerica beyond oil

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of

300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in waysthat advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) WhyLiquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February 2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derivedliquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond oil.Relying on liquid coal as an alternative fuel could: nearly double global warmingpollution per gallon of transportation fuels, and increase the devastating effects ofcoal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching from Appalachia tothe Rocky Mountains. To move America beyond oil, we should start with the

measures that will produce the quickest, cleanest, and least expensive reductionsin oil usemeasures that will also put us on track to achieve the reductions inglobal warming emissions we need to protect our climate.

Reverse Plan Advocate: US should not subsidize any CTL


Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists isthe leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs ofthe countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable bothenvironmentally and economically.) (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

Neither the federal nor state governments should subsidize or provide any other
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


11/22


form of support forcoal-to-liquid technology.

Investors consider CTL too riskyAlex Farrell, director of UC Berkleys Transportation Sustainability ResearchCenter, discuss the merits and challenges of coal-to-liquids (CTLs) as analternative fuel. Can Coal-to-Liquid Transportation Fuel be Considered anAlternative Fuel? Council on Foreign Relations July 2007 (TC)http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.html Supporters of CTL projects argue that they provide security benefits by reducingimports of petroleum and by developing fuel supply infrastructure away fromcoastal areas (where most of our oil importing and refining occurs). They thenargue for government support like guaranteed contracts and price supports.

Potential executives and investors in the new CTL industry argue that there's toomuch risk for them to put their own capital into these projects and that the publicbenefits of improved security are sufficient to justify these subsidies. Rarelymentioned are public costs, such as those from mountaintop removal or additionalgreenhouse gases (nearly double those from conventional oil).

CCS Solvency

Carbon Capture makes CTL even more expensive

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) an international

non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world byserving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. AAASPolicy Brief: Coal-to-Liquid Technology The AAAS Center for Science, Technologyand Congress June 2009 (TC) http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/Not included in the above estimate is the cost of sequestrating the captured CO2,which would increase the price of the end product by a projected $5 a barrel. Theimposition of a strict carbon cap and trade regime would also raise the cost of fuelproduced with CTL technology, because of the CO2 emissions associated with it.While there is significant uncertainty, the recent RAND study estimated that CTL
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_considered_an_alternative_fuel.htmlhttp://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/


12/22


production plus carbon storage could produce fuel at a cost of anywhere from$1.40 to $2.20 per gallon or more by 2025\

CCS only partially offsets carbon emissions for CTLWorld Resource Institute (Environmental Think tank) Weighing US EnergyOptions: Coal-to-Liquids 2007 (TC) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337

The major drawback of CTL technology, besides high cost, is the increased carbondioxide emissions and high water requirements. Lifecycle CTL greenhouse gasemissions are nearly double those of conventional oil. Shifting any sizable portionof fuel usage to CTL necessitates a carbon mitigation strategy to ensure thatclimate objectives are met. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be usedduring CTL production, but would only offset a portion of the increased carbonemissions. Final greenhouse gas emissions using CTL with CCS would still be equal

to or higher than using standard petroleum, while costs would rise significantly.

Aff Spike Turn: Carbon Capture Impossible before 2029

David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Karen Campbell, Ph.D. David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., isSenior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change, and Karen A.Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics, in the Center for DataAnalysis at The Heritage FoundationCO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs ofthe EPA's ANPR Regulations October 29, 2008 Heritage Foundation (TC)http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/cda08-10.cfm

Of course, CCS technology has additional costs, which are higher when retrofittingexisting plants than when building the technology into new plants. Though thereare pilot projects in operation, full-scale commercialization would requiresequestering more than 40 million barrels of CO2 each day. Environmentalconcerns and the logistical hurdles of handling such large quantities are likely todelay full implementation of CCS until after 2029, so we assume no CCS duringthe 20102029 period examined here.

Local opposition prevented German carbon capture from working

Alok Jha is a science and environment correspondent at the Guardian Not underour backyard, say Germans, in blow to CO2 plans guardian.co.uk, July 29 2009

The Guardian (TC)http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capture

It was meant to be the world's first demonstration of a technology that could helpsave the planet from global warming a project intended to capture emissionsfrom a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground. But theGerman carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into theatmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground.
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/cda08-10.cfmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capturehttp://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/cda08-10.cfmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capture


13/22


Even with carbon capture CTL still produces 8% more C02

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in ways

that advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) WhyLiquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February 2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

If the CO2 from liquid coal plants is captured instead of being released into theatmosphere, thenwell-to-wheels CO2 emissions would be reduced some but would still be higherthan emissions from todays crude oil system. Even capturing 90 percent of theemissions from liquid coal plants leaves emissions at levels somewhat higher thanthose from petroleum production and refining; emissions from the vehicle usingthe coal-derived liquid fuels are equivalent to those from a gasoline vehicle. As a

result, with CO2 capture well-to wheels emissions from coal-derived liquids fuelswould be 8 percent higher than for petroleum.

CCS is completely untried and crazy expensive

The Economist Carbon capture and storage, Trouble in store Mar 5th 2009 (TC)http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661

Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there is not a single big power plant usingCCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology isexpensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with timeand experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extracost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon willeventually leak. In short, the worlds leaders are counting on a fix for climatechange that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.

CCS very expensive: details in card


The problem with CCS is the cost. The chemical steps in the capture consumeenergy, as do the compression and transport of the carbon dioxide. That will useup a quarter or more of the output of a power station fitted with CCS, according tomost estimates. So plants with CCS will need to be at least a third bigger thannormal ones to generate the same net amount of power, and will also consume at
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661


14/22


least a third more fuel. In addition, there is the extra expense of building thecapture plant and the injection pipelines. If the storage site is far from the powerplant, yet more energy will be needed to move the carbon dioxide.

CCS so impractical US cut pilot project after cost rose to $1.8 billion


Estimates of the total cost vary widely. Americas government, which had vowedto build a prototype plant called FutureGen in partnership with several bigresources firms, scrapped the project last year after the projected cost rose to$1.8 billion. Philippe Paelinck, of Alstom, an engineering firm that hopes to buildCCS plants, thinks a full-scale one would cost about 1 billion ($1.3 billion).

CCS could result in C02 leaks which are a health hazard


Greenpeace, a pressure group, argues that it is impossible to be certain thatcarbon dioxide will not eventually leak out of the ground. Carbon dioxide forms anacid when it dissolves in water. This acid can react with minerals to formcarbonates, locking away the carbon in a relatively inert state. But it can also eatthrough the man-made seals or geological strata intended to keep it in place. Aleakage rate of just 1% a year, Greenpeace points out, would lead to 63% of the

carbon dioxide stored in any given reservoir being released within 100 years,almost entirely undoing the supposed environmental benefit. Spills would also bea health risk, since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and so can build up in low-lying or poorly ventilated spots.

CCS could take 15 to 20 years to truly implement


Sam Laidlaw, the boss of Centrica, a British utility, thinks it will take at least 15years, and probably 20, to roll out CCS plants in large numbers.

CCS not a short term option

Ben Brabson PhD professor emeritus of physics at Indiana University, his area ofresearch being energy and global climate change. January 2009 OCA (OrganicConsumers Association) 'Clean Coal' Doesn't Exist, Despite Industry MarketingCampaign (TC) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfm

Unfortunately, the near-term prospects for carbon sequestration are not bright.The reasons are straightforward. To start, these plants are designed to sequester
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfmhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfm


15/22


only a portion of the CO2 generated from the coal they consume. Second, whilemost coal plants are very good at removing SO2 and mercury, not one is actuallycapturing a majority of its generated CO2. Third, sequestration-ready plants are

expensive. Estimates range up to three times the cost of energy from wind.Fourth, much of the research and development of carbon capture andsequestration has not been done.

CCS impracticality led to the rejection of FutureGen

Ben Brabson PhD professor emeritus of physics at Indiana University, his area ofresearch being energy and global climate change. January 2009 OCA (OrganicConsumers Association) 'Clean Coal' Doesn't Exist, Despite Industry MarketingCampaign (TC) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfm

For these and other reasons, FutureGen, the flagship coal gasification project, a

public-private partnership with the U.S. government, was abandoned in January of2008. The reason for this failure is simply that the economics of carbonsequestration is not supported by its limited scientific and technicalunderstanding.

US cannot approve more coal plants in the hopes that CCS will beworkable anytime soon

Ben Brabson PhD professor emeritus of physics at Indiana University, his area ofresearch being energy and global climate change. January 2009 OCA (OrganicConsumers Association) 'Clean Coal' Doesn't Exist, Despite Industry Marketing

Campaign (TC) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfm

It is particularly important that state regulatory agencies not be tempted toapprove new coal plants on the hunch that carbon sequestration might work atsome point in the future. Sequestration is not a proven technology on the scalenecessary to protect the climate.

CCS isn't used by any big power plants only demonstration projects.Utilities don't want to invest

The Economist The illusion of clean coal Mar 5th 2009 From The Economist printedition (TC)

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041 But CCS is proving easier to talk up than to get going (see article). There are no bigpower plants using it, just a handful of small demonstration projects. Utilitiesrefuse to make bigger investments because power plants with CCS would bemuch more expensive to build and run than the ordinary sort. They seem moreinclined to invest in other low-carbon power sources, such as nuclear, solar andwind.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfmhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfmhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfmhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfmhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041


16/22


Disadvantages

Emissions DA

Emissions from CTL very high

Barbara Frees, Steve Clemmer, and Alan Nogee. Barbara Freese is a consultantspecializing in coal and climate policy issues and author of Coal: A Human History(Perseus, 2003). Steve Clemmer is research director for the UCS Clean EnergyProgram. Alan Nogee is director of the UCS Clean Energy Program. The Union ofConcerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthyenvironment and a safer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines thebenefits and costs of the countrys energy use and promotes energy solutions

that are sustainable both environmentally and economically. Coal Power in aWarming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options 2008 Union ofConcerned Scientists [brackets added to maintain context] (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power- in-a-warming-world.html

[The US should] Stop investing in new coal-to-liquid plants and reject policies thatsupport such investments. Coal-to-liquid technology cannot reduce CO2 emissions(compared with petroleum-based fuels), but it could greatly increase thoseemissions. It should not, therefore, have any part in our energy future. Alltransportation fuels should be held to a low-carbon performance standard thatlimits global warming pollution and provides safeguards against otherenvironmental damage

CTL = much higher carbon emissions

Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRIs (World Resource Institute) projecton carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experiencemanaging energy proejcts to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and theAmericas, with a heavy focus on China Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, andEnergy Security. World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-

security

CTL results in greater CO2 emissions than petroleum, even if CCS is used.Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from CTLs, which include all emissions fromcoal mine to vehicle wheel, are nearly twice as high as petroleum alternatives.The proposed legislative standard that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of CTLfuels shall not exceed those of conventional gasoline refers only to the tank towheel portion of emissions. The mine to wheel portion is not addressed in thestandard. Carbon capture and sequestration can mitigate most of the mine to
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.htmlhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security


17/22


wheel emissions, but the final GHG profile is still higher than business as usualpetroleum.

Without CCS CTL results in almost double the C02 emissionsNatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in waysthat advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) WhyLiquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil February2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

To assess the global warming implications of a large liquid coal program, we needto examine the total life cycle, or well-to-wheel, emissions of these new fuels.Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing almost double the amount of carbonper unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20 percent more than

petroleum. Proponents of coal-derived liquids claim they are clean because the fuel is sulfur-free, but when coal isconverted to transportation fuel, two streams of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced: one at liquid coal production plantsand one from exhaust pipes of the vehicles that burn the fuel. Emissions from liquid coal production plants are much higherthan those from producing andrefining crude oil to produce gasoline, diesel, and other transportation fuels; emissions from vehicles

are about the same. The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If the CO2 from theliquid coal plant is released into theatmosphere, based on available information about liquid coal plants beingproposed, the total well to-wheels CO2 emissions from coal-derived fuel would be about 50 pounds of CO2per gallon nearly twice as high. Introducing a new fuel system that doubles the

current CO2 emissions of our crude oil system is clearly at odds with our need toreduce global warming emissions.

Water Sustainability

CTL uses water unsustainably

Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRIs (World Resource Institute) projecton carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experiencemanaging energy projects to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and theAmericas, with a heavy focus on China Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, andEnergy Security. World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)

http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security

CTL uses water sustainably. In addition to the usual social and environmentalproblems associated with coal mining and transport, CTL production requires largequantities of water. Approximately 10 gallons of water are used for every gallon ofCTL product. Sourcing the additional 210 billion gallons of water needed annuallyto meet provisions called for in the bill would be challenging. There are alreadyserious water supply problems in Western states such as Montana and Wyoming
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security


18/22


19/22


Coal is ecologically decimating and environmentally devastating

By Jeff Biggers' (Jeff Biggers is the author of "The United States of Appalachia:How Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture and Enlightenment to

America.") Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That. Sunday, March 2, 2008Washington Post (TC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.html

Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn andchurned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of allcoal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the"United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining'sworst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. Anestimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles ofwaterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an

area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountainrange in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent ofseveral Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities everyyear.

Coals Disadvantages

Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues and author ofCoal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCS Clean EnergyProgram) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program) Coal Power in a

Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options Union of ConcernedScientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-basednonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. The UCS Clean EnergyProgram examines the benefits and costs of the countrys energy use and promotesenergy solutions that are sustainable both environmentally and economically.) (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-worldCoals advantages must be weighed against its many disadvantages: The underground mining of coal is a dangerous profession, and undergroundand surface miningare both highly damaging to landscapes, water supplies, and ecosystems. About 40 percent of U.S. railroad freight traffic is devoted to the transport of

coal. Viewed another way, fueling our coal-fired power plants for a single yearrequires the equivalent of a 104,000-milelongtrainlong enough to circle the earth more than four times. The burning of coal releases more than 100 pollutants into the atmosphere. It isthe largest sourceof sulfur dioxide emissions (which cause acid rain), the second largest source ofnitrogen oxides(which contribute to smog and asthma attacks), and the largest source of finesoot particles (which
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


20/22


contribute to thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung diseaseyearly).6 Coal plants are also the largest remaining source of human-generatedmercury, which contaminates lakes and streams, the fish that live in them, and

anyone who eats those fish.7 Cooling and scrubbing coal plants requires copious volumes of water. Powerplants in general are responsible for approximately 39 percent of U.S. freshwaterwithdrawals, second only to agriculturalirrigation. While most of that water is returned to the source, the act of withdrawalkills fish, insectlarvae, and other organisms, and aquatic ecosystems are further damaged by thereturn of waterthat is both hotter than when it was withdrawn and contains chlorine or biocidesadded to protectplant operations

Mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia permanently destroys mountains andadjacent valleys, has destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, andhas buried more than 700 miles of some of the most biologically diverse streamsin the country.10 Coal mining and combustion both create wastes that must be disposed.Combustion results inmore than 120 million tons of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and sludge from airpollution controlsannuallyroughly the same amount as all municipal solid waste disposed in U.S.landfills eachyear.11 Though uses have been found for some of this material, most of it goes

into landfills and surface impoundments, from which mercury, lead, cadmium,arsenic, and other toxic constituentsof this waste can leak out and contaminate water supplies.12 Mining wastes,particularly in the hundreds of coal slurry impoundments in Appalachia, also poseserious environmental threats. Most importantly, coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel. Even newer coal plantsproduce more than two times the CO2 emissions of a new natural gas combinedcycle plant and over 50 percent more than the CO2 emissions of generatingelectricity with oil.13 CO2 emissions are the predominanthuman contribution to global warming, and coal plants represent the single biggest source (about one-third) of the U.S. share of these emissions about the same as all of our cars, trucks, buses, trains,

planes, and boats combined.14 The final third of U.S. CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels used innatural gas- and oil-fired power plants, industry, businesses, and residences.

CTL = expensive

Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRIs (World Resource Institute) projecton carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experiencemanaging energy proejcts to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and theAmericas, with a heavy focus on China Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, andEnergy Security. World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security


21/22


security

CTL is expensive. Construction of CTL facilities requires multi-billion dollar

investments for large plants. Due to technology risk, and uncertainty over globaloil prices that serve as a benchmark for CTL competitiveness, investments are notlikely to flow without significant government subsidy and guarantees. CTL plantsrisk becoming stranded assets if global crude prices fall. This happened in the late1970s and early 1980s with shale oil and other energy security investments

Weighing: Emissions, costs and water use DAs outweigh benefits of CTL

Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRIs (World Resource Institute) projecton carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experiencemanaging energy proejcts to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and theAmericas, with a heavy focus on China Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, and

Energy Security. World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-security

If CTL technology is to have a role in meeting future U.S. energy needs, we willneed to address the high greenhouse gas emissions, costs, and water use.Otherwise, this option involves trade-offs that dont serve the nations largerpublic interests.

CTL could displace cleaner alternatives with the wrong policy


Government policies and high oil prices have whetted our growing appetite for allalternative fuels, good and bad alike, said Eli Hopson, Washington representativefor Clean Vehicles at UCS.With the wrong policy, liquid coal could displacecleaner alternatives. Biofuels can be a staple of our low carbon fuel diet, but only

if policies are in place that count carbs and make carbs count.

Federalism: States are already addressing the alt energy problem

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-securityhttp://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html


22/22


organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices inBerkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.When Carbon Counts, Biofuels Beat

Liquid Coal November 13, 2007 (TC)http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html

At least one state is addressing the problem. In January, California Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for establishing a state low-carbon fuel standard. The California Air Resources Board is currently developingregulations that would require manufacturers of transportation fuel sold in thestate to reduce per gallon emissions of global warming pollution by at least 10percent. Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington State areconsidering similar policies.

Masking DA: CCS could create false sense of security, + undermineworkable methods of decreasing emissions

The Economist The illusion of clean coal Mar 5th 2009 From The Economist printedition (TC)http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041

CCS is not just a potential waste of money. It might also create a false sense ofsecurity about climate change, while depriving potentially cheaper methods ofcutting emissions of cash and attentionall for the sake of placating the coallobby.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.htmlhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041

Coal to Liquid Technology

Documents

Transcript of Coal to Liquid Technology