A Washington Post piece, titled, Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama. You can't claim you care about the environment if you support liquefied coal. You can't call yourself for responsible government when you were the one who pushed through huge federal subsidies.
As it was pointed out in January that many ignored, Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal..
David G. Hawkins, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in Senate testimony in April that "while it appears that technologies exist to achieve high levels of control for all or most of these pollutants, the operating experience of coal-to-liquids plants in South Africa demonstrates that coal-to-liquids plants are not inherently 'clean.' "
This is also a situation where it appears the only reason liquefied coal can even be competitive is with governmental subsides, an MIT Study points out:
A recent MIT study on coal estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build the plants needed to replace just 10 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption. Bills before Congress would provide government-backed loans for plant construction, subsidy protection against drops in oil prices, and a long-term contract to supply the Air Force with the alternative fuel. Coal-state lawmakers, including Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are pushing for the measures.
All of this largess, though, would replace gasoline with a fuel that would generate about twice the carbon dioxide emissions of gasoline. Even if the plants were built so that their carbon dioxide emissions could be captured and then stored underground, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that liquefied coal would still emit about 4 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline.
Government needs to stop giving away the farm...and soon...
4 comments:
As for Obama teetering like that, can you name a single politician who hasn't?
As for liquified coal...? Why can you not care about the environment and support liquified coal? What the heck is it, other than a "replacement" for gasoline?
I think if you try to promote yourself as being a "new kind of politician" which has been his main emphasis yet demonstrate you are no different than anyone before you that's what makes that an issue.
Liquefied coal hurts the environment more in not just the mining aspect but the creation aspect and then from a usage standpoint is worse for the environment than regular gas from oil. Then the fact that it's not competitive unless the government subsidizes it even more than ethanol on a gallon per gallon standard makes it a total waste unless of course you own a coal or have built a plant to create this product.
It's being touted as a replacement for gasoline created from oil but just like ethanol there are issues and costs associated with it that rarely get mentioned.
True, but I've long since stopped expecting politicians to be what they promote themselves to be.
I must be sorely out of the loop, because I never heard of it before. At least, not to the extent that I asked what it is.
But, no, it doesn't sound like a good idea. At this point, however, anything that can effectively replace gasoline is going to cost more to get started than gasoline will. That's just part of the game. Now, the businesses involved can either eat that initial up-front cost and wait the ten plus years it will take to recoup (which is what most businesses would have to do, and is perfectly viable for a worthy product), or they'll seek government subsidies (absolutely essential for a less than worthy product).
Either are valid when long-term costs are factored in -- but only for a product that actually and honestly solves the problems we want it to solve.
It does not look liquified coal does that in the least.
There are so many politicians I want to like and Obama is one of them, but I lose a little bit of hope every day that there will arise one I can fully support. I think it will end up being another election where I have to chose between wankers and morons
Post a Comment