TOPICS

Lawmakers Wednesday will hear from a panel about the pros and cons of turning coal into liquid fuels for transportation, a topic of particular importance to officials at the Defense Department, which is the single largest petroleum consumer in the world.

The House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment called Wednesday's hearing to help determine how best to allocate federal research dollars, primarily through the Energy Department, for what are known as coal-to-liquid technologies. Six witnesses will discuss the environmental, technical and economic challenges for producing synthetic fuel from coal, as well as the national security implications of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The issue is of pressing concern at Defense, which relies on petroleum-based fuels to power virtually every major weapons system, from jets and ships to battlefield vehicles. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Air Force alone has seen the cost of energy for aviation operations double to more than $10 million a day, according to a recent study. To reduce both costs and the vulnerability inherent in its reliance on foreign petroleum, Defense has been aggressively experimenting with synthetic fuels, including those made from coal.


RELATED STORIES

The reason is straightforward: Coal is cheap and abundant. With about a quarter of the world's coal, the United States is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal, and coal is increasingly seen by some as an attractive alternative to imported petroleum. Coal already is the source of about half the electricity produced in the United States, and proponents believe it could be used to produce transportation fuel on a broad scale as well.

But burning coal produces greenhouse gas and contributes significantly to global warming. While scientists are pursuing technologies that could greatly limit the carbon dioxide released by coal-fired power plants, such technologies have not been adopted beyond a few demonstration programs.

Among the panelists at Wednesday's hearing will be David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. Hawkins told the House Appropriations Committee in February that per unit of energy delivered, coal produces significantly more pollutants than every other fuel, including petroleum.

"Using coal to make liquid transportation fuel is simply not compatible with the need to achieve significant reductions in [carbon dioxide] emissions from the transportation sector over the next few decades," Hawkins said. Even if plants producing liquid coal were to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide emissions, the full fuel-cycle would still produce about 10 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline produced from crude oil.

"If coal is to play a role in reducing oil dependence, it should do so by producing electricity at power plants that capture and dispose of their [carbon dioxide]," Hawkins said. "That electricity can be used to run plug-in hybrid vehicles with much lower overall pollution than using the same coal to make liquid fuel."

Hawkins' solution doesn't address near-term concerns at Defense, however, which is looking to buy as much as 200 million gallons of synthetic aviation fuel next year. Earlier this year, the Defense Logistics Agency issued a request for information from industry seeking to identify potential suppliers of synthetic fuels, specifically those generated using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Fischer-Tropsch is the coal-to-liquid conversion method exploited by German scientists following World War I to fuel the Luftwaffe in World War II.

A recent study of the Defense Department's energy needs and challenges by LMI Government Consulting concluded that synthetic fuels offer one of the most promising alternatives to petroleum in the near term, but noted that the environmental concerns are considerable, and capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide in the fuel-production cycle may increase costs by 25 percent to 40 percent.

James Bartis, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corp., also will testify at Wednesday's hearing. In May, he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that "successfully developing a coal-to-liquids industry in the United States would bring significant economic and national security benefits by reducing wealth transfers to oil-exporting nations." Bartis maintained that technology now exists to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to standards below those associated with producing conventional petroleum, but that without federal assistance, the private sector is unlikely to invest in coal-to-liquids production facilities.

The only nation to use synthetic fuel extensively is South Africa. SASOL, the South African energy company that produces liquid fuel from coal, is reported to be the largest carbon dioxide producer in Africa and possibly the world, the LMI study found.

COMMENTS

  • I have been studying our current addiction to oil in the US, most notably the near future crisis of peak oil, I think that we really have no choices in the matter. We have got to start pursing all alternative possibilities. If your not aware of what peak oil is, peak oil is the point where half of the world’s known oil supplies have been used, and half remain. After said point the amount of oil available for use is going to likely come to a plateau before falling off. That means sooner or later there is going to be less oil available to buy at any price. Now consider three other big problems with the peak oil crisis. 1) peak oil is estimated by Geologists that know these things to happen some time between now and somewhere near after 2010, no one will know for sure until after it happens. 2) The second half of the world’s oil is going to be much harder to get with a large margin of that oil never to be taken because it would cost energy to retrieve that it would be able to return. 3) Currently the world’s demand for oil is growing and competition for the remaining oil is going to be expensive and it’s already starting wars. If you look around at what is going on in the world today it’s evident, not just Iraq, look at Chad, one of the many struggles is for control of the wealth of the recently discovered oil. My solutions: 1) For the Government to invest in the most promising near term alternative (liquid coal) that can get us through right now. 2) Because we have already have shown that we will pay higher prices for gas, tax those new alternative energy sources that may not be so green at a rate that both brings down the price of fuel allowing the economy to grow, but also brings in large sums of money which could go back into the Federal Reserve. That money should then be earmarked for two things only, paying off the National Debt and increasing research into new, long term and environmentally sound energy solutions, with the second becoming a permanent dept. in the Federal Government. That would reduce the risk of transplanting our energy troubles to future a generation and create a forward looking culture that can sustain itself.
  • Which would you rather pay: $90+ per barrel of oil from the Middle East or about $15 to manufacture "synthetic" oil from low rank coal reserves domestically? New liquefaction techniques have reduced the amount of CO2 released so it is now considered to be environmentally friendly. This process is known to work on a large scale TODAY!... The U.S. also holds one of the largest coal reserves on earth. Estimates put low rank coal reserves enough to supply our needs for almost 300 years. These have pretty much been left alone due to interest in mining for desirable coal. Not only would this change the world political picture overnight, it would create thousands of jobs right here in the U.S. Lets get started!
  • No offense, but some people don't seem to understand the problem. We now import a lot more oil than we did in the 1970's when this nation started the last major synfuels research effort. A significant portion of that imported oil is from a region more unstable than in the 1970's. Last time I checked, the known oil reserves have been going down, not up. So the problem isn't going to go away. Unless Area 51 has been developing an aircraft that can run on electric power, seems as if liquid fuels (i.e., transportation fuels) are the only near-term solution to support military missions. There may be long-term solutions to these transportation fuels problems, but in the mean time we, as a nation, must look at near-term (10-15 year) alternatives. You can disagree if current objectives and tactics are correct with the war but I don't think anyone would support having a military that could not project power where it was needed. That includes protecting the homeland.