Liquid Coal A Cleaner Response to Energy Problem

The Herald-Leader editorial board has again ignored scientific studies on coal-to-liquid fuel emissions and appears interested only in scaring Kentuckians with half-truths and misrepresented statistics.

I am a strong believer in the free market, and I relied on my long experience in economics when I wrote the coal-to-liquid legislation that I introduced with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. My bill would provide incentives for the first commercial demonstrations of coal-to-liquid technology.

With modest initial investment we can kick-start this industry, and then the government will get out of the way and let the marketplace takeover. I would rather the government not have any involvement in coal-to-liquids, but this industry needs assistance because of the threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Venezuelan President Hugo Ch‡vez and technology challenges.

Unlike the programs from the 1970s, my approach would cap the amount of money that can be spent and provide the limited government support needed to build a handful of plants.

Coal-to-liquids will not only be driven by the free market but also will power our military as it protects our freedom throughout the world. The top energy priority for our military is to have a secure, domestic fuel source for our men and women in uniform.

The Air Force is a strong supporter of these fuels and has engaged an aggressive testing program in B-52 bombers and will start tests on additional jets soon. They have an outstanding evaluation so far. These fuels burn cleaner and at lower temperatures, which reduces the radar profile and heat signature of our jets. And it has a higher efficiency, allowing jets to fly faster and farther on the same tank of fuel.

Despite the commentary to the contrary, coal-to-liquid fuel can be significantly cleaner than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants like sulfur and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

I have studied coal-to-liquids extensively, and reports from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, Princeton University and the Idaho National Laboratory have shown that coal-to-liquids' rate of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks and process used.

These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same ideas, a planned plant in Ohio -- one that will need some government support to get started -- will produce coal-to-liquid diesel that has 46 percent fewer carbon emissions than diesel fuel made from oil.

That is why, when I offered a coal-to-liquid fuel amendment to energy legislation in the Senate last month, I required that government money be used only in projects that will produce a fuel with fewer carbon emissions than the oil-based fuel it replaces.

Despite the way it is characterized in the press, every gallon of coal-to-liquid made with help from my amendment would reduce our country's carbon emissions and would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East.

Coal-to-liquid fuel is not a distraction; it is a domestic answer to one of the biggest problems facing America. It will lower energy prices for U.S. families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs in Kentucky and bring billions of dollars in new investment to the state.

This will be a clean fuel made from Kentucky coal, and the Herald-Leader is dead wrong to oppose it.