China’s Coal to Liquids Program Not Allowed in the United States
We have several times reported on what should have been a headline scandal for Coal Country newspapers:
"Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)" is an insidious piece of legislation that was slipped quietly into the books as a shift in the political makeup of our elected government began to loom as an almost inevitability.
Our most recent report about it is accessible via:
Repeal 526 Anti-Coal Liquefaction Bill | Research & Development; which contains one additional link to:
In essence, as we explained, Section 526, among other things, specifically prohibits our US military from buying or using Coal-derived liquid fuels.
And, it can only be interpreted as a roadblock deliberately put in the way of the development of commercial Coal liquefaction operations, for whatever, we must presume nefarious, reasons.
Oddly, even inexplicably, our domestic US Coal Country press has seemingly ignored the issue.
But, the special interest stench of Section 526 is so bad, and so obvious, that even our neighbors are pointing out how horrid the situation is; almost as if our own backyard septic tank had overflowed, we weren't doing anything about it, and the people next door felt compelled to call our attention to it.
Comment follows excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch, to the Canada Free Press discussion of:
"China’s Coal to Liquids Program Not Allowed in the United States
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38002
Producing oil from coal is a technlogy that has been around for a long time. Germany used it to fuel its tanks and aircraft during World War II and South Africa is using it today to provide about 30 percent of its gasoline and diesel supply.
China is now embracing it since they are the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal. But for the United States, the country with the largest coal reserves in the world, coal to liquids plants have been stymied because it is argued that its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than that of conventional oil. So, U.S. coal producers in Montana and Wyoming are looking toward Asian markets for new coal sales and coal producers in West Virginia and Kentucky have increased their exports of coal for steel making.
Department of Defense’s Energy Policy
Tom Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy in the U.S. Navy, said that the rising price of oil “dramatically impacts the military.” For every $1 a barrel increase in oil, the Navy and Marine Corps pay more than $30 million.
So, it is no surprise that the U.S. military would like to find a more economic source of petroleum products.
Currently, there is a Congressional ban on the Pentagon’s using high-carbon alternative fuels.
Section 526 of the Energy and Independence Act of 2007 blocks the DOD from using coal-to-liquid fuels because the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from those fuels would be much larger than the GHG emissions from conventional petroleum.
(Not, most definitely not, necessarily, true.)
That puts a damper on Air Force plans to certify planes to run on synthetic fuels from coal, natural gas and biomass.
While there are ongoing efforts in Congress to repeal this law, no repeal has been enacted as of yet.
For the past few years, the military has promoted alternative fuels from biomass, but so far these fuels are very, very expensive. According to Undersecretary of the Air Force, Erin Conaton, biomass fuel is about 10 times the cost of military aviation fuel.
Since the Energy Information Administration reports kerosene-based jet fuel to sell for just over $3 per gallon, jet fuel from biomass according to this account would cost around $30 per gallon. Other estimates are much larger. For example, a blend of 50 percent camelina-based biofue purchased for the Air Force and Navy last year was reported costing $65 a gallon, making a 100 percent biofuel around $130 per gallon.
China’s Coal-to-Liquids Project
China, unlike the United States military, has no problem getting its petroleum products from coal. China’s largest coal producer, the Shenhua Group, is reaping huge profits from a coal-to-liquids project completed in late 2008 in North China.
In just the first 3 months of this year, their profits reached more than 100 million yuan or $15.38 million from production of 216,000 tons of refined oil products. The project ... is expected to reach one million tons of annual capacity.
With profits of that magnitude in only two years of operation, China has proven that coal-to-liquids is a lucrative business. Meanwhile, the United States is shut out of that market for military use when it has the largest coal reserves in the world.
China is the world’s largest coal producer and consumer, consuming 3.5 times as much coal as the United States. And, rather than consuming U.S. coal at home, U.S. coal producers are looking to sell their coal to Asian markets since U.S. laws and regulations are either slowing or derailing new growth.
Conclusion
China is now the home of the world’s largest coal to liquids plant that is reaping in the profits. Yet, the United States fails to learn from China’s lead. The United States has banned the use of coal-to-liquids technology because the greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle will exceed those of conventional oil. This is despite coal to liquids costs estimated at $45 to $65 per barrel.
Thus, U.S. military establishments will either continue to pay for imported crude oil or invest in biofuel technologies that have a long way to go before they will ever become competitive with conventional sources."
---------------------
And, that, even though as seen in:
WVU says Coal Liquids "Greener" than Petroleum | Research & Development;
ways exist "by which criteria emissions can be reduced during the" Coal liquids "production process".
Further, and perhaps even more importantly, as seen, for just a few example, in:
Pennsylvania Sunshine Converts CO2 to Methanol | Research & Development; and, in:
More Pre-WWII CO2 Recycling | Research & Development;
technologies also exist which would enable us to, in an industrial process, based perhaps in part or in whole on the use of environmental energy, reclaim and recycle Carbon Dioxide; and, to use it, along with Coal, to supply our liquid fuel and chemical manufacturing raw material needs.
As in our subject article, "China’s Coal to Liquids Program Not Allowed in the United States", they likely know, even up in Canada, what we, what every US citizen, should do:
Call our elected representatives. Tell them we want Section 526 repealed.