Rooney jobs plan: Tax less, drill more | Florida Politics | Sun Sentinel blog
Last March, we again addressed "Section 526" of the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", a tasty bit of legislation, an amendment to the Act itself, which was slipped into the books in the later years of the Bush Administration, that specifically prohibits the US Department of Defense from buying and using, or promoting the manufacture of, liquid hydrocarbon fuels synthesized from our abundant domestic Coal.
In that dispatch, now accessible via:
Repeal 526 Anti-Coal Liquefaction Bill | Research & Development
we included a separate link that will take you to the text of:
"House Resolution 5656: Repealing Ban on Use of ... Coal-to-Liquids"
Which "Resolution" says, in part:
"Section 526 of the recently enacted energy law (Public Law 110-140, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) states (that): No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.
Section 526 was added largely to stifle the Defense Department’s plans to buy coal-based (or “coal-to-liquids”) jet fuels.
(Note: Some US Congressional Representatives do believe that "Section 526" was deliberately "added largely to stifle ... coal-based (liquid) fuels". And, also note that it was based on the stipulation that "the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources". We address that issue in closing comments.)
The Air Force is interested in procuring unconventional fuels over the long-term as a way to reduce its reliance on fuels from unfriendly or unstable countries and increasing its use of fuels from North America.
The Air Force wants to use its purchasing power to spur the development of a domestic coal-based synthetic fuel industry by signing long-term fuel contracts with coal-based fuel producers, ensuring that producers have a guaranteed market to offset the millions of dollars in up-front investment needed to produce coal-based fuel.
To limit the ability of the Pentagon to get its fuels from friendly sources and force increased petroleum importation from unfriendly or unstable countries does nothing less than put our national and economic security at risk.
The Defense Department should not be wasting its time studying fuel emissions and should not have to be stifled by the arguments over how to interpret a small section of an energy law. The Defense Department should be allowed to proceed with its vital efforts to ... reduce reliance on fuels from overseas."
------------------
The above "House Resolution 5656: Repealing Ban on Use of ... Coal-to-Liquids" saw, in the first such occurrence we've noted, public exposure, just the day before yesterday, in an unlikely place.
The initial link in this dispatch will take you to:
The Sun Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and, their piece:
"South Florida Congressman Tom Rooney’s Plan to Create Jobs".
And, Congressman Rooney's "Plan" includes:
"Coal to liquid: For over 30 years, U.S. tax dollars have funded research and development of coal-to-liquid fuel technologies. There are more than 250 billion tons of recoverable U.S. coal reserves – equivalent to an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil. U.S. coal can be converted through proven, existing technology into clean, zero-sulfur synthetic oil and products. The plan repeals a 2007 law that banned federal agencies from purchasing fuels derived from ... coal-to-liquid technology."
Again, the "2007 law that banned federal agencies from purchasing fuels derived from ... coal-to-liquid technology" i.e., "Section 526", was, as we see it, promoted and installed by anti-Coal forces in the US Congress, stimulated to action by, from early in 2007, the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuels Promotion Act of 2007", as seen in the following:
"Congressman Geoff Davis and Chairman Nick Rahall Introduce Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007
Bipartisan Energy Legislation Provides a Solution to Our Nation's Energy Crisis, Will Spur Job Creation
Washington, January 10, 2007
Today, Congressman Geoff Davis and House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall [D-WV] introduced the Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007.
This bipartisan legislation is the House version of S. 155, the Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act, that was introduced in the Senate last week by Senators Jim Bunning [R-KY] and Barack Obama [D-IL].
(For more on the US Senate's version of the "Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act", we refer you to:
S. 155 [110th]: Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us); wherein you will learn that the late, great Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, was, as well, a co-sponsor. Just as West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall was a co-sponsor of the legislation in the House of Representatives.
We've earlier reported on the Senate's "S.155", and noted that it was almost immediately "referred to committee", from where no news concerning it seems to have emerged for the last four years.
It's far past time, we figure, that some Coal Country journalist strapped on his cap lamp and went into the shaft to look for it.)
The Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 is a three-part, comprehensive bill that will promote construction of coal-to-liquids plants. The bill offers tax incentives for investment and production and would strengthen our domestic energy security by providing for the use of coal-to-liquids fuels in the military and as a component of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
- - - - - - -
This brief dispatch, really, is nothing more than a call to action.
A US Congressman from Florida is speaking out positively about Coal liquefaction, and his words are being published in a local newspaper in Florida, at a place that's on the banks of the Gulf Stream.
Similar words aren't being spoken by people of stature, or, if they are, the words aren't getting published, in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania, along the banks of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers.
We just wondered why that might be; especially since further delay puts "our national and economic security at risk".
Really: Why?
Keep in mind: "Section 526" is founded, at it's core, on the stipulation that "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions" i.e., Carbon Dioxide, "associated with"the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources".
And, since, as we've documented for you, in:
Oklahoma Oxygen Donor Coal Gasification | Research & Development; concerning, primarily: "United States Patent 4,070,160 - Gasification Process with Zinc Condensation on the Carbon Source; 1978;Assignee: Phillips Petroleum Company; Abstract: In a process for gasifying solid carbon sources such as coal utilizing zinc oxide as the oxygen donor, the carbon source is first contacted in a preheat zone with product gas; any zinc in this product gas is condensed on the carbon source; the preheated carbon source and zinc are then exposed to steam whereby the zinc is oxidized to zinc oxide (and Hydrogen is co-produced); the mixture of zinc oxide and carbon source finally is reacted at elevated temperature conditions to form a gas comprising carbon monoxide and zinc";
that: processes exist for the gasification of Coal, to form a Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide synthesis gas blend with very little, almost no, co-production of Carbon Dioxide;
and, since, as seen for just one instance in:
US Navy Awarded September, 2011, CO2 Recycling Patent | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,017,658 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons via Catalytic Reduction of CO2; September 13, 2011; Assignee: The United States of America; Abstract: A method of: introducing hydrogen and a feed gas containing at least 50 % carbon dioxide into a reactor ... to produce hydrocarbons";
we can and should, in any case, start to think of Carbon Dioxide as a valuable raw material resource from which we can synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuels;
and, the specification concerning "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions", and, consequently, "Section 526" itself, thus, are, or could be made to be, meaningless, or "moot";
we wanted to urge, that, if anyone out there does care about Coal, and about US Coal Country, and about domestic liquid fuel self-sufficiency, with it's attendant benefits of local prosperity, and freedom from economic dominance by multi-national Oil corporations and the often-inimical members of OPEC, if anyone out there does care about the Truth, then, they should call all of their US Congressional Reps and all of their US Senators, and, all the editors of all their local Coal Country newspapers, and ask them, for us, for all of us, that simple question above:
"Why?"