Barack Obama supports a massive increase in liquid coal production

[Amy6627]

I received this email this morning:

Hi Amy,

I'm writing today with some news that may surprise you - Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate supports a massive increase in liquid coal production. If you're not familiar with liquid coal, let me assure you, it's as bad as it sounds.

Liquid coal is touted as an 'alternative energy' source, when in truth it's worse than many of our current energy sources. This World War II-era technology creates twice as much global warming pollution as gas, actually speeding up global warming.

Take a minute right now to let Senator Obama know that we need clean energy alternatives, not outdated polluting technologies - we've set up a simple page for you to send him this important message:

http://www.environmental-action.org/energy.asp?id=2198&id4=ES

There are some serious problems with liquid coal: from production to use, liquid coal produces nearly twice the CO2 emissions as gasoline thus speeding up global warming. Not to mention that for liquid coal to be produced, we'd have to dramatically increase our domestic coal mining operations, further destorying our wild places.

On his website it says, "Senator Obama believes the U.S. must act now to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change," and obviously, we agree with him. So why is he supporting this terrible liquid coal idea?

We think he's probably been sold a bill of goods by the snake oil salesmen in the coal industry. So please, send him a message of truth today.

http://www.environmental-action.org/energy.asp?id=2198&id4=ES

And then please, pass this message along to your friends and family - and thanks for all your work.

[redqueen]

1. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[Larkspur]

2. My hero Gov. Brian Schweitzer supports coal-to-gas programs

Montana has lots of coal and Schweitzer, who has an Earth sciences degree, says that much of the CO2 can be put back in the ground and that the top soil over the mines can be preserved while the coal is being mined and then put back after the mining is complete.

Schweitzer also favors windmill technology, etc..

I think that coal-to-gas is an intermediate step for the United States to take in the process of weaning us off foreign fossil fuel. I would support it with the environmental stipulations that Schweitzer says can be done and with the goal that the United States weans itself off of foreign fossil fuel and with weaning ourselves off of fossil fuel all together.

[SteppingRazor]

3. That's a little misleading, though

It's all well and good to say "If you're not familiar with liquid coal, let me assure you, it's as bad as it sounds," but without anything to back up the assertion, that's only so much fearmongering. Yes, coal liquefication was invented in Germany in World War II, but the modern process is several generations ahead of that. Consider this, from http://www.beyondfossilfuel.com/resources/liquid_coal_1130.html :

"The Sasol technology (used currently in China) used to produce liquid coal is a third generation Fischer Tropsch technology which was originally developed by Germany in World War II.  Burning raw coal is highly polluting when burned but with this technology sulphur, ash, mercury and other pollutants are removed."

The big problem is that, while modern coal liquefication technology can remove some CO2 by combining it with steam, it can't remove it all, especially on a commercial scale. But, in my opinion, that only calls for more R&D to find cleaner methods, not shutting down the whole process in fear. The U.S. has massive amounts of coal reserves — in fact, far more than any country in the world, as per the chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Given that, it seems to me that the development of clean coal (I realize that's a bit of an oxymoron, but stay with me here) is a good middle step toward further developments in solar and wind power that may be decades down the road. It weens us off oil and gives us time to develop even cleaner, renewable resources on what is likely the eve of peak oil. And even discounting the depletion of the world's oil reserves, it allows us to end the necessity of dealing with volatile parts of the world that, more often than not, can hardly be considered friendly. The Middle East is a powderkeg, after all, and I think we'd be much better off if we didn't have to rely on that part of the world for our energy needs. We'd probably be much better off if we could just tell the Saudis to go take a bath in their oil, no?

[MadHound]

8. The thing is, we don't need these intermediate steps,

Solar, wind and biodiesel have reached the point where not only are they viable, but they can, indeed, supply all of our energy needs.

A 1991(keep that year in mind, since the wind tech has advanced amazingly since then) survey of the harvestable wind energy in the US found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, N. Dakota, Kansas and Texas, to supply all of our electrical needs, including factoring in growth, through the year 2030. Three states, all of our needs, with 1991 tech. <http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update24.htm>

Biodiesel, using algae feedstock, can supply all of our fuel needs. This one is a particualr win-win situation, since the necessary algae can be grown in wastewater treatment plants, in ponds that use algae for their first step in treating wastewater. A professor at New Hampshire has calculated that it would only take 15,000 sq miles of algae to supply all of our fuel needs.<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> While I know that this sounds like a lot, to put it in perspective, that is only one tenth the size of the Sonora desert. What can't be produced using wastewater treatment ponds can come from aquaculturists, thus providing a boon to our small farmers.

We don't need intermediate steps, we don't need coal gassification, we don't need clean coal technology. We already have the means at hand to produce all of our own energy needs, cleanly, safely, and renewably.

Anything else is simply bullshit blathering designed to keep the current energy barons in power, as they further destroy our planet.

[madrchsod]

4. illinois has more coal than god

illinois has invested close to a billion dollars in coal gas and liquid technology

obama is illinois`s other senator

[tammywammy]

5. What, you mean he supports something

that will help his state???? How dare him.

[dysfunctional press]

6. why would it be a surprise that obama supports coal?

illinois has lots of it, and could use the jobs...and btw, that's where he's the senator of(i only say that because if someone is surprised by obama's support of coal, they'd probably be surprised by what state he represents)

[Dawgs]

7. Oh God, another one of these posts?!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

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.' "

Popovich concedes the point: "Liquefied coal produces a diesel fuel cleaner than other diesel fuels, not necessarily cleaner than conventional gas," he said.

What about Obama? "Senator Obama has introduced legislation to drastically increase the production of biofuels like ethanol, and has authored legislation to increase fuel economy standards that would eventually save us 4.3 million barrels of oil a day and would reduce global warming," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

And, oh, yes: "Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."