USAF Pushes for Liquid Coal

By Eric on March 23, 2008

The U.S. Air Force is redefining alternative energy. In an attempt to wean itself off of foreign oil, the Air Force wants the next generation of jets to run off of synthetic fuel derived from liquid coal.

The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel.

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country’s abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors - nervous over coal’s role in climate change - to sink money into similar plants nationwide.

“We’re going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there’s three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves,” said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. “Guess what? We’re going to burn coal.”

The real winner in all this is Big Coal, which suffered a huge setback after the Senate stripped liquid coal measures from the 2007 energy bill. Unfortunately for all of us, the loser here is our planet.

1) Liquid Coal is Not the Answer to Lower Emissions: Coal-based fuel would nearly double global warming pollution per gallon as compared with the petroleum-based fuels we use today. For example, using coal-based fuel in a Honda Civic would double that vehicle’s carbon dioxide emissions, making it equivalent to a Hummer H3 running on conventional gasoline.

2) Liquid Coal Production Could Destroy Ecosystems and Communities: Substituting 10 percent of our current oil use with liquid coal would mean 40 percent more coal mining. We already know the destructive effects of surface coal strip mining, include polluted air and water, as well ravaged landscapes. The most damaging is mountaintop removal coal mining that has already resulted in the destruction of hundreds of mountains and buried or polluted thousands of streams in Appalachia. Additionally, just producing liquid coal requires an inordinate amount of water — a resource especially scarce in the Western part of the country.

3) Liquid Coal is a Poor Investment: Just one liquid coal plant costs $7 billion dollars to build — and the American people could foot most the bill! Moreover, every public or private dollar invested in liquid coal is one less dollar available for investment in efficient vehicles, improved transportation systems, smart growth, and sustainably-made renewable fuels.

Compared to other proposed alternative energy sources, liquid coal just doesn’t stack up:

“We need to wean ourselves off oil, but we should replace it with the cleanest alternatives possible,” said Patrician Monahan, author of the report and deputy director of UCS’s Clean Vehicles Program. “Let’s not trade one bad habit for another.”

Liquid coal, for example, can release 80 percent more global warming pollution than gasoline, the report found. Corn ethanol, conversely, could be either more polluting or less than gasoline, depending on how the corn is grown and the ethanol is produced. On average, corn ethanol can reduce emissions about 20 percent, though there is uncertainty due to differing land use practices. The cleanest alternative, cellulosic ethanol from grasses or wood chips, could reduce emissions by more than 85 percent.

“Biofuels have a Jekyll and Hyde reputation depending on what study you read and what assumptions you make,” Monahan said. “But liquid coal is a loser no matter how you look at it. We need to set standards so farmers know the right way to produce cleaner fuels.”

For the more visual thinkers among us, this chart makes the case against liquid coal:

The Air Force’s official press release on liquid coal is here. You can leave a comment encouraging the Air Force to support environmentally safe energy here or send an email to the Air Force’s Energy, Environment, Safety and Occupational Health division.

Tags: environment, liquid coal, U.S. Air Force

• You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Nobody has said anything yet. Why don't you?

Respond