CTL Legislation Proposed

Sens. Bunning and Obama push CTL
ARLINGTON, Va., March 8 (UPI)

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., called for increased invesment in coal-to-liquid technology at the U.S. Energy Forum in Arlington, Va. "Scale of investment, uncertainty in oil prices and a complicated environmental permitting process have prevented the industry from taking root in the United States," Bunning said.

Bunning and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., co-introduced a bill in January called the Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. It would allow the Department of Energy to provide loan guarantees for construction, planning and permitting of CTL plants. It would also expand investment tax credits and provide the Department of Defense funding and authorization to purchase, test, and integrate these fuels into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and military fuel supplies. ...

The synfuel made from coal is low in sulfur, nitrous-oxide and partical emissions. Another benefit to the military is that the lower burning tempture reduces the heat signature of jet engines.

The most important reason to invest in CTL, Bunning said, is that its "a secure domestic fuel source and the American economy and military are too reliant on foreign fuel sources."

I'm for the loan guantees, but we do not need the subsidies provided by investment tax credits. There should also be a clause that requires the CO2 produced by the CTL process be sequestered.

Comments

[Cervus]

Feed it through an algae bioreactor and you end up using almost all the CO2 for fuel, displacing even more oil imports.

[GreyFlcn]

Considering CTL causes double the net CO2 emmisions of normal petrofuel.
And algae only blocks 30% of the CO2.

No, no it wouldn't.

_

Better idea.
Forget the Coal.
Forget the Fischer-Tropsch Gasification. (38% effecient)

Start with Alage
Put it into a Direct Carbon Fuel Cell. (70% effecient)
http://www.sara.com/RAE/carbon_fuel.html
Generate half electricity, and half liquid fuel. (Or just electricity)
And then use the carbon/nitrogen emmisions to grow more algae, and reduce air pollutants.

[OrenT]

How about government loan guarantees for much more mundane energy-saving investments like more efficient air conditioning or better insulation for commercial buildings? They may not be so sexy but the energy returns on these can be huge. This should also help balance the upcoming wave of unemployment in the construction sector.

[Tim Nolen]

Two points:
First, If you want CTL plants, you do need tax incentives because everyone expects the costs of other hydrocarbon sources to drop. Tax incentives are justified by the externality of energy security as we are currently spending 25 dollars/barrel equivalent on military operations in the Middle East!

Second, CO2 sequestration is truly a monumental problem for CTL because of the large, sustained quantity of CO2 production in such plants. A CTL plant will produce more CO2 than coal coming in, and four times as much CO2 than liquid products.

So, my prediction is that if tax incentives require full CO2 sequestration, then they will not be used and there will be no viable CTL industry.

[tony]

Thank you for an informative article. We realy need to find a way to decrease C02