neg coal to liquids con

8/9/2019 NEG Coal to Liquids CON

1/35

Joshua Ridenour SHINE, SC Page 1 of 35CTL NEG

Coal-To-Liquids NEGOPENER....................................................................................................................................................4

1. Liquid coal is not an option.....................................................................................................4

HARMS.....................................................................................................................................................41. OPEC realizes the need for reasonable prices.........................................................................42. Cheap oil is harmful to the economy.......................................................................................43. Historically expensive oil is good for economies....................................................................54. Higher oil prices increase worldwide demand for US goods and services..............................55. Cheap oil is harmful to the environment..................................................................................66. Economies grow when the price of oil is high.........................................................................6

SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................7COAL PRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7

1. US has passed peak coal production........................................................................................72. The US is facing coal production difficulties..........................................................................7

3. Montana Coal production faces resource, environmental, political, and economical barriers84. Coal Producing states are facing lower production rates.........................................................8

COAL EXPANSION.............................................................................................................................91. Coal expansion faces enormous logistical and technical costs................................................9

COAL RESERVES................................................................................................................................91. Coal reserves may not translate into production......................................................................92. Coal reserves will last us less than 50 years..........................................................................10CTL EMISSIONS......................................................................................................................111. Liquid coal, at best, produces just as much CO2 as traditional fossil fuels...........................112. Coal-to-liquid is horribly inefficient......................................................................................113. CTL is not even as efficient as gasoline.................................................................................11

4. CTL fueled cars would be comparable to a lifetime of gasoline guzzling Hummers............125. Even with Carbon Capture, CTL is more polluting than oil..................................................136. Coal Transport contributes to global warming and PM emissions........................................137. CTL produces twice the greenhouse gases that oil does........................................................148. Even with (untested) carbon sequestration tech, CTL would pollute more than oil..............14

CTL UNFEASIBLE............................................................................................................................151. CTL is economically unfeasible right now............................................................................152. Necessary measures to make CTL possible (Aff don't got 'em)............................................153. There are 4 specific technology gaps that need to be filled. Aff doesn't solve.....................164. The economics of CTL deny it the chance to help reduce our oil dependence, or CO2emissions....................................................................................................................................16

5. Economic, social, and environmental faults of CTL prevent it from being a soundalternative fuel option................................................................................................................17

PRICES...............................................................................................................................................181. CTL is difficult.......................................................................................................................182. CTL will cost pretty much the same as oil, possibly more....................................................18

STANDARDS.....................................................................................................................................191. Affirmative standards make CTL impossible, CTL advocacy groups say.............................19

DA #1 EARTHQUAKES......................................................................................................................191. Coal mining causes earthquakes............................................................................................19


2/35


DA #2 CLIMATE CHANGE................................................................................................................19Link: Aff plan increases CTL, and therefor Coal Mining..............................................................19

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%.......................................19

Uniqueness: CTL pollutes!.............................................................................................................201. CTL will ruin climate change gains.......................................................................................202. CTL is twice as polluting as fossil fuel..................................................................................203. Even with carbon capture, CTL is worse than current energy systems.................................214. CTL is twice as dirty as petroleum........................................................................................215. The cost and time of plan would undercut necessary efforts to reduce greenhouse gasemissions....................................................................................................................................216. Liquid coal impacts would be wide-spread...........................................................................227. Increased coal usage would destroy any global warming gains, creating pollution coal plantsfor decades to come...................................................................................................................22

Impact: Climate Change laundry list..............................................................................................23Health & natural disasters..........................................................................................................23

DA #3 COAL MINING.........................................................................................................................24Link: Coal Mining Increase............................................................................................................24

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%.......................................24Impact #1 Environmental Degradation........................................................................................24

1. Liquid coal would increase the environmental disasters of coal mining...............................242. Coal mining is environmentally unfriendly...........................................................................25

Impact 2: Good-bye Disney World (and other climate change related disasters)..........................25Liquid Coal will flood Florida, Louisiana, and other areas.......................................................25Impact 3: Devastated Human Health.........................................................................................25

EXTENSION..................................................................................................................................261. Coal mining will destroy the Appalachian Mountain Region................................................262. Coal mining devestates local ecosystems and environment..................................................273. Mining will ruin rivers and their various habitats and ecosystems both physically andchemically..................................................................................................................................284. Coal mining devastates stream and groundwater chemistry..................................................295. Coal mining releases greenhouse gases and Particulate Matter.............................................29A2 Mine Reclamation Solves: MR doesn't restore to pre-mining conditions, and can requirescarce water resources................................................................................................................30

DA #4 GOVERNMENT BAILOUT.....................................................................................................311. Liquid coal would rely on government subsidies..................................................................312. CTL Plants are highly expensive...........................................................................................323. CTL is expensive, and requires a government prop-up.........................................................324. CCS will make coal even more expensive.............................................................................325. 10% CTL will cost $70 billion...............................................................................................33

DA #5 - WATER.......................................................................................................................................331. Water will be an important factor, either increasing amount lost, or decreasing efficiency. .332. CTL relies on large amounts of water....................................................................................34

GENERIC ...............................................................................................................................................341. Electricity stimulates social, physiological, and economical well-being..............................342. Energy is essential..................................................................................................................35


3/35



4/35

OPENER

1. Liquid coal is not an option

Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Facts: Why Liquid Coal is not a Viable Option to Move

America Beyond Oil February 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuel preclude itfrom being a sound option to move America beyond oil. Relying on liquid coal as an alternative fuelcould:

nearly double global warming pollution per gallon of transportation fuels, andincrease the devastating effects of coal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching

from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains.

HARMS

1. OPEC realizes the need for reasonable prices

Ashley Seager (reporter for The Guardian) Fuels Mate Guardian Unlimited (Great Britains mostwidely circulated newspaper), May 22, 2004.http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,1222381,00.html

But why should OPEC care about rising prices? Surely big rises in oil prices mean a bonanza forOPEC, which consists of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Algeria,

Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela and Indonesia. Not at all, says Yusgiantoro. "We don't like this kind of pricelevel at all. There would be a big impact on us if the consumer nations had a recession."

2. Cheap oil is harmful to the economy

Muhammad Sahimi(Professor and Chairman of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern

California in Los Angeles. He obtained his BS from the University of Tehran (Iran) in 1977 and his

Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in 1984, both in chemical engineering. He has

been a faculty member at USC since 1984. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe,the US, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many industrial corporations. He has published over

220 papers in peer-reviewed journals and four books. Among his honours are the Alexander von

Humboldt Foundation Research Award and the United Nations UNESCO Khwarizmi Award for

distinguished achievements in science) Cheap Oil Is Bad For The World Tuesday, March 7, 2000 inthe LOS ANGELES TIMES

http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htm

The simplistic view of a layman in the West is that as much oil as possible must be produced, and itmust be sold as cheaply as possible. However, the critical question is whether "expensive" oil is bad forthe industrial worldin the long run, expensive oil is good for the world. In fact, cheap oil has deepand troubling political, economic and environmental consequences Cheap oil induces people tooveruse it and thus discourages development of alternative sources of energy that are environmentally
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf


5/35

friendly. It affects the economy negatively. It costs us huge sums in health care. It causes social andpolitical instability abroad. Is this the world that we envision for ourselves and our children?

3. Historically expensive oil is good for economies


California in Los Angeles. He obtained his BS from the University of Tehran (Iran) in 1977 and hisPh.D. from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in 1984, both in chemical engineering. He has

been a faculty member at USC since 1984. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe,

the US, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many industrial corporations. He has published over

220 papers in peer-reviewed journals and four books. Among his honours are the Alexander vonHumboldt Foundation Research Award and the United Nations UNESCO Khwarizmi Award for

distinguished achievements in science) Cheap Oil Is Bad For The World Tuesday, March 7, 2000 in

the LOS ANGELES TIMES


It is a myth that expensive oil is bad for the economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan. Several studieshave indicated that there is a negative correlation between the fluctuations in the oil price and the grossnational product of Western countries. From 1982 to 1986, when oil prices were high, the economies ofthe U.S., Japan and Western Europe were expanding, whereas the second half of '80s, when pricescollapsed, was marked by recession.

4. Higher oil prices increase worldwide demand for US goods and services

Muhammad Sahimi(Professor and Chairman of Chemical Engineering at the University of SouthernCalifornia in Los Angeles. He obtained his BS from the University of Tehran (Iran) in 1977 and his

Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in 1984, both in chemical engineering. He has

been a faculty member at USC since 1984. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe,the US, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many industrial corporations. He has published over

220 papers in peer-reviewed journals and four books. Among his honours are the Alexander von

Humboldt Foundation Research Award and the United Nations UNESCO Khwarizmi Award fordistinguished achievements in science) Cheap Oil Is Bad For The World Tuesday, March 7, 2000 in



Development of oil reserves is tied to the global economy. Oil-producing countries must maintain ahigh level of revenue from oil sales if they are to continue developing their infrastructures andindustrial basis, and at the same time invest in their oil industries to maintain and develop their

resources to meet worldwide demand. All of this means more jobs in the West, since the oil producersrely on the West for the necessary technology. What would happen to the huge chemical industry in theWest that uses oil-derived materials if the oil reserves of the developing countries were depleted toofast? Chemical and related industries contribute one-third of the United States' GNP.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htm


6/35

5. Cheap oil is harmful to the environment


California in Los Angeles. He obtained his BS from the University of Tehran (Iran) in 1977 and his

Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in 1984, both in chemical engineering. He hasbeen a faculty member at USC since 1984. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe,

the US, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many industrial corporations. He has published over

220 papers in peer-reviewed journals and four books. Among his honours are the Alexander vonHumboldt Foundation Research Award and the United Nations UNESCO Khwarizmi Award for

distinguished achievements in science) Cheap Oil Is Bad For The World Tuesday, March 7, 2000 in



Finally, consider the environmental effects of cheap oil. The main culprit of air pollution is fossilfuels, mainly oil, which in the U.S. accounts for 85% of fuel use. There are hidden costs of cheap oil,

which we pay for through air and water pollution, global warming and acid rain.

6. Economies grow when the price of oil is high

Andrew McKillop(former: expert - policy and programming, Division A - Policy, DG XVII-Energy,European Commission, founder member, Asian Chapter, Intl Assocn of Energy Economists.

Andrew McKillop is an energy economist and consultant who recently edited a book for Pluto Books,

ISBN 0745320929, title 'The Final Energy Crisis' including articles by Colin Campbell and Edward R

D Goldsmith. He has held posts in national, international and supranational (Euro Commission)energy, and energy policy divisions and agencies. These missions have for example included role of

Energy policy coordinator, Dept Minerals & Energy, Govt of Papua NG, advisory and management atthe AREC technology transfer subsidiary of OAPEC, Kuwait, study missions at the ILO and UNDP, in-house consulting to the Hydro & Power Authority of British Columbia, Canada, seminar presentations

at the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, study and technology review at the Canada

Science Council, and elsewhere. Andrew McKillop is a regular contributor to many specialist oil andenergy Web sites. He was first energy editor of the journal 'The Ecologist' and has published works

with other analysts, e.g. 'Oil Crisis and Economic Adjustment', Pinter Publishing, with Dr Salah al-

Shaikhly, currently the Interim Iraqi government's Ambassador to London. Andrew McKillop is activelyseeking research, consulting or writing missions at this time.) Cheap oil myth and energy transition

June 3, 2003

Record economic growth and high oil prices. The US economy attained it highest-ever post-wargrowth of real GDP, achieving what today would be the completely unthinkable rate of 7.5%. In theReagan re-election year of 1984, before inflation adjustment, the economic growth number was about10.75%. In the whole postwar period, from 1945-2003, the US has never exceeded that rate of growth.At the time, in dollars of 2003, the oil price was around $60/barrel. Those well-publicized economistsand journalists who claim that high oil prices hurt growth must explain this simple fact of USeconomic history, or abandon their constant call for cheap oil as the passport to growth. Therevenue impact of increased oil and energy prices, entraining higher earnings for exporters of energy-intense commodities, can rapidly improve the prospects for growth in the straight majority of the
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htm


7/35

worlds economies.

SOLVENCY

COAL PRODUCTION

1. US has passed peak coal production

Dr. Werner Zittel(PhD, Physics; Technical University of Darmstadt; Max Planck Institute for Quantum

Optics; Consultant, L-B-Systemtechnik[LBS]; LBS is a Munich-based consulting company specialisingin sustainable energy and transport strategies. L-B-S is a founding member of the European Business

Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliancewith the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climatenegotiations) and Jorg Schindler(Managing Director, LBS; Diplokaufmann, Business Economics,

University of Munich; With LBST he was involved with projects addressing the following topics:Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems for

transport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCH

GROUPhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

The USA, being the second largest producer, already passed peak production of high quality coal in1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming morethan compensated for this decline in terms ofvolume and according to its stated reserves this trendcan continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lowerenergy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms ofenergy already peaked 5 yearsago it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner has beendeclining since about 2000.

2. The US is facing coal production difficulties


Optics; Consultant, L-B-Systemtechnik[LBS]; LBS is a Munich-based consulting company specialising

in sustainable energy and transport strategies. L-B-S is a founding member of the European BusinessCouncil for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliancewith the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climate

negotiations) and Jorg Schindler(Managing Director, LBS; Diplokaufmann, Business Economics,

University of Munich; With LBST he was involved with projects addressing the following topics:Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems for

transport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;

Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCHGROUPhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Second to China, the United States of America are the next important producer, surpassing theproduction volume of the next important producer states (India and Australia) almost by a factor of
http://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf


8/35

three. The reported proved reserves would allow production for more than 200 years at the presentlevel. However, probably not all these reserves will be converted into production volumes, as most ofthem are of low quality with high sulfur content or have other restrictions. Early signs in the USA for

possible restrictions of future coal production can be concluded from the facts, that(1) The productivity of mines in terms of produced tons per miner was steadily increasing until2000, but has declined since then, and that

(2) The bituminous coal production had already peaked around 1990 and is in decline now.(3) An indication of imminent problems with future coal production is that the USA has recently

switched from a net exporting to a net importing country of steam coal (Kalavov 2007).

3. Montana Coal production faces resource, environmental, political, and economical barriers



Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliancewith the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climatenegotiations) and Jorg Schindler(Managing Director, LBS; Diplokaufmann, Business Economics,

University of Munich; With LBST he was involved with projects addressing the following topics:

Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems for

transport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCH


Also the production of Montana will probably decline or at best grow only slightly over the last 20

years it has more or less remained at around 40 Kt/yr. This would be in line with the small reserves atproducing mines. But why are the huge estimated recoverable reserves in non-producing areas notused? Possible reasons are as follows. Open pit coal mining inMontana is already causing severe environmental burdens. The subbituminous coal is of poor qualitybecause of its high sodium content. Mining causes severe contamination of soils and groundwater. Only2% of the exististing mines have been reclaimed as yet. Therefore the approval of new mines ispolitically very controversial (no new surface mines have beenapproved in the last 20 years) and is in direct conflict with farming interests (the Montana economyrelies heavily on cattle farming) and environmental goals. In the decade between 1978 and 1988 morethan 40 new surface mines were approved. But since then no further permit for a surface mine has beengiven. The last permits for new underground mines were given in 2003, 1994 and 1979. However,

underground mines are considerably smaller than surface mines (EIA 1998-2006), (Montana 1998).

4. Coal Producing states are facing lower production rates


Optics; Consultant, L-B-Systemtechnik[LBS]; LBS is a Munich-based consulting company specialising

in sustainable energy and transport strategies. L-B-S is a founding member of the European BusinessCouncil for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliancewith the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climate

http://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blank


9/35


Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems for

transport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;

Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCHGROUPhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Other federal states with low production rates relative to their reported reserves and resources areIllinois, Ohio, West Kentucky and Montana. It is very likely that their production will further declinecontinuing the trend of the last 20 years. The production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% and inWest Kentucky by 40% over the last 20 years and it seems unlikely that these trends will reverse.

COAL EXPANSION

1. Coal expansion faces enormous logistical and technical costsDr. Werner Zittel(PhD, Physics; Technical University of Darmstadt; Max Planck Institute for QuantumOptics; Consultant, L-B-Systemtechnik[LBS]; LBS is a Munich-based consulting company specialising

in sustainable energy and transport strategies. L-B-S is a founding member of the European Business

Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliancewith the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climate



Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems fortransport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;

Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCH


There is also the problem of finding customers for a significant increase in coal production. Either thecoal would have to be transported over long distances to the urban centers in the east of the US (andalso existing power stations would have to be adapted to the poor coal quality) or electricity wouldhave to be generated locally and then transported to the locations of demand. In both cases huge andexpensive new infrastructures (either railways or local power stations in combination with longdistance power lines) would have to be built. It is not obvious how this is going to happen any timesoon. Another reason for the small contribution of Montana might be the low productivity comparedwith Wyoming.

COAL RESERVES

1. Coal reserves may not translate into production



Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliance
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blankhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.e5.org/%20%5C%20_blank


10/35

with the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climate



Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems fortransport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;

Energy scenarios. ) Coal: Resources and Future Production March 2007 ENERGY WATCH


To summarize the analysis: Three federal states (Montana, Illinois, and Wyoming) own more than 60%of the US coal reserves. Over the last 20 years two of these three states (Montana and Illinois) havebeen producing at remarkably low levels in relation to their reported reserves. Moreover, theproduction in Montana has remained constant for the last 10 yearsand the production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on thesignificance of their reported reserves. Even if these estimated recoverable reserves (according to EIA)or proved reserves (according to BP) do exist, there must be other reasons which have prevented theirextraction. In Illinois the reason might be the high sulphurcontent of the coal. The possible reasons relating to Montana have been discussed above. Therefore it isvery uncertain whether these reserves will ever be converted into produced volumes. Considering theinsights of the regional analysis it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US has alreadypeaked, and that total (volumetric) coal production willpeak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will belower, only about 20% above todays level.

2. Coal reserves will last us less than 50 years

Natural Resources Defense Council Limit to Producing Cheap Coal Makes Liquid Coal PlansUnworkable March 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdf

Even if producers could supply enough coal to meet the demands of the liquid coal industry there areconcerns about the long-term potential of domestic coal supplies. The coal industry has gone to greatlengths to persuade the American consumer that coal is our best and only cheap long-term energysolution. However, the 250 years of supply figure they have been using to support this statement comesfrom a report written more than 35 years ago; more recent research on our coal reserves suggests thatwe would exhaust our economically recoverable coal reserves much sooner.

According to a National Academy of Sciences report from 2007, which considers important

factors like rising coal production and consumption rates, transportation costs, and other environmentaland economic considerations, amount of coal that can produced and sold at a profit at current priceswould meet the nations energy needs for only the next 100 years.1 While 100 years of supply mightstill sound like a long time, that number could fall to just 75 years if we take into account the 0.8percent rise per year in coal consumption predicted by the EIA, and to just 50 years if the liquid coalindustry were meeting its production targets.

1 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11977
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdf


11/35

CTL EMISSIONS

1. Liquid coal, at best, produces just as much CO2 as traditional fossil fuels

Alexis Madrigal(Staff Writer; Green-Tech Writer) Bad News: Scientists Make Cheap Gas From CoalMarch 26, 2009 WIRED SCIENCEhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/The new process could cut the energy cost of producing the fuel by 20 percent just by rejiggering theintermediate chemical steps, said co-author Ben Glasser of the University of the Witwatersrand inJohannesburg, South Africa. But coal-derived fuel could produce as much as twice as much CO2 astraditional petroleum fuels and at best will emit at least as much of the greenhouse gas."The bottom line is that theres one fatal flaw in their proposed process from a climate protectionstandpoint," Pushker Karecha of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote in an e-mail toWired.com. "It would allow liquid fuel CO2 emissions to continue increasing indefinitely."

2. Coal-to-liquid is horribly inefficient

Kentuckians for the Common Wealth( ) Environmental Impact of Coal to Liquid Technology

December 2007 KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMON WEALTHhttp://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technology

Burning fossil fuels for transportation purposes is the source of 40% of all carbon dioxide (the majorcontributor to global warming) emissions worldwide. That makes it urgently important to increase theefficiency of our cars, trucks, planes, trains, and boats in order to curb global warming.

But coal-based fuel generates twice as much carbon dioxide as petroleum-based diesel fuel. Thatsbecause so much carbon dioxide is released in during the process of creating the fuel from coal (one tonof carbon pollution for every barrel of fuel produced). Even if the technology someday develops tocapture and store carbon dioxide on a commercial scale, using liquid coal would still produce 8% morecarbon dioxide than current fuel. But it is important to understand that industry engineers estimate thatsuch technology is at least 25 years away, if it is feasible at all.

3. CTL is not even as efficient as gasoline

Ben Dunham(Staff Attorney, US Public Interest Research Group, and environmental advocacy group)

Liquid Coal: More Global Warming Pollution at Taxpayers Expense May 2007 US PUBLICINTEREST RESEARCH GROUPhttp://www.dcourage.com/PIRGLiquidCoalFactSheet6%2007.pdf

Converting coal into fuel is an inefficient process that requires huge inputs of both coal and energy. Asa result, coal-to-liquid fuels produce twice as much carbon dioxidethe primary global warmingpollutantas regular gasoline.1

The following chart, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, shows how replacingtraditional gasoline with an energy-equivalent amount of alternative fuels would affect lifecyclegreenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide). Whereas replacing gasolinewith cellulosic ethanol would reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 91%, coal-to-liquid fuelwould increase lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by more than 118% if the carbon is not captured and
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.dcourage.com/PIRGLiquidCoalFactSheet6%2007.pdfhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-technologyhttp://www.dcourage.com/PIRGLiquidCoalFactSheet6%2007.pdf


12/35

stored.2

As the chart also shows, even if we could capture and store the carbon released whileconverting coal to liquid, liquid coal would still release more global warming pollution than regular

gasoline. Moreover, carbon capture and storagealso known as sequestrationis not a silver bullet. Itis a nascent and unproven technology that alone will not achieve the emissions reductions we need toavoid the worst effects of global warming.

4. CTL fueled cars would be comparable to a lifetime of gasoline guzzling Hummers

Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, andManagement Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental ProtectionAgency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, Outdoor Connection,environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law Society;

President, Honor Students' Society),

Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDC Washington

Bureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in the international

program at the Natural Resources Defense Council office in Washington, D.C; JD, University of Virginia), DeronLavaas(Federal Transportation Policy Director, NRDC; Member, Board of 2020 Vision, energy and security group; Chair,Air Quality Public Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region; National Wildlife Federation; Sierra Club;

Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate Policy Specialist, NRDC;Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD, International andEnvironmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, Public International Lawand Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International Program, NRDC; Senate

Foreign Relations Committee), Bob Randall(Former Executive Director, Urban Harvest Inc; IndependentEnvironmental Services Professional), and Dan Woynillowicz(Director of Strategy and External Relations,Pembina Institute; Social Science and Humanities Research Council Scholar; Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute; ) Driving It

Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future June 2007 A Joint Report

by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental Action Group),Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),and thePembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

The global warming pollution burden of a liquid coal industry would pose a seriousthreat to our ability to achieve the 80 percent reduction in heat-trappingemissions that scientists advise is necessary to prevent catastrophic globalwarming. Over the full well-to-wheels production cycle, liquid coal fuel results inabout 50 pounds of CO2 emissions per gallonnearly double the emissions fromcrude oil productionassuming the CO2 emissions are released into the

atmosphere.144 A doubling of CO2 emissions in the fuel system compared withgasoline today means that running a hybrid vehicle onliquid coal fuels would result in as much pollution on a lifecycle basis as running aHummer on gasoline.

2 EPA, Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use, fact sheet, EPA420-F-07-035, April 2007.


13/35

5. Even with Carbon Capture, CTL is more polluting than oil

Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, and

Management Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental ProtectionAgency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, Outdoor Connection,environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law Society;

President, Honor Students' Society), Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDC WashingtonBureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in the international




Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future June 2007 A Joint Reportby: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental Action Group),Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),and thePembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

The U.S. EPA found that even if carbon capture and disposal technology is used topermanently capture and store 85 percent of the emissions at the productionstage, liquid coal fuel would still result in 4 percent more well-to- wheels CO2

emissions compared with gasoline. And an additional analysis conducted by theDepartment of Energy has shown that well-to-wheel liquid coal emissions with 85percent carbon capture and storage could be as much as 19 to 25 percent higherthan conventional gasoline/diesel.145 Thats because some emissions will escapeat the production end and additional CO2 will beemitted at the tailpipe that cannot be captured. No matter how you do the math,liquid coal does not add up to the sustainably made, low-carbon fuel that we willneed in order to solve global warming and protect the health of our lands, air, andwater. In fact, we can easily achieve the level of oil savings liquid coal proponentsare promising, and more, by simply improving the fuel economy of our cars andtrucks.

6. Coal Transport contributes to global warming and PM emissions

Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, andManagement Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental ProtectionAgency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, Outdoor Connection,environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law Society;

President, Honor Students' Society), Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDC Washington


14/35

Bureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in the international




Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future June 2007 A Joint Reportby: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental Action Group),Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),and thePembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

Finally, the transport of coal from where it is mined to where it will be burned alsoproduces significant quantities of air pollution and other environmental harms.Diesel-burning trucks, trains, and barges that transport coal release NOx, SOx,PM, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), CO, and CO2 into the earths atmosphere.Trucks and trains transporting coal release more than 600,000 tons of NOx andmore than 50,000 tons of PM10 into the air annually.141, 142 In addition tocausing serious health risks, black carbon from diesel combustion is anothercontributor to global warming.143

7. CTL produces twice the greenhouse gases that oil does

Worse than Gasoline August 2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 297 Issue 2, p32-32, 1p (Accessed

via EBSCOhost)

The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during World War II), and liquidcoal can power conventional diesel cars and trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industryexecutives contend that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or higher. Butliquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic negatives. On the environmental side,the polluting properties of coal--starting with mining and lasting long after burning and the largeamounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces more than twice the globalwarming emissions as regular gasoline and almost double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have

pointed out, driving a Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline.

8. Even with (untested) carbon sequestration tech, CTL would pollute more than oil

Worse than Gasoline August 2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 297 Issue 2, p32-32, 1p (Accessedvia EBSCOhost)

One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the carbon dioxideemitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of


15/35

carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to say, one ton of coal in,more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. Congressional and industry proponentsof coal-to-liquid plants argue that the same technologies that may someday

capture and store emissions from coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-liquid plants. But even if the carbon released during production were somehowcaptured and sequestered--a technology that remains unproven at anymeaningful scale--some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline.

CTL UNFEASIBLE

1. CTL is economically unfeasible right now

Natural Resources Defense Council Limit to Producing Cheap Coal Makes Liquid Coal Plans

Unworkable March 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdf

For liquid coal to be competitive in the market, and for it to make economic sense to invest in a liquidcoal plant, oil prices need to be above $95 per barrel. Recent fluctuations in the price of oil make clearthat relying on oil to remain at or near a given price is extremely risky. Even if the liquid coal industrywere able to remain competitive against oil, achieving production targets of 300,000 barrels per day ofliquid coal by 2015 would require an additional 58 million tons of coal annually. Such an increase indemand would require the United States either to import 30 million tons of coal in 2015 or raise pricesenough to make it profitable to mine the harderto- reach domestic coal.3

Given last years spike in coal pricescaused primarily by a 20 million ton increase in coal

exportsit is unlikely that domestic coal suppliers could cover such a large increase in coal demand ata reasonable cost. The higher cost of coal would not only affect the economics of producing liquid coal,but it would also affect the cost of producing electricity from coal, which is already becoming lesscompetitive when compared to natural gas due to recent declines in natural gas prices.

2. Necessary measures to make CTL possible (Aff don't got 'em)

National Mining Association Liquid Fuels from Liquid Coal October 5, 2005 NATIONAL MINING

ASSOCIATIONhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf [Brackets Added]

What is Needed to Make it[CTL] Happen in the U.S.?Although existing impediments to wide scale deployment of coal-to-liquids technologies are

challenging, all can be mitigated or eliminated through concerted and focused efforts by governmentand industry and with public support. For example:

Construction of new coal-to-liquids capacity can be made more attractive with incentives, suchas streamlining the permitting process; offering federal loan guarantees to cover construction costs;providing federal financing to pay charges incurred through permitting delays; and offering priceguarantees, or providing a price floor, for refinery output.

Tax incentives, such as federal investment tax credits, fuel excise tax exemptions or accelerated

3 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Early Release Overview,http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html#production.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdfhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdfhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdfhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf


16/35

depreciation could be used to reduce risk and assist commercial development.Siting issues can be mitigated by maximizing retrofit opportunities at existing coal-based

power plants or by placing refineries on closed military bases or abandoned industrial or mine sites.

State/federal government partnership consortiums

3. There are 4 specific technology gaps that need to be filled. Aff doesn't solve

Dr. James T Bartis(Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation; PhD, Chemical Physics,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Former Employees, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of

Energy; Former Director, Divisions of Fossil Energy and the Environment, Department of Energy;

Former Member, Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Trade Policy Matters, Secretary ofCommerce and US Trade Representative; Former Vice-President, Applications International

Corporation; Former Vice-President, Co-founder, Eos Technologies) Policy Issues for Coal-to-Liquid

Development June 2007 ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY ANDNATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE RAND CORPORATION

http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.1.pdf

Question [from Senatior Craig Thomas (R-WY)] 15. What specific technology gaps need to be closed

by DOE and private industry working together to reduce the technical and economic risk of coal-

derived fuel plants?

Answer 15. In my testimony, I listed four important measures that the federal government can take, incooperation with industry, to reduce the uncertainties in the costs and performance of coal-derived fuelplants. The first of these measures is to cost-share in the development of a few site-specific front-endengineering designs of commercial plants based on coal or a combination of coal and biomass. Thesecond is to foster early commercial experience by firms with the technical, financial, and management

wherewithal to successfully bring a project to fruition and most importantly to capture and exploit thelearning that will accompany actual operations. The third of these measures is to conduct multipledemonstrations and, by way of such demonstrations, develop the regulatory framework required for acommercial sequestration industry. And the fourth of these measures is to support research,development, testing and evaluation of concepts for integrating coal and biomass for the production ofliquid fuels. An early low-risk, high-payoff opportunity in this last area is the construction andoperation of test rigs and/or pilot plants for evaluating the performance subsystems for co-feeding coaland biomass into entrained-flow gasifiers.

4. The economics of CTL deny it the chance to help reduce our oil dependence, or CO2 emissions

Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, andManagement Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental ProtectionAgency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, OutdoorConnection, environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law

Society; President, Honor Students' Society), Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDCWashington Bureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in theinternational program at the Natural Resources Defense Council office in Washington, D.C; JD, University of Virginia),

Deron Lavaas(Federal Transportation Policy Director, NRDC; Member, Board of 2020 Vision, energy and securitygroup; Chair, Air Quality Public Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region; National Wildlife Federation;
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.1.pdfhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.1.pdf


17/35

Sierra Club; Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate PolicySpecialist, NRDC; Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD,International and Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, PublicInternational Law and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International

Program, NRDC; Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Bob Randall(Former Executive Director, Urban Harvest Inc;Independent Environmental Services Professional), and Dan Woynillowicz(Director of Strategy and ExternalRelations, Pembina Institute; Social Science and Humanities Research Council Scholar; Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute; )

Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation FutureJune 2007 A JointReport by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental ActionGroup), Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),andthe Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

Liquid coal plants, like many coal-related infrastructure projects, are capitalintensive. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the production

costs of liquid coal to be approximately $50 dollars a barrel.147 It may be abargain on paper, but these economics do not sufficiently capture the upfrontcapital costs of construction, the risks associated with long lead times, theenormous environmental costs of liquid coal production, or the industryscompetitiveness under future economy-wide limits on global warming pollution.Its a bad deal for the environment and for taxpayers, and it would siphon offfunding needed for efficiency, renewables, and other low-carbon technologies thatcan do both: reduce ourdependence on oil and solve global warming.

5. Economic, social, and environmental faults of CTL prevent it from being a sound alternativefuel option




Sierra Club; Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate PolicySpecialist, NRDC; Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD,International and Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, PublicInternational Law and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International


Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation FutureJune 2007 A JointReport by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental ActionGroup), Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),and


18/35

the Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

Using liquid coal to produce a significant amount of transportation fuel wouldharm communities and the environment in coal-producing regions, as well asexacerbate global warming pollution nationwide. The considerable economic,social, and environmental drawbacks of liquid coal preclude it from being a soundalternative fuel option. Therefore, the United States should not launch a liquid coalindustry, and private capital and public investment should not be wasted on adirty technology of the past that is not compatible with solving global warmingand creating a truly clean and secure energy future.

PRICES

1. CTL is difficult

National Mining Association Liquid Fuels from Liquid Coal October 5, 2005 NATIONAL MINING

ASSOCIATIONhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf

One reason is the historic sharp volatility of oil prices if the price of oil stays above $35 per barrel, acoal refinery makes economic sense. If it drops below that figure, as it has in the past (see graph atright), there is no assurance a coal refinery can remain competitive, posing a substantial risk forinvestors.

Secondly, the front end cost is high coal refineries are expensive to construct, with capitalcosts in the $600-million-to-$700-million range for a 10,000 barrel per day plant, according to FT

Solutions LLC. The technical and financial risks of a first of a kind plant in the United States havediscouraged consideration of this type of investment in the past.

2. CTL will cost pretty much the same as oil, possibly more

Hari Chandan Mantripragada(Doctoral Student, Department of Engineering and Public Policy;,

Carnegie-Mellon University; MA and BA in Technology, Energy Systems Engineering, Indian Institute

of Technology Bombay) and Dr. Edward S. Rubin(Professor, Engineering and Public Policy,

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University; Professor, MechanicalEngineering, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University; Alumni

Professor, Environmental Engineering and Science, Department of Engineering and Public Policy,

Carnegie-Mellon University; PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University) CO2 ReductionPotential of Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) Plants 2009 SCIENCE DIRECThttp://www.iecm-online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdf

For a 50,000 barrel/day liquids-only CTL plant using bituminous Illinois#6 coal, capital cost isestimated to be $ 90,300 per daily barrel and the cost of product liquid is about $77/barrel. With theaddition of CCS, capital cost increases to about $91,600 per daily barrel and the output cost increasesto about $83/barrel. CCS is more cost effective than paying a carbon tax of as low as $12/ton CO2.Considering the effects of uncertainties, the 90% confidence interval of output cost is $55 - $97/barrelfor a plant without CCS and $62 - $105/barrel for a plant with CCS.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdfhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdfhttp://www.iecm-online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdfhttp://www.iecm-online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdfhttp://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdfhttp://www.iecm-online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdfhttp://www.iecm-online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdf


19/35

STANDARDS

1. Affirmative standards make CTL impossible, CTL advocacy groups say

Glenn Hurowitz(Washington Director, Avoided Deforestation Partners; Political Activist; Associate

Director, WILD PAC, an environmental political action committee) Flirting with Liquid Coal June

26, 2007 THE AMERICAN PROSPECThttp://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108

"Imposing an unrealistic standard that specifically requires both a 20 percent lifecycle reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions and an 85 percent capture of greenhouse gas emissions would all but end anychance America has of using CTL fuels to reverse our growing reliance on foreign energy," the Coal toLiquids coalition wrote to New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman. "A '20/85' standard would require the

use of technologies that have never been fully demonstrated and would make it virtually impossible tosecure the financing needed to construct the first fleet of domestic CTL plants."

This was an admission that all their grand promises about the potential of "clean" coal -- including theirtestimony to the Finance subcommittee -- were just plain lies. Even with $10 billion in low-interesttaxpayer loans, and $200 million in subsidies, they doubt their own ability to actually make coal clean.The switcharoo didn't bother pro-coal Republicans, however, who followed in lockstep with theindustry and voted against the Tester amendment.

DA #1 EARTHQUAKES

1. Coal mining causes earthquakes

Noah Barkin(Journalist) Mining Sets off Earthquake in West Germany February 24, 2008

REUTERS NEWS SERVICEhttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2465800820080224A mild earthquake caused by coal mining shook the western German state of Saarland on Saturday,causing damage to buildings but no injuries.A police spokesman in the Saarlouis region on the French border said the earthquake measured 4.0 onthe Richter scale, the strongest on record in the area, and had knocked over chimneys and causedelectricity outages.After the quake, roughly 1,000 demonstrators gathered near the epicenter in Saarwellingen, police said,to demand an end to mining work which has sparked dozens of small tremors this year alone.

DA #2 CLIMATE CHANGE

Link: Aff plan increases CTL, and therefor Coal Mining

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%

Sierra Club(For over a century the Sierra Club has been devoted to the conservation of our forests,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2465800820080224http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2465800820080224


20/35

mountains, rivers, coasts and other natural areas) Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming

April 2007http://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htm

Beyond water problems, liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal that would limit the amount of fuel thatcould be produced. If we were to replace only 10 percent of our nations transportation fuels with liquidcoal we would have to increase coal mining by over 40 percent.6 Coal mining in our country alreadyrelies on destructive techniques, like mountaintop removal mining. Destructive mining practices putcommunities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanentlyreshaping and damaging the ecosystem and landscape. And, despite industry claims to the contrary,reclamation of coal mines and clean up of coal wastes only lead to other environmental problems.

An increase of coal mining on a scale this large would also jeopardize the long-term prospectsfor coal, including its use as a source of about half our electricity. Doubling or tripling our use of coalwould quickly deplete our reserves.

Uniqueness: CTL pollutes!

1. CTL will ruin climate change gains

Alexis Madrigal(Staff Writer; Green-Tech Writer) Bad News: Scientists Make Cheap Gas From Coal

March 26, 2009 WIRED SCIENCEhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/Even with the small efficiency gains, a large, domestic, carbon-intensive source of transportation fuelwould throw a wrench into many plans to reduce emissions from vehicles."What theyre proposing is simply not allowable if we want to avoid the perils of unconstrainedanthropogenic climate change," Karecha said.

2. CTL is twice as polluting as fossil fuel

Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Facts: Why Liquid Coal is not a Viable Option to MoveAmerica Beyond Oil February 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL


To assess the global warming implications of a large liquid coal program, we need to examine the totallife cycle, or well-to-wheel, emissions of these new fuels. Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containingalmost double the amount of carbonper unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20 percent more than petroleum.

Proponents of coal-derived liquids claim they are clean because the fuel is sulfur-free, but

when coal is converted to transportation fuel, two streams of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced: oneat liquid coal production plants and one from exhaust pipes of the vehicles that burn the fuel. Emissionsfrom liquid coal production plants are much higher than those from producing and refining crude oil toproduce gasoline, diesel, and other transportation fuels; emissions from vehicles are about the same.

The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If the CO2 from the liquid coal plant is released into the atmosphere,based on available information aboutliquid coal plants being proposed, the total well-to-wheels CO2 emissions from coal-derived fuel wouldbe about 50 pounds of CO2 per gallonnearly twice as high. Introducing a new fuel system that
http://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htmhttp://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htmhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htmhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf


21/35

doubles the current CO2 emissions of ourcrude oil system is clearly at odds with our need to reduce global warming emissions.

3. Even with carbon capture, CTL is worse than current energy systems

Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Facts: Why Liquid Coal is not a Viable Option to Move

America Beyond Oil February 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL


If the CO2 from liquid coal plants is captured instead of being released into the atmosphere, then well-to-wheels CO2 emissions would be reduced some but would still be higher than emissions from todayscrude oil system. Even capturing 90 percent of the emissions from liquid coal plants leaves emissionsat levels somewhat higher than those from petroleum production and refining; emissions from thevehicle using the coal-derived liquid fuels are equivalent to those from a gasoline vehicle. As a result,with CO2 capture well-to-wheels emissions from coal-derived liquids fuels would be 8 percent higher

than for petroleum. Since policies to cut CO2 emissions are inevitable, proceeding with liquid coalplants now would leave investments stranded or impose unnecessarily high abatement costs on theeconomy.

In summary, using coal to produce a significant amount of transportation fuel would harmcommunities and the environment in coal producing regions and is incompatible with solving globalwarming.

4. CTL is twice as dirty as petroleum

Natural Resources Defense Council Repower America with Clean Energy: Dont Choose Dirty Fuelssuch as Tar Sands, Oil Shale or Liquid Coal February 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCILhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdf

Liquid coal produces nearly double the lifecycle global warming pollution as conventionalpetroleum fuels. This doubling of emissions means that running a hybrid vehicle on liquid coal wouldresult in as much pollution as running a Hummer on gasoline. Advocates propose managing theseemissions through carbon capture and storage (CCS). This is not a viable option since CCS does notimprove tailpipe emissions. At best it would produce fuels as dirty as petroleum. At this time when wemust significantly reduce transportation sector emissions. We will not achieve our climate objectives ifwe squander limited resources on technologies that are no better-and potentially much worse thantodays.

5. The cost and time of plan would undercut necessary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissionsWorse than Gasoline August 2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 297 Issue 2, p32-32, 1p (Accessed

via EBSCOhost)

The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price guarantees to lock in atechnology that produces more greenhouse gases than gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a timewhen leading scientists from all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by atleast 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst to consequences of global warming.Instead of spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting industry, we should be investing in
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdfhttp://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdf


22/35

efficiency and in renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming today.

6. Liquid coal impacts would be wide-spread




Sierra Club; Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate PolicySpecialist, NRDC; Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD,

International and Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, PublicInternational Law and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International


Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation FutureJune 2007 A JointReport by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental ActionGroup), Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),andthe Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

The primary way that coal can be converted into a petroleum-like product is by

breaking it down into basic molecules that can be reassembled to form a liquidfuel. This process requires a lot of energyenergy that is likely to come mostly, ifnot entirely, from burning coaland large amounts of water in regions with scarcewater resources. The damaging impacts of liquid coal would be widespread, fromthe local community around the mine to the health of our global climate.

7. Increased coal usage would destroy any global warming gains, creating pollution coal plants

for decades to come

Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, and

Management Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental ProtectionAgency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, OutdoorConnection, environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law



Sierra Club; Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate PolicySpecialist, NRDC; Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD,


23/35

International and Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, PublicInternational Law and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International

Program, NRDC; Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Bob Randall(Former Executive Director, Urban Harvest Inc;Independent Environmental Services Professional), and Dan Woynillowicz(Director of Strategy and External

Relations, Pembina Institute; Social Science and Humanities Research Council Scholar; Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute; )Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation FutureJune 2007 A JointReport by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental ActionGroup), Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization),andthe Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch WorldCat Research Database)

Replacing oil with liquid coal would impact our carbon footprint for many decadesto come. By industrys own estimates, displacing just 10 percent of our total oildemand with liquid coal fuels would require a 42 percent increase of coal miningin the United Statesan additional 475 million tons a year. Given the limited

capacity of liquid coal plants being considered today, building a large-scale liquidcoal industry would require the construction of hundreds of new emissions-spewingcoal plants in communities across the country. These plants, like conventional coalplants, would have a lifetime of 50 to 60 years, adding substantially to thepollution burden of future generations.

Impact: Climate Change laundry list

Health & natural disasters

United Nations Environment Programme How Will Global Warming Affect My World? November

2003 http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guide-E.pdf

The increased frequency and intensity of heat waves could lead to more deaths and serious illnesses,especially amongst the elderly and urban poor. Hotter conditions would be exacerbated by greaterhumidity and urban air pollution. Studies suggest that a number of US cities would experience anaverage of several hundred extra deaths each summer. More frequent and intense storms, floods,droughts and cyclones will also harm human health. These natural hazards can lead directly to death,injury and mental stress. Indirect effects would result from the loss of shelter, contamination of watersupplies, reduced food supplies, heightened risk of infectious disease epidemics (such as diarrhea andrespiratory disease), damage to health services infrastructure and the displacement of people. In recentyears, major climate-related disasters have had serious consequences for human health, includingHurricane Mitch, which devastated Central America in 1998, as well as floods in China, Bangladesh,Europe, Venezuela and Mozambique.
http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guide-E.pdfhttp://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guide-E.pdfhttp://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guide-E.pdf


24/35

DA #3 COAL MINING

Link: Coal Mining Increase

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%

Sierra Club(For over a century the Sierra Club has been devoted to the conservation of our forests,

mountains, rivers, coasts and other natural areas) Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global WarmingApril 2007http://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htm

Beyond water problems, liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal that would limit the amount of fuel that

could be produced. If we were to replace only 10 percent of our nations transportation fuels with liquidcoal we would have to increase coal mining by over 40 percent.6 Coal mining in our country alreadyrelies on destructive techniques, like mountaintop removal mining. Destructive mining practices putcommunities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanentlyreshaping and damaging the ecosystem and landscape. And, despite industry claims to the contrary,reclamation of coal mines and clean up of coal wastes only lead to other environmental problems.

An increase of coal mining on a scale this large would also jeopardize the long-term prospects for coal,including its use as a source of about half our electricity. Doubling or tripling our use of coal wouldquickly deplete our reserves.

Impact #1 Environmental Degradation

1. Liquid coal would increase the enviro

neg coal to liquids con

Documents