Interesting Articles

[RC and Samantha]

I found this on the GM Peformance forum

quote:Diesel will be 90 cents/gallon in 5 years
The Air Force has decided to go domestic by backing the building of coal to liquid fuel plants. They aren't putting money into it, but are putting up land for building the plants and guaranteeing that they will be customers of the new plants. The nice thing about this is, only 15 percent of a coal fuel plant's output is suitable for jet fuel, the rest is suitable for the rest of us. As the US has three times more coal than the rest of the world has crude, and the coal industry is hurting because clean air rules are forcing power production companies to cancel coal fired plants, this means that something is going to have to start giving, soon. With this announcment, the oil producing countries are going to have to get oil prices down before this ball gets rolling, or in a few years oil is going to be worth a lot less as the US government is probably the largest user of crude oil thanks to the military. If this technology takes off for the government, it will take off for the civilian markets, which means the Middle East will soon be of very little importance to us. The article says that this won't be a smart financial move if oil drops to 60/barrel, which is about 1.50/gallon for gasoline. But, the Air Force is looking at it as a security issue, not a financial game, so even if oil does drop that low, a major user will still be out of the game. Combine this with the new CAFE standards, it will soon be a new boomtime in this nation when it no longer takes half your paycheck to fill your tank. WOO HOO! Since this will also be all new plants, and Congress passed laws stating that any new fuels used by the government must at least match current crude product emissions, this means that the new fuels will have to both burn cleaner and be produced cleaner than current fuel is. Congress says this means there must be biofuels in the mix, and algae is currently going to be the best source for large scale heavy fuel productions (jet fuel is highly refined kerosene with special antigel additives to prevent high altitude freezing) the Air Force will be both domestic and clean.

Here is a link to the Air Force prod aids coal-to-fuel plans

On Edit: I can't get the link to work for some reason, here is a copy and paste of the article on Yahoo News:

quote:By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 22, 5:04 AM ET
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. - On a wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: 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."

Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of coal-to-liquids plants. Their high price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop. In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil.

"We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview.

The Air Force would not finance, construct or operate the coal plant. Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre site on the base and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's largest fuel consumer.

Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take four years once the Air Force selects a developer.

Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually.

With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow — from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies.

"Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame."

Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels.

The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change.

That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan.

"This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone."

Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.

That means the Air Force would need at least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff" Griffin, senior assistant to Anderson.

Coal producers have their sights set even higher.

A 2006 report from the National Coal Council said a fully mature coal-to-liquids industry serving the commercial sector could produce 2.6 million barrels of fuel a day by 2025. Such an industry would more than double the nation's coal production, according to the industry-backed Coal-to-Liquids Coalition.

On Wall Street, however, skepticism lingers.

"Is it a viable technology? Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple (of plants) done," said industry analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this and then five years later oil is back at $60 — this becomes the worst idea that ever happened."

Only two coal-to-liquids plants are now operating worldwide, all in South Africa. A third is scheduled to come online in China this year, said Corey Henry with the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition.

The Air Force is adamant it can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal into a "green fuel," by capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced during manufacturing.

However, that would not address emissions from burning the fuel, said Robert Williams, a senior research scientist at Princeton University. To do more than simply break even, the industry must reduce the amount of coal used in the synthetic-fuel blend and supplement it with a fuel derived from plants, Williams said.

Air force officials said they were investigating that possibility.

In a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. Waxman wrote that a promise to control greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fuels was not enough. Waxman and the committee's ranking Republican, Virginia's Tom Davis, cited a provision in the energy bill approved by Congress last year that bars federal agencies from entering contracts for synthetic fuels unless they emit the same or fewer greenhouse gases as petroleum.

Anderson said the Air Force will meet the law's requirements.

"They'd like to have (coal-to-liquids) because of security concerns — a reliable source of power. They're not thinking beyond that one issue," Waxman said. "(Climate change) is also a national security concern."

Email StoryIM StoryPrintable View

I thought it was quite interesting and wondered what everyone thinks?

Patty

[Waynem]

patty,
The link does not work.
I hope it all turns out the way your post described it.

[Montana Sky]

That is great news! Thanks for the link Patty.

[rames14]

Patty -

Five years works out perfect. Just in time for Terrie and I to start retirement and head to Alaska for the summer with our oldest grandson. China is very heavy into Coal and they are going to really be working the pollution side. It is really bad over there right now with the smog.

[EagleRunner]

Patty,

Thanks for the post. Wouldn't it be a hoot to see this really happen. It would be one way of ending our dependence on the Middle East's oil and the greedy oil barrens. Five years is just about right for us too. Being the working stiffs we still are, it couldn't happen soon enough. I applaud the Air Force in their motivation on this. Let's bring back the good ole ingenuity to the United States instead of sending it elsewhere....

Tom

[bncinwv]

It will be very interesting to see who wins the battle between the environmentalists and the military. The environmentalists are already protesting coal-to-liquids on the basis that the process produces more greenhouse gases. I am glad to see the military stepping up where our politicians won't anyway. We shall see. By the way, this is one of the posts that I will state is my strong opinion and I do have a vested interest in the results.
Bingo

[boylanag]

Thanks for the articles, Patty. If it works it would be great but since such a large part of the price of diesel/gas is taxes, I don't see the pols letting this get going.

[DHenry]

Something positive to read about for a change, thanks for the post.

[Ozzie]

I'm thinking this angle just might work, National Security? Fuel for the Military? I like it.
We have the coal to make it happen, if they can only get it clean enough I believe it could be provide some much needed relief.

[richfaa]

Make sense and will have a chance if the military supports it. We are certainly not anti environmentalist but there must be a happy medimum.

[simonsrf]

Gets our vote! Thanks, Patty.