Air Force Use of Liquid Coal & Tar Sands Fuels Illegal

jet.jpg

The Air Force has been investing big in liquefying coal to use as a staple jet fuel. It’s also been staging a malicious PR campaign to trick the press and the public into believing that coal-to-liquid is clean energy, when it’s not. Not by far.

Could be a big mistake.

Because apparently the Air Force is now in direct violation of the energy bill that was signed by President Bush on December 19, 2007. That law explicitly forbids federal agencies to use "alternative" fuels that are dirtier than conventional ones. And Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-California) and Danny D. Davis (D-Illinois) have made it their business as members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to air the Air Force's dirty laundry.

From Section 526 of the law in question:

No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Liquefied coal doesn’t even come close to meeting that standard. It emits twice the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as regular jet fuel.

And that's why Waxman and Davis have asked the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for immediate answers on how exactly his department plans to comply with the law. Given that the Air Force has already broken it.

Here's the full letter (pdf).

And here’s the crux of it:

This provision ensures that federal agencies are not spending taxpayer dollars on new fuel sources that will exacerbate global warming. It was included in the legislation in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels. As you may know, coal-to-liquid fuels are estimated to produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable conventional fuel. The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar sands, which also produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional petroleum sources.


Coal to fuel

Way to go Stephen Johnson Pres. of American Clean Coal Fuels.... in your put down
of the anti-Coal-fuel Air Force blog of Stacy the ignorant liberal Rosie O'Donnald self righteous obstructionist.

You know, I have read for several years this could be done cleanly, but I
tend to read professional and trade journals. However, I have read almost NOTHING
in the popular press about coal to fuel as the biggest contender for the
next few hundred years. Is it cost competitive at this point in time ?

If it is cost competitive, it is an obvious answer right here in our laps. You
Stephen, need to do more in the PR department for your organization. Much
more...... to educate the masses so they get behind it.

Jonathan Swift

I'm a liberal

And I'm stupid enought ot believe in anthropgenic global warming. Also I hate the US military so this is killing two soldiers with one jihadi bullet funded by buying Saudi oil.

Oh, and I worship algore-hiss even though he lives in a mansion that uses $20,000 in electricity, flits like a flit-boy around the world in a Gulfstream private jet and his son is constantly involved in high speed chases while smoking pot.

Yeap, that's me...the average Democrat.

Not all coal-derived synthetic fuels are so bad

Stacy, sadly, you are misinformed on the lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint of coal-derived synthetic fuels.

In your article you state that coal-derived synthetic aviation fuels emit twice the GHGs of conventional fuels (implying that ALL coal-derived synthetic fuels produce double carbon emissions). That is not correct. It is true that in the dirtiest and most irresponsible implementations of this process, none of which we will likely see developed in the US, with absolutely no emissions controls whatsoever, this process can produce a fuel with close to a double carbon footprint. What is also true is that this same process is capable of capturing and sequestering the process CO2, and additionally, this same process is able to accept biomass inputs either as a blend with, or totally replacing coal. When carbon capture and sequestration is combined with biomass blending, as is the case in at least four of the top synthetic fuels projects currently in development today, the fuels that this industry produces will deliver a substantial reduction in lifecycle CO2 emissions, and indeed even have the capability of producing lifecycle carbon neutral, or even carbon negative diesel and jet fuels. This is possible today with proven commercial off-the-shelf technology, and has the potential of achieving a greenhouse footprint superior to that of what the observers believe that even cellulosic ethanol might be able to do in 10 years.

The other half of the story (which is somehow always conspicuously omitted by those such as yourself who are concerned about the climate and like to take NRDC-produced soundbites and throw them out there as yet another example of "look how bad coal is") is that the US synthetic fuels industry, as a whole, is on the leading edge of producing and delivering fuels that result in dramatic reductions, or perhaps even eventually elimination of, lifecycle GHG emissions.

Everyone I talk to in the US synthetic fuels industry is sincerely interested in being part of the solution on climate change, and even eventually second-generation renewable fuels. By repeating factually incorrect information, you and others in the climate community are not helping that process.

We welcome the scrutiny and oversight that Waxman and Davis and others are providing, as we agree that responsible development practices are crucial to the future of the synthetic fuels industry. We are committed to and capable of delivering reductions in lifecycle carbon emissions.

If you are really serious about your mission of addressing climate change, perhaps you could even be troubled to take the time to do your research, find out what this process is really truly capable of, and THEN deciding whether or not to try and become an obstacle to its further development in the US. Because from where I am sitting, particularly in light of the mounting evidence of lifecycle GHG issues with biofuels (which were conveniently not covered by the Waxman/Davis letter) coal-and-biomass-derived synthetic fuels appear the be the most scalable, technologically proven, least-impactful, infrastructure-compatible option that we have for the implantation of LARGE SCALE alternative fuels production, particularly for aviation, within the domestic US, with a reduced or eliminated GHG footprint.

Also, the document that you link to was signed by U.S. Rep Tom Davis, (R-VA-11th district), not Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, as indicated in your article.

Best Regards,
Stephen Johnson
President
American Clean Coal Fuels

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options