Energy efficiency vs. liquefied coal: Which do you think Congress is subsidizing?

Hint: We're talking about Congress here

Posted by David Roberts at 9:23 AM on 29 May 2007

Those of you with strong stomachs will want to marvel at the contrast between two New York Times stories out today. Marvel ... and tear your fracking hair out.

First, there's this story on energy efficiency. It makes the simple and familiar point that the cheapest, fastest source of energy is negawatts -- not using the energy in the first place. In particular, efficiency is cheaper than coal:

"When we started talking about this in 1990s in terms of energy efficiency versus coal energy, we were talking 4 cents a kilowatt-hour for coal, and 4 cents for energy efficiency," said R. Neal Elliott, the industrial program director at the [American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy]. "Today we're talking optimistically, without carbon taxes, 10 cents for coal. With carbon taxes, we may be talking 20 cents for coal."

"And energy efficiency," he said, "is still 4 cents or less."

Despite this widely acknowledged fact, efforts to get at those efficiency savings are scarce and fitful. Vermont has a good program; Gov. Spitzer in New York promised one. But by and large, little attention is being paid to this low-hanging fruit, particularly not by the feds.

In sharp contrast, check out this story on the push for liquefied coal.

As I've said many times, the best case scenario for coal-to-liquids (CTL) is that every CTL plant is adjoined by an expensive (and as yet technologically unproven) carbon sequestration facility. Given that best case scenario, CTL will be neutral toward carbon emissions. This fantastic infographic from the NYT tells the story:

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

So CTL will do basically nothing for global warming, except possibly exacerbate it. What about the vaunted "energy independence" benefits? Well, not at this price:

[A team at MIT] estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption.

The study estimates that the construction costs for coal-to-liquid plants are almost four times higher than the costs for comparable petroleum refineries, and it argues that cost estimates for synthetic fuel plants in the past turned out to be "wildly optimistic."

In a new report last week, the Energy Department estimated that a plant capable of making 50,000 barrels of liquefied coal a day -- a tiny fraction of the nearly 9 million barrels in gasoline burned daily in the United States -- would cost $4.5 billion.

So: an enormous expense, for miniscule energy security benefits and no carbon reductions. Sounds great, eh?

It sounds great to policymakers, though:

... the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol.

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.

Why on earth would Congress do something so criminally stupid, so manifestly against the public interest? Why do they ever?

Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by Politicalmoneyline.com.

There's your civics lesson from today's NYT, kids:

Energy efficiency: a financial boon and a cheap, fast way to reduce carbon emissions. But: no big industry lobby. Thus: ignored by the feds.
CTL: a financial boondoggle with few energy security benefits that will aggravate climate change. But: big industry lobby. Thus: plied with billions in taxpayer subsidies.

Looking for something to chat about with your Congressional representative? This seems like a good place to start.

For story: Energy efficiency vs. liquefied coal: Which do you think Congress is subsidizing?
17 Comments | Post a Comment

I'm gonna be sick

A perfect vomit-inducing segue ... I went from reading this great post and the NYT stories to my e-mail and found this from the Pretend League of Conservation Voters, claiming that raising CAFE standards 4% a year will help ensure a livable future for our children.

In other words, the $&#*#%^@! so-called CONSERVATION organizations are signing up for selling the message that keeping the automobile age going is GOOD for the planet.

I'm going to start calling coal-to-liquids "the Nazi approach," because that makes clear that anyone who is trying to keep the auto-centric planet going is a collaborator with pure evil. Because keeping the auto age going means demanding liquid fuels, and anyone asking for liquid fuels is asking that more coal be burned, either to make biofuels or to make CTL fuels.

Dear JMG,
Gas prices have hit a record high. Let's hit back.
Help us get large corporate polluters to back off and Congress to step up!
Donate today!
How much did you pay at the pump this Memorial Day weekend?
Sky-high gas prices have made Americans uneasily aware of our dangerous dependence on oil ... and the critical need for fuel-efficient cars.
Right now, with the right resources, we can do something that would have been unthinkable a decade, or even a year, ago: pass critical clean energy legislation.
As early as June, Congress will be voting on bills that will go farther than ever to curb global warming and our reliance on oil.
LCV is on Capitol Hill, securing votes, but we also need to secure our own resources.
Donate $35, $50, or $100 today -- help us raise $25,000 by June 1.
Thanks to supporters like you, we are well on our way to our goal. We're off to a great start, but we need to pick up the pace if we're going to have the resources to ensure vital bills in Congress are passed in the next few weeks.
The battle for fuel-efficiency continues to intensify on Capitol Hill and a vote could come any day. It may sound revolutionary -- but the truth is: fuel efficiency is a simple, easy step we can take toward ensuring a healthy, livable planet for our children.
Here's why:
The benefits are tremendous. Increasing our fuel economy standards will save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump, drastically cut our oil dependency, and curb dangerous global warming pollution.
The technology exists. The National Academy of Sciences says American industry is ready to increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year without affecting safety.
The drivers are ready. Americans have already started buying hybrid vehicles, and other fuel-efficient cars, in record numbers. Many models are so popular, consumers have to sign up for a wait-list!
It's an obvious solution, but the large corporate polluters and their allies are doing everything they can to stop it. Help us stop them. Give to LCV today, and invest in an answer to many of our country's energy challenges and opportunities.
Give now. Help us raise $25,000 by June 1 to help intensify our efforts for the coming weeks.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski
President
League of Conservation Voters

The 5% Project

by JMG at 10:46 AM on 29 May 2007

Subsidies everywhere

Thanks for posting the NYT article on coal, David. I had seen it earlier today and was hoping somebody mention it on Grist. It is much meatier than the typical NYT articles on biofuels, IMHO.

Don't politicians ever learn from history -- specifically the "energy crisis" of the 1970s, when there was a similar sense of a need to "do something", which in too many cases resulted in heavily subsidized white elephants? Once again, sober, ex ante analysis of the various policy analysis has been sacrificed to expediency.

A case in point. Does the proposed tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold (through 2020!!) ring a bell? It should: it is exactly the same rate as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). I'll bet a team of policy wonks ran their models day and night to come up with that number!

We're talking aprtheid-era policies here: subsidies for building the plants, price floors and production subsidies, and guaranteed markets for the fuel itself (not only from the military but, in the U.S. case through the proposed "alternative fuel standard").

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 10:51 AM on 29 May 2007

don't forget:

"Energy Independence!" is a battle-cry, for a cause which has nothing to do, basically, with combatting global warming. I do not know if we know what all these energetic coal lobbyists are telling the folks in Congress, but I would guess a lot has to do with global politics and US strategy in the Middle East. And needless to say, that is the subject that is highest in everyone's minds in DC.

Observe that the NYTimes columnist Tom Friedman (aka "the Mustache," at least in Gristmill) had always been interested in Middle Eastern politics, and the United States' involvement in them, as a geo-political issue. It was only in the course of pondering all that, that he latterly hit on energy independence as an excellent strategic goal for the US. Even then, he was not yet saying anything bold about "green" alternative energy sources. That took further worrying about the fast-globalizing economy of India especially, and all that "the world is flat" business, to help him conclude that the US should resolve to become the global leader in green energy and green industry.

This evolution in fact reflects the very conservative values of the powers-that-be in this country: first, national security always comes first; second, the growth of American business always comes second; third, let the pointy-headed Friends-of-Al play with things like cellulosic ethanol, but the US should not invest serious money in it just yet.

Subsidizing CTL fits those values, foolish and misguided as they are, just fine.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:11 PM on 29 May 2007

That chart

I wonder where their "electricity" figure comes from.

Since it seems like it must be either the grid average, or even straight coal.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:21 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Liquified coal and greenwashing...

I love Grist...I really do. But then I see a banner ad from GE on liquified coal above the article where Grist is bashing liquified coal (as they should.)

I know it costs to run a site, and any other business, but could it be possible to be a bit more selective about either a) where some of that advertising income comes from or b) the decisions made to not so blatantly look like a sellout...

Coal, bad...lets remember that.

by Sinjin32 at 12:24 PM on 29 May 2007

Actually

Actually the US Energy Information Agency doesn't figure we can replace even 1% of our 146 billion gallons of gasoline with cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol8

This is obviously why the CTL guys are taking this angle.

Since even with cellulosic ethanol, it's virtually impossible to scale up ethanol or biodiesel to 35 billion gallons by 2017 in a way that would reduce CO2 emmisions.

(Unless of course there's some gigantic breakthrough in algae. But I wouldn't hold your breathe.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae
http://greyfalcon.net/algae2)

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:28 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Actually here's the real irony

Coal, bad...lets remember that.

I prefer coal over biofuels.

Mainly because while 109% increase in CO2 is bad.
A 1000% increase in CO2 is worse.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://www.greyfalcon.net/soy

And while there may be some mitigation
Given the fungability of biofuel carbon, I don't see how biofuels on a global scale would be any less damaging than Coal-to-Liquids.

That said, I also prefer Coal
Not as a Liquid.
But as Electrons.

Not quite sure how I feel about adding new coal capacity, however I acknowledge that existing capacity isn't going to vanish overnight.

And powering an electric Prius on the dirtiest coal availible would be comprable to a normal Prius.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3

And merely by adding more fuel during the night.
(Predominantly Coal)
Would be what initially would power electric cars.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4

That said, things could only begin to get better as the grid gets greener.

So yeah, Electricity even at it's worst case scenario, isn't so bad as compared to some of the better case scenarios of BioFuels or Liquid Coal.

Looking at the EPA's chart I really question where that "electricity" figure comes from.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:39 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

That said,

Anyone know where I could get the lifecycle CO2 per Megajoule info for various types of fuels?

For instance, I'd like to compare electric versus various types of biofuels.

However attempt to make it agnostic on vehicle weight.
(While including engine effeciency, and maybe other factors)

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:10 PM on 29 May 2007

Clean power

Renewable energy sources - wind, solar - are great, but they are intermittent. The only way we are going to get clean, reliable electric power is to go nuclear. You can charge your hybred car from a clean nuk source, and then you would not be taking bread from the mouths of the poor, and you would not be adding to the CO2 burden of the atmosphere.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 2:26 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Lifcycle CO2 emissions

GreyFlcn, if you read Norwegian or German, here are a couple of sources:

"Energi- og miljødata for alternative og konvensjonelle drivstoffer - år 2010"

and

"ÖKOBILANZ VON ENERGIEPRODUKTEN: ÖKOLOGISCHE BEWERTUNG VON BIOTREIBSTOFFEN"

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 2:33 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Nuclear

Minus the golden terrorist target, nuclear might be good...oh yeah, if you ignore the waste for 10,000 years...

If people took up the responsibility for DECENTRALIZED power that is appropriate for their locales, be it solar, wind, hydrogen, whatever, and put that to use in their own backyards, there would be much less global impact, and no reason for a terrorist to ever target a powerplant...

Even at the neighborhood level, a small scale solar or wind or hydrogen fuel cell (any of which exist today), controlled by the neighborhood, is far and away more responsible than paying the fat cat utilities and being the perfect bullseye for those who would like to put a city, state, or country out of business...

by Sinjin32 at 3:21 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Grey Falcon's haiku

As blossoms fall, coal
Pleases me, not as liquid,
But as electrons.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:39 PM on 29 May 2007

Thx, but no thx

[new] Lifcycle CO2 emissions
GreyFlcn, if you read Norwegian or German, here are a couple of sources:
"Energi- og miljødata for alternative og konvensjonelle drivstoffer - år 2010"
and
"ÖKOBILANZ VON ENERGIEPRODUKTEN: ÖKOLOGISCHE BEWERTUNG VON BIOTREIBSTOFFEN"

Thanks but I think I'll need to look for something in english.

In particular all I'm really looking for is a good way to compare various liquid fuels to electric fuels to hydrogen.
And then compare that to engine effeciency.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 5:52 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Why would a terrorist strike a nuclear power plant

Sinjin32 write: Minus the golden terrorist target, nuclear

Why do you believe that nuclear power plants make for golden terrorist-targets?

by Nucbuddy at 6:23 PM on 29 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Could $70 billion reduce gasoline use by 10%?

Over at the Blog for Rural America, Dan Owens makes an interesting wager: "I bet that we could conserve 10 percent of gasoline consumption for a lot less than 70 billion dollars." Could we? How much would a 10% increase in fuel efficiency cost?

GreyFlcn: the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Davis has a lot of life-cycle analysis of just about every practical transportation fuel. Dr. Mark Delucchi is one of those working on the project, and has links to numerous reports.

by meander at 10:41 PM on 29 May 2007

Uh, Organization...Organization

Hey, all:

From D.R.:

"Why on earth would Congress do something so criminally stupid, so manifestly against the public interest? Why do they ever?
Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by Politicalmoneyline.com.
There's your civics lesson from today's NYT, kids:
* Energy efficiency: a financial boon and a cheap, fast way to reduce carbon emissions. But: no big industry lobby. Thus: ignored by the feds.
* CTL: a financial boondoggle with few energy security benefits that will aggravate climate change. But: big industry lobby. Thus: plied with billions in taxpayer subsidies.
Looking for something to chat about with your Congressional representative? This seems like a good place to start."

This is a perfect illustration, yet another reason why we need a single strong central organization to cover all environmental fields to provide issues and a means of focused political action. How about it? Who has it? Where is the environmental "MoveOn"? Who'll set it up?

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

by SustainableGreen at 7:33 AM on 30 May 2007

Ethanol fuel

I would like to invite all audience to visit a newly lounched site dedicated to biofuels, ethanol and climate issues. Potential writers are wellcome to write to editors@ethanol-news.de

http://www.ethanol-news.de

by ethanol at 12:38 AM on 06 Jul 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.