AL Gore - Coal to Liquid Technology

[shielded22001]

Coal with Biomass fillers lowers Co2 , the F/T process from the 1930's in Germany have been modified so it is cleaner

[BadGasGoodWind]

Canada also digging into tar sands..... extra dirty, extra expensive.... only done since we are running out of coal in north america anyway. clean coal is not being done... it is too expensive, it is all PR/lip service. Why not go green and make money on a sustainable clean energy economy instead of defending dirty energy companies who don't even know who you are or even care about you at all?

The billions spent to "clean dirty energy" is better spent building energy thats already clean

[JoeJohn90]

Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.

[BadGasGoodWind]

Wind & solar energy production is cheaper in the long run. Nukes are only safe until there is an accident. Natural gas is more & more expensive & just as harmful as coal. Electric cars can outperform hybrids, gasoline & diesel.

America's electric grid is 50yrs old & needs rebuilding. We need to build wind & solar plants on a grand scale NOW. Employ fossil fuel workers in green energy. Politicians in "coal rich states" are standing in the way of real progress. They have corrupted our democracy.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@BadGasGoodWind I would have to say that while Renewable sources can supply a lot of energy, the entire infrastructure could not be switched just over to renewable sources and most such sources are not reliable or constant meaning you would need energy storage... leading to entire city sized capacitor or batteries... the latter is almost certain and batteries have many many environmental problems with them. I believe Nuclear Fusion (not to be confused with Fission) is the way of the future.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

Fusion does not have the same problems as Fission, it's a much much safer process and actually has less environmental damage then some forms of renewable energy (for example birds are often killed by Wind Turbines). But Fusion is still in development with nobody certain how far into the future it will be before we can reliable use it for producing energy.

Also as Honda has shown with it's FCX Clarity, Liquid Hydrogen powered transport is probably the best candidate for future travel needs.

[TruthRaider]

Al Gore can't even count. So don't take much notice of him.

[BadGasGoodWind]

@TruthRaider An eloquent defense of your point of view. Not much of a reason to notice you either. sorry if that sounds mean, but our country needs people like you to understand that climate change and peak oil are real threats to our global future

[TruthRaider]

@BadGasGoodWind A somewhat foolish reply to a quip! You appear to be bent on preaching rather than teaching, but hey, to assume I need to "understand" when you have no knowledge the person is indicative of the blinkered ilk! Perhaps you need a course in PR. You might consider starting by changing your user-name to "Flatulence" as it appears you're tryng to kick up a stink!

[BadGasGoodWind]

@TruthRaider Burning Stuff is what stinks. Denial that it is wrong stinks more. If that's preaching, so be it.

[new01]

Our democracy!? We live in a representative republic, which the US Constitution clealy states. Why the fuck does everyone think we live in a democracy. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the _REPUBLIC_ for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." Come on people how many times have you recited that since kindergarten.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@new01 you realize of course that USA is a Republic Democracy right? Republic just means a government that is not a monarch, which the American Democracy gives, it gives a president who controls the government. and P.S. "One nation under god" was only added about 60 years ago and was unconstitutional while at it. On top of that, Gore actually beat Bush by the popular vote, but Bush became president by violating US's democratic process .

[BadGasGoodWind]

@DoomsdayR3sistance

The Bush's are in bed with the fossil fuel industry. That is why they hi-jacked the election in Florida. They should be hung for treason.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

@BadGasGoodWind it would also explain why Bush shipped out any relation of Osama Bin Ladin from US within the following days of 9/11... since the Bin Ladin family is actually from Saudi area and have/had business ties with the Bush Family....

[cobmojo]

2000 was the biggest mistake the u.s. has ever made. well, maybe except for that slavery thing.

[JackieEco]

FOSSIL FUELS ARE ARCHAIC!!!!!!!!!!

[X23109]

Gore doesn't have to live like the common man. We are sitting on a ton of energy reserves that can be converted into gasoline. To my understanding cars do burn cleaner from gasoline derived from coal vs. gasoline derived from oil.

Not many people can afford to drive the newer cars and the used car market is far more appealing vs. a brand new hybrid and such.

Just sounds like what is being proposed by Gore is a phase out of gasoline and that may do more harm than good to the mass population.

[shroomin79]

@X23109 "cars do burn cleaner from gasoline derived from coal vs. gasoline derived from oil"

First, this is false. To convert coal to liquid oil it takes energy and produces far more C02 than conventional oil refining.

Second, what would be best for the "mass population" would be for us to get off our lazy asses and do some biking and walking. What would be best for the "mass population" would be to find a more efficient and cleaner way of transporting ourselves such as mass transportation.

[3273049]

Ethanol (gas substitute) made from corn was a bad idea. Everyone knows it now, and they are looking for alternate cellulose fibers, such as the corn stalks.

Biodiesel (diesel substitute) can be made from chicken fat, normally going into the landfill, and used cooking oil (ditto).

Texas, long the biggest oil producer, is now also the biggest producer of electricity from wind.

Western states are investing in wind and solar. Be open-minded; check it out!

[ebnera]

Al Gore is not to be listened. He made strong interested comments in his book "inconvenient truth" that does not fit with truth. The US has to either go nuclear or coal liquefaction, the rest is gibberish. Solar is way too expensive and wind is very unreliable and its highly unsteady beahavior causes great perturbations on the electric supply, voltage etc....

[jasbcor]

Al Gore, can you say "n-nu-n-nu-n-Nu-nu-c-c-clear p-p-p-power"?

[Geographer76]

Al Gore, the only man who got an Oskar for giving a PowerPoint Presentation on a false argument. It's hilarious how liberals always talk about "renewables" but when questioned as to what renewable they want, they have no clue. C'mon Al where's that solar powered car, and the wind powered airplane?

[jledouxwiktelcom]

He can buy all the energy he wants, but we the people have to settle paying $4.00 and maybe more for gas for years to come till the new technology arrives.When it comes, most of us can't afford to buy a vehicle years after that, when the vehicle is massed produced.

[gargoyle21]

CTL technology can prevent mass famine. No alternative can address the liquid fuels problem. I'm all for solar, wind, etc, but they won't put fuel into tractors and combines that enable modern industrial agriculture. And they won't put diesel in the tanks of locomotives and 18-wheelers that comprise the transportation network that gets that food to the people. Opposing CTL is equivalent to condemning a portion of the population to starve, and most people won't realize that until it's too late.

[Enjoilongisland]

Why does he use the word democracy, last i checked we were a constitutional republic. Gore should realize that since we are so dependent on fossil fuels any shift away from their use should be very slow. We have billions of barrels worth of oil in our territory and off of our coasts, but liberals like gore vote against going after it and we pay the price, he is also against Nuclear energy which is very clean nearly all of France is powered by nuclear energy. Gore has an anti-energy agenda.

[businessbmw]

its easy for you to say al gore you are rich and could drive a hummer with 2 engines all day... usa needs to take action now!!!!!! make coal fuel!!!!

[JetMech72]

Coal-to-liquids is important, because it would drastically decrease our dependency on foreign oil and be a "gap" filler until we can come up with a viable renewable energy. As it stands now, coal gasification could replace 20% of our foreign oil imports, but biofuels can only replace a fraction of one percent of foreign oil imports.

[beaumec242]

yes but it's still fossil fuel so it can help a bit but it is not emission free.My advice would be that they should use ocean power,you know the herb in ocean "how do you say it in english???"

Bio fuel are a solution too...but we would have nothing to eat...

So the only solution to me is ufo's power,they are watching us and they will come on earth and help us...

[Enjoilongisland]

I agree Jetmech72: Not to mention that so much diesel feul is used by the Agriculture industy that it almost cancels out the benefits of Bio-Feuls. I think Bio-feuls should be used but we should not fall in love with them. E-85 in my area is about 50 cents cheaper that regular gas, but thay say that E-85 is only about 13% cleaner when you factor in the amount of feul and energy that goes into making it.

[shroomin79]

@JetMech72 two things. First, coal to liquids produces about 30% more Co2 gas than conventional coal burning. If you choose to ignore this fact then, well, you just don't care about having clean to breath.

Secondly, "be "gap" filler until we can come up with a viable renewable energy". You are willing to waste a tremendous amount of money and time on a gap filler until we come up with a fantasy energy source that doesn't exist yet. What if we don't come up with a "viable renewable energy"?

[Craigipedia]

@JetMech72 No it would not... we use 19 million gallons of oil every day. 10 million gallons of which is imported... to replace that with liquid coal (which is less energetic than oil) would require by conservative estimates about 100 million gallons of water every year. Creating liquid coal is also very energy intensive (you have to burn coal to liquify coal).

it is a preposterous mathematical impossibility.

the gap is hybrids, the next step is all electric with clean electric grids. thats it

[watch50er]

@JetMech72

ARRGGHH

Such a frustrating debate!!!

[kryz24v]

Could geothermal energy be an answer to so much coal pollution? I live in Vermont and Mercury is a huge problem in rain and snow. Its destroying every thing and poisoning our children!!!

[fthefarmer]

Al gore invented the internet people so he must know what he's talking about. As bad as Bush has been (and outside of Carter I've never seen worse) can you imagine this numbskull in the whitehouse?

[jwallbanger]

yeah watch what happens when gas gets up to ten bucks a gallon, you people will be begging for cheaper CTL gas. and btw, it burns much cleaner than the gas you currently buy and burn daily.

the lesser of evils, yes, but at least it's a viable solution to peak oil unlike hydrogen. hydrogen is a red herring, and i find it funny that before bush sang it's praises neocons would shit on it as a liberal fantasy, now they parrot it as a magic solution when there's no way it can replace hydrocarbons.

[greyflcn]

Renewables aren't inherently less greenhouse intensive than fossil fuels.

greyfalcon. net/ lcarough7.png

greyfalcon. net/ n2o.png

What we need most is energy efficiency.

Diesel and Hybrids are a good step forward.

Electric cars however, are so effecient that even if they ran on the dirtiest coal electricity availible, it'd be like driving a hybrid in emmisions.

greyfalcon. net/ plugins3

[jizzmonger]

All accurate comments.

Going to a solely electric car that is grid-recharged using coal power is 50% more efficient for eqivalent gasoline power.

[ExtraGarlicNow]

Where are the credible global warming policy leaders who actually believe so sincerely in AGW that they swear off fossil fuels?

[jesusisrisen]

I have never heard or read of one. The basis of their philosophy is so much speculation and fear. Their heads must be in the sand.

[rockleex]

video cut too short..

[ashlarah]

It is like Congress is trying to sneak this bill through without a thorough debate on coal to liquid. Most people have never even heard of the process, let alone the debate. It is unconscionable for this subsidy of coal producers to hijack progress on true clean and renewable energy. Kudos to John Edwards for his energy plan.

[astrogirlsirius]

Obama introduced this coal to liquid technology bill. He can't pretend to be for the environment anymore.

I'm supporting John Edwards, who has pledged to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and has a solid, thoughtful energy and global warming plan.

[splashy9]

I'm inclined to go with you on this.

[sljohn2]

Help stop this legislation--sign the MoveOn petition at: pol [dot] moveon [dot] org [slash slash] pac [slash] stopkingcoal

[ParadeRainer]

Coal-to-Liquid fuel is fantastic, and a far more realistic alternative to foreign oil than other sources. No to subsidies for it and big government involvement, though, and yes to the market getting the job done.

[splashy9]

But it does nothing to solve the CO2 problem. In fact, it is worse than gasoline.

[ParadeRainer]

Energy independence and alternatives are more important to me than the environmental angle. Beyond that, Coal-to-Liquid fuel could be used instead of non-liquidized coal in coal power plants which would reduce CO2 emissions. Power plants are by far the biggest industrial CO2 emitters and if you want to solve the CO2 problems and the related problems like accelerated global warming you have to let the market get to work and be able to establish alternatives there

[splashy9]

If you want the market to work, then we need to STOP the subsidies to the coal and oil companies. As long as they get so many tax breaks and other perks, alternative energy sources don't have a chance.

[ParadeRainer]

No problem, that's what I just said. Did you read?  I said "No to subsidies for it and big government involvement, though."

[ParadeRainer]

Also, there's nuclear power, which is key to the CO2 problem.

[splashy9]

No, things like wind and solar are the key. Nuclear power costs too much to build and has too many other problems. It only survives with subsidies from taxpayers. It would be better to put those subsidies into wind, solar, and other innovations that don't create dangerous waste products.

[ParadeRainer]

The only reason nuclear power costs so much is because it's so heavily regulated. Even with the regulation pushing costs so high, power companies are now looking to building new nuclear plants as is... Also, the problems are greatly exaggerated. Nuclear power, despite popular myth, is safe. Wind and solar power carry high costs, low efficiency, are not constantly reliable and require high land usage.

[rspawn]

Nuclear power is regulated for good reason: it is very polluting. Another reason why nuclear power is not a solution is because nuclear fuel (uranium) is running out as much if not more as oil is.

[ParadeRainer]

That's not true at all. While uranium is a non-renewable resource it's in large supply and compared to oil, very little of it is required to create energy. Beyond nuclear waste, nuclear power is not polluting. The majority of the nuclear power plant regulations are absurd and designed not to keep the plants safe or ensure proper nuclear waste disposal, but to prevent the plants from being built all together.

[rspawn]

"doubling of the price for uranium since 1994"

...

"The gap between uranium production and estimated reactor requirements of more than 70 million pounds"

source: sric dot org

google: uranium production rate

[ParadeRainer]

That isn't an indication that uranium is running out, it's an indication of increased demand and low production.

[rspawn]

Continuing from the same source (Southern Research and Information Center, mining program):

"...the largest in history and associated *rapid depletion* of overhanging inventories for future reactor use.

[splashy9]

But, why not just use the money that would have gone to build nuclear power plants, and the subsidies, and use it to push for alternatives that don't have deadly waste products? I don't get the reason to even think of ANY energy source that pollutes. We need to have a paradigm shift toward only putting money into power that doesn't create that kind of problem.

[kryz24v]

Could geothermal energy be an answer to so much coal pollution? I live in Vermont and Mercury is a huge problem in rain and snow. Its destroying every thing and poisoning our children!!!

[JetMech72]

The process that they are talking about here, is the process to turn coal into fuel for your car, not for the use in electric generation. Geothermal energy is a process of using the earth's heat to power generators for electricity.

[jesusisrisen]

That is like saying, "Why not use the money to find a cure for cancer rather than treating cancer patients?" We need to do both, but subsidies are largely a bad idea unless it is limited to tax deductions. Too many subsidies for commercial products are grants but the people do not own the production rights. That kind of subsidy is a gift.

[heyohouston]

do americans realize they wont be able to go to war against the weather whenit starts to really disagree with them?

[electrorocket]

Oil is a renewable resource, and it's not a 'fossil' fuel. Oil is created through an abiotic process in the earths mantle. As far as global warming, Mars is getting hotter too. On that note, go bio-diesel, go solar, go wind, go hydro, go hydrogen! Oh yeah, and go Ron Paul 2008!

[herrinband]

"Fossil fuel" is a term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years. - from Wikipedia - I agree with everything else you said though. Including the Ron Paul thing. Hopw definite is he about climate change though?

[electrorocket]

If you go on the wikipedia page for fossil fuels, the first listing under 'see also' is 'Abiogenic petroleum origin' and read up on that. The fossil fuel theory is a myth propagated to keep us thinking we're going to run out soon, so prices can get higher. One reason they're getting higher is they're simply shutting down refineries to make supply lower, thus demand higher. Ron votes against oil subsidies, and thinks that alt fuels would thrive more in that economy.

[ParadeRainer]

Actually, because it takes so long for the abiotic process to complete oil is not technically a "renewable resource." Same deal with coal. A "renewable resource" is, by definition, a resource which can be easily replaced in a relatively short along of time. This is not true about oil or coal and therefore they are not.

But, yes, go Ron Paul!

[electrorocket]

True, but the pockets of oil nearer the surface seem to be being fed from much larger pockets deeper down, as the pressure in the upper pockets goes down due to pumping. Pockets that have fallen have started to rise again! So in a sense it is somewhat renewable. But where is it determined how long the abiotic process takes?

[splashy9]

So, you folks like racist, homophobic politicians that only believe you deserve civil and equal rights as long as you are white, straight and male.

[ExtraGarlicNow]

splashy9 -- humans have equal rights by nature, government only chooses whether or not to recognize those rights.

[greyflcn]

==A "renewable resource" is, by definition, a resource which can be easily replaced in a relatively short along of time. This is not true about oil or coal and therefore they are not.==

Takes 500 years to build new topsoil.

And longer to recharged overdrafted underground aquifers.

Certainly doesn't bode well for the "Renewability" of biofuels.

greyfalcon. net/ peaksoil

[fishhead06]

i like the way Gore is working to direct this debate - hopefully it will light a fire under the asses of people running for office in 2008.

[splashy9]

What part of getting away from fossil fuels don't they get?

[mewiththedoves]

the bill's supporters are trying to position themselves as help the US to become energy-independent. The logic is that if we use some kind of liquid fuel from coal, we can ignore the middle east - or we can make the OPEC countries play the way we want.

Al is right, this program is a disaster.

[sat9008]

they dont believe in fossils....

[sljohn2]

Do a google search on: "Coal To Liquid subsidies: corporate welfare writ large, environmental disaster, what's not to like?" or simply "wvablue CTL" to read more about what Al Gore is talking about.