There is a movement in Washington that promotes coal-to-liquid fuel as an alternative fuel that would be grouped along with ethanol and biodiesel. If this were the case, U.S. incentives for ethanol production and coal-to-liquid would be split between the farmers and the coal miners. One might think that this is a good thing, as competition in the marketplace is usually good for the consumer. However, if you thought that ethanol was not a good replacement for gasoline, you should probably not check out diesel derived from coal. The energy that is used in the production of coal-to-liquid is pretty high, comparatively, and produces hazardous materials as a by-product. Thus, the production of diesel from coal is of interest to those concerned with the environment.
Therefore, Treehugger gives six of their own suggestions to perform a "proper and balanced risk management review", one of which is to always compare it with other alternative fuels and produce matching bills for each of them. I think, personally, that diesel engines are a good alternative to gasoline engines. However, when one messes that up by undoing the environmental benefits of having a diesel engine in the first place, why bother?
Click here for all articles from ABG that deal with coal-to-liquid.
- EcoGeek Hates Liquid Coal
- New Congress sets energy strategy; will address issues with piecemeal approach
[Source: Treehugger, Blue Climate and U.S. Senate]