Coal To Liquid Technology

Caiello/Schirmer Coal to Liquid Technology Neg 1/22
Arx Axiom Debate Club
Coal To Liquid Technology – Neg
Table of Contents
Strat: ..........................................................................................................................................................2
Flow: .........................................................................................................................................................3
Intro Quotes:..............................................................................................................................................3
Intro Quote: CTL bad other options better...................................................................................3
Intro quote: CTL = Untried, expensive and environmentally damaging.....................................3
CP:..............................................................................................................................................................4
CP Extension..............................................................................................................................................4
CP advocacy biofuels/vehicle efficiency.....................................................................................4
On average CTL = 80% more emissions than gas. Ethanol on average = 20% less emissions.
Cellulosic ethanol on average = 85% less emissions...................................................................4
Bio fuels are always better than CTL ..........................................................................................5
Biofuels could meet 25% of US demand for alternate fuels........................................................5
!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives are better than CTL.............................5
!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives can reduce oil dependence by 3
million barrel a day......................................................................................................................6
Bio fuels and CTL create the same amount of C02, but bio fuels capture carbon as they grow. 6
Biomass to liquid fuel is better than coal to liquid......................................................................6
Advantage of Biomass over CTL: emissions after production. CTL = normal gass Biomass =
lower............................................................................................................................................7
CTL + CCS not even needed: renewables + efficiency standards remove need for coal............7
Alt Energy CP Advocacy.............................................................................................................8
Solvency.....................................................................................................................................................9
Complete Cost of CTL over 95$ per barrel.................................................................................9
CTL Fail: China (water shortages)...............................................................................................9
The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuel
preclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond oil...........................................9
Reverse Plan Advocate: US should not subsidize any CTL......................................................10
Investors consider CTL too risky...............................................................................................10
CCS Solvency..........................................................................................................................................11
Carbon Capture makes CTL even more expensive....................................................................11
CCS only partially offsets carbon emissions for CTL...............................................................11
Aff Spike Turn: Carbon Capture Impossible before 2029.........................................................11
Local opposition prevented German carbon capture from working..........................................12
Even with carbon capture CTL still produces 8% more C02.....................................................12
CCS is completely untried and crazy expensive........................................................................12
CCS very expensive: details in card..........................................................................................13
CCS so impractical US cut pilot project after cost rose to $1.8 billion ....................................13
CCS could result in C02 leaks which are a health hazard ........................................................13
CCS could take 15 to 20 years to truly implement....................................................................13
CCS not a short term option.......................................................................................................14
CCS impracticality led to the rejection of FutureGen...............................................................14
US cannot approve more coal plants in the hopes that CCS will be workable anytime soon.. .14
CCS isn't used by any big power plants only demonstration projects. Utilities don't want to
invest .........................................................................................................................................14
Disadvantages..........................................................................................................................................15
Emissions DA......................................................................................................................................15
Emissions from CTL very high..................................................................................................15
CTL = much higher carbon emissions.......................................................................................15
Without CCS CTL results in almost double the C02 emissions................................................15
Water Sustainability.............................................................................................................................16
CTL uses water unsustainably...................................................................................................16
More Coal Use.....................................................................................................................................16
CTL would lead to more coal mining which would be terrible.................................................16
Coal is deadly: over 300,000 American's have been killed by coal mining and pollution is
terrible........................................................................................................................................17
Coal is ecologically decimating and environmentally devastating............................................17
Coals Disadvantages..................................................................................................................18
CTL = expensive........................................................................................................................19
Weighing: Emissions, costs and water use DAs outweigh benefits of CTL.............................19
CTL could displace cleaner alternatives with the wrong policy................................................19
Federalism: States are already addressing the alt energy problem............................................20
Masking DA: CCS could create false sense of security, + undermine workable methods of
decreasing emissions .................................................................................................................20
Strat:
T (S= limits + bright line between energy and enviromental policy). Weighing is
big here... Maybe a states CP? Free market? Should the federal government be
mandating production of coal? Isn't that a free market thing? If it works won't it be
developed by entreprenures and if it doesn't work why should the government do
it? CP w/advocacy = ethanol/biofuels... run T on environmental policy vs energy
policy and a neg philosophy or weighing mechanism of environmental impacts.
Goal: get aff to accept w-m because of the pressure created by the T press and
then use the enviro water/carbon DAs to outweigh aff ads.. Or second best case
scenario: aff rejects weighing mechanism and proves T press. Turn aff CCS spike
w/ fact that CCS doesn't exist, and then what remains is a nontopical mandate.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_cons
idered_an_alternative_fuel.html
Congressional Hearing:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi
dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:27378.wais
~ get the other hearing “The benefits and challenges of producing liquid fuel from
coal : the role for federal research : hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, House of
Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, September 5, 2007.”
Flow:
Intro Quotes:
Intro Quote: CTL bad other options better
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC Environmental Think tank consisting of
300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts striving to protect nature in ways
that advance the long-term welfare of present and future generations. ) “Why
Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil” February 2007
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf (TC)
The coal industry is touting a plan to transform millions of tons of coal into diesel
and other liquid fuels—an expensive, inefficient process that releases large
quantities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into our air. Fortunately, better, cleaner
options exist to reduce America’s dependence on oil: efficiency, smart growth,
and renewable fuels.
Intro quote: CTL = Untried, expensive and environmentally damaging

US News and World Report, Marianne Lavelle “Coal-to-Liquid Technology Entices
Congress” June 2007
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070613/13coal.htm (TC)
The idea that everyone's suddenly talking about on Capitol Hill is coal to liquid, a
pricey technology that hasn't played a significant role in the global energy picture
outside of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While the liquid fuel that is
produced is a clean-burning diesel, environmentalists are aghast at the carbon
emissions and water use involved in the process.
CP:
CP Extension
CP advocacy biofuels/vehicle efficiency
Jeff Logan Senior Associate who heads WRI’s (World Resource Institute) project
on carbon capture and sequestration. He has a dozen years of experience
managing energy proejcts to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and the
Americas, with a heavy focus on China “Coal-To-Liquids, Climate Change, and
Energy Security.” World Resource Institute May 2007 (TC)
http://www.wri.org/stories/2007/05/coal-liquids-climate-change-and-energy-
security
There are alternatives to CTL that are already available, and achieve the same
objectives as CTL without the adverse environmental impacts.
•Vehicle Efficiency. Improving vehicle efficiency can cost-effectively reduce the

need to import oil and simultaneously slash GHG emissions. The U.S. corporate
average fuel efficiency program (CAFE) cut this country’s oil demand by nearly 3
million barrels a day between 1978 and 1985. No significant changes have been
made in the requirements since then, however. CAFE and other vehicle efficiency
measures offer the greatest opportunity to serve U.S. public interests holistically,
yet a lack of political leadership has left these options largely unused.
•Biofuels. Non-grain based ethanol and biodiesel are other options that can
simultaneously improve energy security and global warming concerns, provided
that adequate environmental safeguards are applied. Cellulosic ethanol is
particularly promising, and policy measures enacted today can ensure a more
certain future.
On average CTL = 80% more emissions than gas. Ethanol on average =

20% less emissions. Cellulosic ethanol on average = 85% less emissions
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit
organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in
1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in
Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.“When Carbon Counts, Biofuels Beat
Liquid Coal” November 13, 2007 (TC)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/when-carbon-counts-0079.html
Liquid coal, for example, can release 80 percent more global warming pollution
than gasoline, the report found. Corn ethanol, conversely, could be either more
polluting or less than gasoline, depending on how the corn is grown and the
ethanol is produced. On average, corn ethanol can reduce emissions about 20
percent, though there is uncertainty due to differing land use practices. The
cleanest alternative, cellulosic ethanol from grasses or wood chips, could reduce
emissions by more than 85 percent
Bio fuels are always better than CTL

“Biofuels have a Jekyll and Hyde reputation depending on what study you read
and what assumptions you make,” Monahan said. “But liquid coal is a loser no
matter how you look at it.
Biofuels could meet 25% of US demand for alternate fuels

The report evaluated two scenarios for alternative fuels, one carbon-intensive—
meaning that it would produce significantly more global warming pollution than
burning gasoline -- and the other low-carbon—meaning that it would produce
significantly less. The analysis assumed that alternative fuels will replace 37
billion gallons of gasoline, about 20 percent of the fuel UCS projects Americans
will consume in 2030.In both scena rios, conventional biofuels would meet 25
percent of the demand for alternative fuels. In the carbon-intensive scenario, the
remaining demand would be met by liquid coal. The carbon-intensive scenario
would increase emissions by 233 million metric tons—equivalent to adding about
34 million cars to the road, the number of new cars and light trucks currently sold
nationally over a two-year period. By contrast, the low-carbon scenario relies on
advanced biofuels to meet 75 percent of the demand. That would cut global
warming pollution by 244 million metric tons, akin to taking 35 million of today’s
cars off the road
!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives are better than

CTL
(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf
America can have a robust, effective program to reduce oil dependence without
liquid coal technologies. By investing in a combination of efficiency, renewable
fuels, and alternatives to driving such as public transportation, we can reduce our
oil consumption more quickly, more cleanly, and in larger amounts than we could
with coal-derived liquids.
!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives can reduce oil

dependence by 3 million barrel a day
In fact, Securing America, a report published by the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security and NRDC, found that a combination of more efficient cars, trucks,
and planes; biofuels; and smart growth transportation options can cut oil
dependence by more than 3 million barrels a day in 10 years and achieve cuts of
more than 11 million barrels a day by 2025
Bio fuels and CTL create the same amount of C02, but bio fuels capture
carbon as they grow
Liquid Coal” November 13, 2007(TC)
At the tailpipe, gasoline, liquid coal and biofuels release about the same amount
of global warming pollution. But there are dramatic differences in the amount of
pollution emitted by extracting a raw feedstock and refining it into a finished fuel.
Biofuels can have an advantage over liquid coal and gasoline because plants
capture carbon dioxide, the most common global warming gas, as they grow.
Biomass to liquid fuel is better than coal to liquid

Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues and
author of Coal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCS
Clean Energy Program) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program)
“Coal Power in a Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options”
Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists is

the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a
safer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the benefits and costs of
the country’s energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable both
environmentally and economically.) (TC)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-
world.pdf
A much better option would be to use the same process (gasification and
catalysts) to create transportation fuels from non-food biomass. Because the
carbon in biomass was recently absorbed from the atmosphere through the
process of photosynthesis, biomass-based fuels have the potential to greatly
reduce life cycle emissions relative to petroleum-based alternatives—as long as
biomass production avoids substantial releases of CO2 from direct or indirect
changes in land use.
Advantage of Biomass over CTL: emissions after production. CTL =

normal gass Biomass = lower
environmentally and economically.)(TC)
world.pdf
Because the processes of converting biomass and coal into liquid fuels employ
similar technology, the two can also be processed together to create a fuel
referred to as coal-and-biomass-to-liquid (CBTL). But this option does not alter the
fact that the best biomass-based fuels have substantially lower emissions than
petroleum, while liquid coal can only hope to achieve parity with petroleum.
Processing coal and biomass together simply dilutes the potential emissions
benefits of biomass-based fuels.
CTL + CCS not even needed: renewables + efficiency standards remove

need for coal

world.pdf
While determining what role CCS can play in the nation’s energy future, the
United States can meet its growing electricity demand cleanly and cost-effectively
by increasing investments in energy efficiency
and renewable power. We have already shown how these technologies can help
the United States not
only avoid the need for new coal plants but also dramatically reduce the use of
both natural gas and coal— allowing 181 older coal plants to be retired while
saving consumers billions of dollars every year.
Alt Energy CP Advocacy

world.pdf
• State and federal governments should immediately adopt policies requiring the
power sector to increase its investment in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. These policies should include new or stronger renewable electricity
standards (which require utilities to obtain a growing percentage of their power
from renewable sources) along with energy efficiency requirements and appliance
efficiency standards aimed at reducing retail energy demand by a growing
percentage each year.
• The federal government should provide far more R&D and demonstration
funding for energy efficiency, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geothermal,

wind, tidal, biomass, biofuel, and energy storage technologies. This funding
should reflect the scale and urgency of the threat posed by global warming, and
should be allocated based on each technology’s potential to reduce emissions
without harming the environment or public health.
Solvency
Complete Cost of CTL over 95$ per barrel
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) an international
non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by
serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. “AAAS
Policy Brief: Coal-to-Liquid Technology” The AAAS Center for Science, Technology
and Congress June 2009 (TC) http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/
In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range,
according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures—a
10,000 barrel-a-day [coal-
based liquid fuel] plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told,
the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an
equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomes
even more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel,
according to the Department of Energy.
CTL Fail: China (water shortages)

World Resource Institute (Environmental Think tank) “Weighing US Energy
Options: Coal-to-Liquids” 2007 (TC) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337
China is currently constructing several large CTL facilities and experimenting with
a largely untested version of the technology (direct liquefaction). It is now widely
acknowledged that China will have difficulty deploying CTL on a massive scale
unless the issue of water usage is resolved (each gallon of CTL product requires
10 gallons of process water). In its “high scenario,” the Energy Information
Administration forecasts that 1 percent of U.S. oil needs will be met with CTL fuels
in 2025.
The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-

derived liquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to move
America beyond oil
The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived

liquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond oil.
Relying on liquid coal as an alternative fuel could: nearly double global warming
pollution per gallon of transportation fuels, and increase the devastating effects of
coal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching from Appalachia to
the Rocky Mountains. To move America beyond oil, we should start with the
measures that will produce the quickest, cleanest, and least expensive reductions
in oil use—measures that will also put us on track to achieve the reductions in
global warming emissions we need to protect our climate.
Reverse Plan Advocate: US should not subsidize any CTL

world.pdf
• Neither the federal nor state governments should subsidize or provide any other
form of support for

coal-to-liquid technology.
Investors consider CTL too risky

Alex Farrell, director of UC Berkley’s Transportation Sustainability Research
Center, discuss the merits and challenges of coal-to-liquids (CTLs) as an
alternative fuel. “Can Coal-to-Liquid Transportation Fuel be Considered an
Alternative Fuel?” Council on Foreign Relations July 2007 (TC)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13942/can_coaltoliquid_transportation_fuel_be_cons
idered_an_alternative_fuel.html
Supporters of CTL projects argue that they provide security benefits by reducing
imports of petroleum and by developing fuel supply infrastructure away from
coastal areas (where most of our oil importing and refining occurs). They then
argue for government support like guaranteed contracts and price supports.
Potential executives and investors in the new CTL industry argue that there's too
much risk for them to put their own capital into these projects and that the public
benefits of improved security are sufficient to justify these subsidies. Rarely
mentioned are public costs, such as those from mountaintop removal or additional
greenhouse gases (nearly double those from conventional oil).
CCS Solvency
Carbon Capture makes CTL even more expensive
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) an international
non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by
serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. “AAAS
Policy Brief: Coal-to-Liquid Technology” The AAAS Center for Science, Technology
and Congress June 2009 (TC) http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/
Not included in the above estimate is the cost of sequestrating the captured CO2,
which would increase the price of the end product by a projected $5 a barrel. The
imposition of a strict carbon cap and trade regime would also raise the cost of fuel
produced with CTL technology, because of the CO2 emissions associated with it.
While there is significant uncertainty, the recent RAND study estimated that CTL
production plus carbon storage could produce fuel at a cost of anywhere from
$1.40 to $2.20 per gallon or more by 2025\
CCS only partially offsets carbon emissions for CTL

World Resource Institute (Environmental Think tank) “Weighing US Energy
Options: Coal-to-Liquids” 2007 (TC) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337
The major drawback of CTL technology, besides high cost, is the increased carbon
dioxide emissions and high water requirements. Lifecycle CTL greenhouse gas
emissions are nearly double those of conventional oil. Shifting any sizable portion
of fuel usage to CTL necessitates a carbon mitigation strategy to ensure that
climate objectives are met. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be used
during CTL production, but would only offset a portion of the increased carbon
emissions. Final greenhouse gas emissions using CTL with CCS would still be equal
to or higher than using standard petroleum, while costs would rise significantly.
Aff Spike Turn: Carbon Capture Impossible before 2029

David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Karen Campbell, Ph.D. David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is
Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change, and Karen A.
Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics, in the Center for Data
Analysis at The Heritage Foundation“CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of
the EPA's ANPR Regulations” October 29, 2008 Heritage Foundation (TC)
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/cda08-10.cfm
Of course, CCS technology has additional costs, which are higher when retrofitting
existing plants than when building the technology into new plants. Though there
are pilot projects in operation, full-scale commercialization would require
sequestering more than 40 million barrels of CO2 each day. Environmental
concerns and the logistical hurdles of handling such large quantities are likely to
delay full implementation of CCS until after 2029, so we assume no CCS during
the 2010–2029 period examined here.
Local opposition prevented German carbon capture from working

Alok Jha is a science and environment correspondent at the Guardian “Not under
our backyard, say Germans, in blow to CO2 plans” guardian.co.uk, July 29 2009
The Guardian (TC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capture
It was meant to be the world's first demonstration of a technology that could help
save the planet from global warming – a project intended to capture emissions
from a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground. But the
German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the
atmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground.
Even with carbon capture CTL still produces 8% more C02

If the CO2 from liquid coal plants is captured instead of being released into the
atmosphere, then
well-to-wheels CO2 emissions would be reduced some but would still be higher
than emissions from today’s crude oil system. Even capturing 90 percent of the
emissions from liquid coal plants leaves emissions at levels somewhat higher than
those from petroleum production and refining; emissions from the vehicle using
the coal-derived liquid fuels are equivalent to those from a gasoline vehicle. As a
result, with CO2 capture well-to wheels emissions from coal-derived liquids fuels
would be 8 percent higher than for petroleum.
CCS is completely untried and crazy expensive

The Economist “Carbon capture and storage, Trouble in store” Mar 5th 2009 (TC)
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226661
Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there is not a single big power plant using
CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is
expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time
and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra
cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will
eventually leak. In short, the world’s leaders are counting on a fix for climate
change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.
CCS very expensive: details in card

The problem with CCS is the cost. The chemical steps in the capture consume
energy, as do the compression and transport of the carbon dioxide. That will use
up a quarter or more of the output of a power station fitted with CCS, according to
most estimates. So plants with CCS will need to be at least a third bigger than
normal ones to generate the same net amount of power, and will also consume at
least a third more fuel. In addition, there is the extra expense of building the
capture plant and the injection pipelines. If the storage site is far from the power
plant, yet more energy will be needed to move the carbon dioxide.
CCS so impractical US cut pilot project after cost rose to $1.8 billion
Estimates of the total cost vary widely. America’s government, which had vowed
to build a prototype plant called FutureGen in partnership with several big
resources firms, scrapped the project last year after the projected cost rose to
$1.8 billion. Philippe Paelinck, of Alstom, an engineering firm that hopes to build
CCS plants, thinks a full-scale one would cost about €1 billion ($1.3 billion).
CCS could result in C02 leaks which are a health hazard

Greenpeace, a pressure group, argues that it is impossible to be certain that

carbon dioxide will not eventually leak out of the ground. Carbon dioxide forms an
acid when it dissolves in water. This acid can react with minerals to form
carbonates, locking away the carbon in a relatively inert state. But it can also eat
through the man-made seals or geological strata intended to keep it in place. A
leakage rate of just 1% a year, Greenpeace points out, would lead to 63% of the
carbon dioxide stored in any given reservoir being released within 100 years,
almost entirely undoing the supposed environmental benefit. Spills would also be
a health risk, since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and so can build up in low-
lying or poorly ventilated spots.
CCS could take 15 to 20 years to truly implement

Sam Laidlaw, the boss of Centrica, a British utility, thinks it will take at least 15
years, and probably 20, to roll out CCS plants in large numbers.
CCS not a short term option
Ben Brabson PhD professor emeritus of physics at Indiana University, his area of
research being energy and global climate change. January 2009 OCA (Organic
Consumers Association) “'Clean Coal' Doesn't Exist, Despite Industry Marketing
Campaign” (TC) http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16428.cfm
Unfortunately, the near-term prospects for carbon sequestration are not bright.
The reasons are straightforward. To start, these plants are designed to sequester
only a portion of the CO2 generated from the coal they consume. Second, while
most coal plants are very good at removing SO2 and mercury, not one is actually
capturing a majority of its generated CO2. Third, sequestration-ready plants are
expensive. Estimates range up to three times the cost of energy from wind.
Fourth, much of the research and development of carbon capture and
sequestration has not been done.
CCS impracticality led to the rejection of FutureGen

For these and other reasons, FutureGen, the flagship coal gasification project, a
public-private partnership with the U.S. government, was abandoned in January of
2008. The reason for this failure is simply that the economics of carbon
sequestration is not supported by its limited scientific and technical
understanding.
US cannot approve more coal plants in the hopes that CCS will be
workable anytime soon
It is particularly important that state regulatory agencies not be tempted to

approve new coal plants on the hunch that carbon sequestration might work at
some point in the future. Sequestration is not a proven technology on the scale
necessary to protect the climate.
CCS isn't used by any big power plants only demonstration projects.
Utilities don't want to invest
The Economist “The illusion of clean coal” Mar 5th 2009 From The Economist print
edition (TC)
But CCS is proving easier to talk up than to get going (see article). There are no big
power plants using it, just a handful of small demonstration projects. Utilities
refuse to make bigger investments because power plants with CCS would be
much more expensive to build and run than the ordinary sort. They seem more
inclined to invest in other low-carbon power sources, such as nuclear, solar and
wind.
Disadvantages
Emissions DA
Emissions from CTL very high
Barbara Frees, Steve Clemmer, and Alan Nogee. Barbara Freese is a consultant
specializing in coal and climate policy issues and author of Coal: A Human History
(Perseus, 2003). Steve Clemmer is research director for the UCS Clean Energy
Program. Alan Nogee is director of the UCS Clean Energy Program. The Union of
Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy
environment and a safer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the
benefits and costs of the country’s energy use and promotes energy solutions
that are sustainable both environmentally and economically. “Coal Power in a
Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options” 2008 Union of
Concerned Scientists [brackets added to maintain context] (TC)
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologie
s/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.html
[The US should] Stop investing in new coal-to-liquid plants and reject policies that
support such investments. Coal-to-liquid technology cannot reduce CO2 emissions
(compared with petroleum-based fuels), but it could greatly increase those
emissions. It should not, therefore, have any part in our energy future. All
transportation fuels should be held to a low-carbon performance standard that
limits global warming pollution and provides safeguards against other
environmental damage
CTL = much higher carbon emissions

security
CTL results in greater CO2 emissions than petroleum, even if CCS is used.
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from CTLs, which include all emissions from
“coal mine” to “vehicle wheel,” are nearly twice as high as petroleum alternatives.
The proposed legislative standard that “greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of CTL
fuels shall not exceed those of conventional gasoline” refers only to the “tank to
wheel” portion of emissions. The “mine to wheel” portion is not addressed in the
standard. Carbon capture and sequestration can mitigate most of the “mine to
wheel” emissions, but the final GHG profile is still higher than “business as usual”
petroleum.
Without CCS CTL results in almost double the C02 emissions

Liquid Coal Is Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil” February
2007(TC) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf
To assess the global warming implications of a large liquid coal program, we need
to examine the total life cycle, or “well-to-wheel”, emissions of these new fuels.
Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing almost double the amount of carbon
per unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20 percent more than
petroleum. Proponents of coal-derived liquids claim they are “clean” because the fuel is sulfur-free, but when coal is
converted to transportation fuel, two streams of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced: one at liquid coal production plants
and one from exhaust pipes of the vehicles that burn the fuel. Emissions from liquid coal production plants are much higher
than those from producing and
refining crude oil to produce gasoline, diesel, and other transportation fuels; emissions from vehicles
are about the same.
The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-
derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If the CO2 from the
liquid coal plant is released into the
atmosphere, based on available information about liquid coal plants being
proposed, the total well to-
wheels CO2 emissions from coal-derived fuel would be about 50 pounds of CO2
per gallon— nearly twice as high. Introducing a new fuel system that doubles the
current CO2 emissions of our crude oil system is clearly at odds with our need to
reduce global warming emissions.
Water Sustainability
CTL uses water unsustainably
managing energy projects to promote sustainable energy use in Asia and the
security
CTL uses water sustainably. In addition to the usual social and environmental
problems associated with coal mining and transport, CTL production requires large
quantities of water. Approximately 10 gallons of water are used for every gallon of
CTL product. Sourcing the additional 210 billion gallons of water needed annually
to meet provisions called for in the bill would be challenging. There are already
serious water supply problems in Western states such as Montana and Wyoming
where most of our cheap coal supplies are located. Investors in China have also
begun to show a new skepticism for CTL because of water supply concerns in its
coal heartland.
More Coal Use

CTL would lead to more coal mining which would be terrible
Large-scale deployment of liquid coal plants would cause a significant increase in

the amount of coal mining and its harmful effects. Coal mining creates hazardous
and acidic waste, which can contaminate groundwater. Strip mining, a technique
in which land and vegetation are stripped away by giant machines, not only
damages surfaces and permanently reshapes landscapes, but it also can destroy
habitats and affect water tables. The destructive practice of mountaintop removal
to extract coal involves clearcutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to
blast away 800 to 1,000 feet of
mountaintop, and then dumping the debris into nearby valleys. And post-mining
reclamation is problematic at best. The increase in coal production anticipated for
liquid coal plants using today’s practices would increase harm to the environment
and adversely affect many of the people who live and work near coal mines
Coal is deadly: over 300,000 American's have been killed by coal mining
and pollution is terrible
By Jeff Biggers' (Jeff Biggers is the author of "The United States of Appalachia:
How Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture and Enlightenment to
America.") “ Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That.” Sunday, March 2, 2008
Washington Post (TC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.html
Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000 miners in America have died
in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease.
Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries
and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the
heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and
Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations,
Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5
percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed
underground in Utah last summer?
Coal is ecologically decimating and environmentally devastating

By Jeff Biggers' (Jeff Biggers is the author of "The United States of Appalachia:
How Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture and Enlightenment to
America.") “ Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That.” Sunday, March 2, 2008
Washington Post (TC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390_2.html
Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and
churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all
coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the
"United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's
worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An
estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of
waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an
area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain
range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of
several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every
year.
Coals Disadvantages
Barbara Freese (consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues and author of
Coal: A Human History )Steve Clemmer (research director for the UCS Clean Energy
Program) Alan Nogee (director of the UCS Clean Energy Program) “Coal Power in a
Warming World A Sensible Transition to Cleaner Energy Options” Union of Concerned
Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based
nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. The UCS Clean Energy
Program examines the benefits and costs of the country’s energy use and promotes
energy solutions that are sustainable both environmentally and economically.) (TC)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world
Coal’s advantages must be weighed against its many disadvantages:
• The underground mining of coal is a dangerous profession, and underground
and surface mining
are both highly damaging to landscapes, water supplies, and ecosystems.
• About 40 percent of U.S. railroad freight traffic is devoted to the transport of
coal. Viewed another way, fueling our coal-fired power plants for a single year
requires the equivalent of a 104,000-milelong
train—long enough to circle the earth more than four times.
• The burning of coal releases more than 100 pollutants into the atmosphere. It is
the largest source
of sulfur dioxide emissions (which cause acid rain), the second largest source of
nitrogen oxides
(which contribute to smog and asthma attacks), and the largest source of fine
soot particles (which
contribute to thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease

yearly).6 Coal plants are also the largest remaining source of human-generated
mercury, which contaminates lakes and streams, the fish that live in them, and
anyone who eats those fish.7
• Cooling and scrubbing coal plants requires copious volumes of water. Power
plants in general are responsible for approximately 39 percent of U.S. freshwater
withdrawals, second only to agricultural
irrigation. While most of that water is returned to the source, the act of withdrawal
kills fish, insect
larvae, and other organisms, and aquatic ecosystems are further damaged by the
return of water
that is both hotter than when it was withdrawn and contains chlorine or biocides
added to protect
plant operations
• Mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia permanently destroys mountains and
adjacent valleys, has destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, and
has buried more than 700 miles of some of the most biologically diverse streams
in the country.10
• Coal mining and combustion both create wastes that must be disposed.
Combustion results in
more than 120 million tons of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and sludge from air
pollution controls
annually—roughly the same amount as all municipal solid waste disposed in U.S.
landfills each
year.11 Though uses have been found for some of this material, most of it goes
into landfills and surface impoundments, from which mercury, lead, cadmium,
arsenic, and other toxic constituents
of this waste can leak out and contaminate water supplies.12 Mining wastes,
particularly in the hundreds of coal slurry impoundments in Appalachia, also pose
serious environmental threats.
• Most importantly, coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel. Even newer coal plants
produce more than two times the CO2 emissions of a new natural gas combined
cycle plant and over 50 percent more than the CO2 emissions of generating
electricity with oil.13 CO2 emissions are the predominant
human contribution to global warming, and coal plants represent the single biggest source (about one-
third) of the U.S. share of these emissions— about the same as all of our cars, trucks, buses, trains,
planes, and boats combined.14 The final third of U.S. CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels used in
natural gas- and oil-fired power plants, industry, businesses, and residences.
CTL = expensive
security
CTL is expensive. Construction of CTL facilities requires multi-billion dollar

investments for large plants. Due to technology risk, and uncertainty over global
oil prices that serve as a benchmark for CTL competitiveness, investments are not
likely to flow without significant government subsidy and guarantees. CTL plants
risk becoming stranded assets if global crude prices fall. This happened in the late
1970s and early 1980s with shale oil and other energy security investments
Weighing: Emissions, costs and water use DAs outweigh benefits of CTL
security
If CTL technology is to have a role in meeting future U.S. energy needs, we will
need to address the high greenhouse gas emissions, costs, and water use.
Otherwise, this option involves trade-offs that don’t serve the nation’s larger
public interests.
CTL could displace cleaner alternatives with the wrong policy

“Government policies and high oil prices have whetted our growing appetite for all
alternative fuels, good and bad alike,” said Eli Hopson, Washington representative
for Clean Vehicles at UCS.“With the wrong policy, liquid coal could displace
cleaner alternatives. Biofuels can be a staple of our low carbon fuel diet, but only
if policies are in place that ‘count carbs’ and ‘make carbs count.’ ”
Federalism: States are already addressing the alt energy problem


At least one state is addressing the problem. In January, California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for establishing a state low-
carbon fuel standard. The California Air Resources Board is currently developing
regulations that would require manufacturers of transportation fuel sold in the
state to reduce per gallon emissions of global warming pollution by at least 10
percent. Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington State are
considering similar policies.
Masking DA: CCS could create false sense of security, + undermine

workable methods of decreasing emissions
The Economist “The illusion of clean coal” Mar 5th 2009 From The Economist print
edition (TC)
CCS is not just a potential waste of money. It might also create a false sense of
security about climate change, while depriving potentially cheaper methods of
cutting emissions of cash and attention—all for the sake of placating the coal
lobby.

Coal To Liquid Technology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Coal To Liquid Technology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Caiello/Schirmer Coal to Liquid Technology Neg 1/22

Arx Axiom Debate Club

Coal To Liquid Technology – Neg

Intro quote: CTL = Untried, expensive and environmentally damaging

•Vehicle Efficiency. Improving vehicle efficiency can cost-effectively reduce the

On average CTL = 80% more emissions than gas. Ethanol on average =

Bio fuels are always better than CTL

Biofuels could meet 25% of US demand for alternate fuels

!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives are better than

!! CP advocacy efficiency, renewables, and alternatives can reduce oil

Biomass to liquid fuel is better than coal to liquid

Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists is

Advantage of Biomass over CTL: emissions after production. CTL =

CTL + CCS not even needed: renewables + efficiency standards remove

Union of Concerned Scientists October 2008 (The Union of Concerned Scientists is

Alt Energy CP Advocacy

funding for energy efficiency, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geothermal,

CTL Fail: China (water shortages)

Options: Coal-to-Liquids” 2007 (TC) http://www.wri.org/publication/content/10337

The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-

The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived

Reverse Plan Advocate: US should not subsidize any CTL

form of support for

Investors consider CTL too risky

CCS only partially offsets carbon emissions for CTL

Aff Spike Turn: Carbon Capture Impossible before 2029

Local opposition prevented German carbon capture from working

Even with carbon capture CTL still produces 8% more C02

CCS is completely untried and crazy expensive

CCS very expensive: details in card

CCS could result in C02 leaks which are a health hazard

Greenpeace, a pressure group, argues that it is impossible to be certain that

CCS could take 15 to 20 years to truly implement

CCS impracticality led to the rejection of FutureGen

It is particularly important that state regulatory agencies not be tempted to

CTL = much higher carbon emissions

Without CCS CTL results in almost double the C02 emissions

More Coal Use

Large-scale deployment of liquid coal plants would cause a significant increase in

Coal is ecologically decimating and environmentally devastating

contribute to thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease

CTL is expensive. Construction of CTL facilities requires multi-billion dollar

CTL could displace cleaner alternatives with the wrong policy

Federalism: States are already addressing the alt energy problem

organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in

Masking DA: CCS could create false sense of security, + undermine

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen