Shane Goettle (Forum, Dec. 28) is right that North Dakota will play an important role in meeting our nation's energy needs, but wrong in thinking turning coal into liquid fuels should be a significant player in the effort.
What is at stake here is carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing carbon is a key element of meeting our needs for electricity, heat and liquid fuels.
The "well-to-wheel" carbon dioxide emission rate for coal-based liquid fuels is nearly double that of petroleum-based gasoline. Even at a 90 percent carbon sequestration rate, the Natural Resources Defense Council (a legal and policy information group interested in issues like this one since 1970) estimates carbon emission rates at 8 percent higher for coal-based fuels.
Cost is another issue. Capital costs alone (not including the actual cost of the fuel, which is unknown at this time) for coal-to-liquids are approximately $46 per barrel. Wall Street has a hands-off approach to this as a very "unsure" thing.
Massive subsidies from Uncle Sam - which is the only thing that could make plant construction a go - might hide this cost, but they would not eliminate it. Motorists would simply pay for it in their tax bill instead of at the pump.
ADVERTISEMENT
Large-scale coal-to-liquids production will also significantly hasten the depletion of our coal reserves.
Subsidies for alternative fuels may be necessary, but incentives for biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol would be cheaper and quicker - and result in real carbon dioxide reductions.
Coupled with more fuel efficiency, biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol can get us to the carbon reductions we need without massive construction costs and destructive strip-mining.
North Dakota should invest in biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol production, not turning coal into gasoline, and the North Dakota delegation should push for these quicker and cheaper solutions at a federal level as well.
Verle Reinicke, Bismarck, Letter: Push for coal-to-gas monumental mistake 20080110
