The UCS is right on the money. This is exactly why a carbon tax is essential, so that this information is factored into consumers' fuel choices.

Without carbon taxation, the coal industry is liable to come on like gangbusters offering supposedly cheaper liquid fuel. They will be doing their darndest at obfuscation and distraction to paint themselves as the smart alternative to "keep America rolling."

We absolutely must have carbon taxes now. Because if we allow big coal to take that line unopposed and untaxed, we condemn better and less understood technologies such as algal and cellulosic fuels to slower adaptation and reduced competitiveness. And we play Russian roulette with the climate.

I agree 100%. Liquid coal is the worst idea I've ever heard, and I'm sick of seeing coal ads on TV painting themselves as a good, clean alternative. They show a nice shot of a piece of coal against a clean white background. It's coal, it's filthy. Touch it to that white background and see what happens.

The good thing is that we can in theory produce carbon-negative biofuels, by coupling their production to carbon capture and storage.

A strategy could be to let the CTL & GTL industry optimize these technologies, and then, when they have pumped in the money, force them to switch to biomass and biomethane.

Then we would be on track for negative emissions biofuels, instead of the mere carbon neutral biofuels discussed in UCS paper.

Without a doubt engineers need to put some brainpower into making coal cleaner and less water intensive. However, don't write it off so fast. It's domestic, cheap and readily available. Take a trip into Colorado, you can literally see it lying on the ground.

Say no to coal!
Say yes to accelerate investment in wind and solar energy.
More research and investment into conversion of wind and solar energy into storable fuels, such as H2, CH4, CH3OH, C2H5OH, NH3, etc. Only then that there will be hope of halting global warming and making our energy use sustainable for thousands of years to come.

I find it interesting that so many of these studies focus on Ethanol while ignoring other biofuels, most notably algea to biodiesel. Algea farming requires both minimal labor and energy inputs, has significantly greater yields per acre and a denser energy potential than most other feedstocks.

Further, all these posts against coal and other energy sources used for generating electricity are ridiculous and short sighted. Yes, we need more solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal and other alternative sources but these are not stable power alternatives and have significant limitations. They will never be able to be the domininant power sources at best meeting maybe 40% of overall needs.

Ultra efficient Gas, coal, biomass, etc to electric plants will always have a place. By coupling Algea production to the CO2 waste streams of these power factilities we could not only capture the CO2 but convert it into an alternative energy stream. See earlier post that indicates ability to provide for all transportation fuel needs through converting powerplant exhaust gases into Algea based biodiesel.

Further, the same bioreactors could be coupled with all kinds of other CO2 sources including Ethanol facilities, Biodiesel facilities, sewage waste streams, etc.

While commercial scale production is still several years away we get the best of all worlds, cheap electric generation (coal, gas, biomass, waste inputs), with CO2 outputs converted into transportation fuels resulting in significant overall CO2 life cycle reductions while greatly reducing if not eliminating our reliance on foreign oil.

see earlier posts -
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/greenfuel-techn.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/gspi-and-btr-to.html#more

And how are they going to baseline this standard?

Here's a comparison for instance:
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png

Whats even worse.

How is it even possible to accommodate for indirect emissions with this type of standard?

Palm Oil for instance, is a rather attractive in direct emissions reductions.

But if you factor in indirect emissions, it's absolutely horrific.
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil

And merely the factor of displacing farmland, that new demand will not necessarily end up in a more sustainable region.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2

Heh, and of course the forward for that graphic up top:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/images/2007/11/14/ucslcfs.png

"NOTE: These values do not include all potential sources of global warming pollution, particularly the effect of direct or indirect land use changes. Actual global warming emissions may be higher than these estimates."

i.e. "We are showing you an intentionally discounted emission rate for biofuels"

http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png

_

And if Paul Crutzen has anything to say about it,
DRASTICALLY underestimated.

http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy

==Liquid coal is the worst idea I've ever heard==

Well then you should be absolutely livid about the concept of industrial scale biofuels.

Since it makes Coal-to-Liquids look relatively benign.

And frankly the same pathways that would open up biofuels use, are the exact same ones which would lead towards exploding the use of Coal-to-Liquids.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf

I just wanted to jump in and mention that we (NRDC) released a new Mark Fiore cartoon (pointing out the absurdity of Liquid Coal) a couple of days ago. You can see it at beyondoil.nrdc.org. Also Deron Lovaas has weighed in on the issue over at our blog switchboard.nrdc.org.

NRDC is pathetic though, because they dogmatically believe that biofuels can do no wrong.

And they hysterically deny anything that shows the opposite.

wow-- talk about the pot calling the kettle black

==wow-- talk about the pot calling the kettle black==

You think I'm kidding?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85ResptoComm.pdf