....the better off we will all be...... Careful, ALL is a very strong word. Did you mean 5% (the direct and indirect owners) will be better off and not much difference for the other 95% who would be paying the same high price at the pump.

We ARE following the money ai_vin --- 15 trillion dollars of debt & prolonged 10 percent unemployment for over 2 years. I would rather have my gasoline derived from coal vs. gasoline derived from the middle east.

You're missing the point. Having your gasoline derived from U.S. coal rather than gasoline derived from middle east oil MAY be better but are other options even better?

The point is you wont know from this guy because he's bias and the only option he's interested in pushing is coal.

the idea that coal to gas will lower the price of gas at the pump is ridiculous. Coal to gas need a high crude price, probably higher than 100$ to be economical. So don't expect too much on this side. Asides coal to gas is by no mean a panacea, it requires huge upfront investment, release large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, running cost are very high.

The Trangas project in WVA proposes to send CO2 to the GOM for enhanced oil recovery so that ultimately pays for itself ($ from CO2 pays for pipeline). It will cost a lot to set up the plant but could be paid for with a couple periods of high gas prices during the life of the project. It may not lower prices much but will help reduce the severity of price spikes from speculators. With 15 trillion of debt and prolonged 10 percent unemployment, and a failed ARRA of 2009, I'm 100% behind this. These are good long-term high paying American jobs we're talking about --- not burger flipping or construction to make some developer rich after paving over creation. I'd rather keep my energy dollars here in the US vs. sending mass amounts of cash to the middle east.

SJC...don't feel too bad. Canada is doing much the same mistake by lowering income taxes for large businesses (including very large, very profitable banks) from 21% to 15%. It should have been more selective with more tax breaks for small businesses only. They're the one creating most jobs. The difference is that we simultaneously spent $$B on public works in the last 2 1/2 years to create jobs. Our unemployment rate is much the same as pre-2007. And we are fortunate to be a net Oil exporter.

ejj....USA's millionaires and billionaire assets are growing at the rate of about $15T/year. If they would agree not to get richer for 12 months, they could pay off 100% of the national debt by this time next year. It will not happen.

Coal to liquid fuels make sense for USA, China, Australia, Russia and a few other countries with massive coal reserves. To keep the price competitive, operators will get huge tax credits and subsidies. Cellanese Corp. could become a major player, starting with two large plants in China.

"...but are other options even better?"

This may be an example of a better option than coal for those who think we need massive quantities of liquid fuels in the first place: For electricity at 3.5 cents/kWh ammonia can be produced for $1.85 per gallon of equivalent gasoline at the site of,say, stranded wind farm energy (or any wind energy for that matter since no grid is required). As readers of this site know, NH3 can be used in any ICE with no carbon pollution. Info is from: www.greennh3.com and research done at the UofMinnesota-Morris.

I agree that Coal to gas might be a better option than exporting coal to china as they are trying to do in Wyoming as domestic consumption is planned to decrease with the decommissioning of coal fired plant.Being say it still not a very exciting idea, not much better than drilling along the coast of California.

California provides 40% of its own oil. Bakersfield and other locations are still producing oil using advanced techniques. Ever since the offshore Santa Barbara oil spill decades ago, Californians have been against offshore production. The latest estimates are lower for offshore oil reserves anyway, to it is better to use conservation, efficiency and alternatives.

Please let me remind the reader; in between the request to use "clean coal" lies the consequences of doing so: Coal is the worse of the sinful fossil fuels for contamination It leaves not only polluted air when burned but tons of deadly toxic heavy metal mountains of ash that are contained in lakes of water just waiting to be let loose into watersheds by nature.

And, yes what about the mining practices of leveling mountains and filling valleys, again, killing the drinking water.

Coal is a demon disguised as wealth: it kills the poor at the will of the rich and should not continue to be let lose on the world when there are alternatives that will serve as as a better interim solution until truly clean energy can be developed. Natural Gas is correct interim fossil fuel to use until that time, not coal of any form or nature.

On the idea that this bill will create more American jobs: Have you ever noticed that year after year the oil-to-gas companies rake in greater and greater profits but employ fewer and fewer people? And all the while they are getting subsidies from the Republicans on the pretence that they'll create more jobs.

What do you want to bet we'll see the same from the coal-to-gas companies in due course?

The founder of JET BLUE had a very good program for making jet fuel out of coal. If crude oil cost more than $35 then it is profitable to use coal. Perhaps his analysis can be found again somewhere.

If very high temperature steam is available from nuclear power plants then the cost of making fuel from coal is even cheaper. ..HG..