The Obama Lies

Heil Fuher





Apparently the people were as stupid as the president is. They bought the Styrofoam Temples didn't they?

The coal industry is crying foul over new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations which they say will be among the most be costly rules ever imposed by the agency on coal-fueled power plants.

The result, industry insiders say: substantially higher electricity rates and massive job loss.

“The goal for these rules should be reasonable regulation that protects public health and the environment while also preserving economic growth. Unfortunately, the unprecedented pace at which the administration is issuing major new rules that impose new costs and regulatory requirements on states, employers, and consumers fails that basic test,” said Upton. “By issuing multiple regulations for the energy and other sectors at such an accelerated rate, EPA has turned regulation from a manageable tool into an unpredictable moving target that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs.”

Read more

AGW Hoax: The Obama Weiner Just Doing What He Promised

Democratic Senator: "Environmental Protection Agency Out of Control"

 Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the former governor of coal-producing West Virginia, is blasting the Obama administration for using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal-fueled power plants out of business.


On Thursday, American Electric Power company announced that to comply with a series of EPA regulations, it will close five coal-fired plants -- three in West Virginia and one each in Ohio and Virginia -- at a net cost of 600 jobs.

Hey we can always get the elctricity to charge the batteries on those nice shiny Volts from Mexico, can't we?







Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)

Of course everybody but Obama seems to know that global waring is all a hoax. What a weiner.

Coal, You Can't Have Any

Almost excatly half of America's electricity comes from coal burning power plants.





Coal is also quite useful for transport fuel, no not the steam engine trains, but automobiles. Did you know that during WWII Germany ran their entire war machine on coal? Yep, sure did, airplanes ships, tanks all of it -- Using the Fisher-Tropsch process, often called coal-to-liquids, developed in the 1920s. It yields gasoline and diesel at $30-$40 per barrel oil equivalent.

The USA has about 27% of the world's coal resource.

'Emissions-free' power plant pilot fires up in Germany

I have often said, that the whole of the AGW hoax is not about global warming, but is about halting modern life. This story seems to support that conclusion. How else can you see an emissions free power plant as 'bad'.

SPREMBERG, Germany (AFP) — One of Europe's biggest power firms inaugurated a prototype coal-fired power station on Tuesday it says is almost emissions-free but environmentalists were less than impressed.

Located on the site of the existing Schwarze Pumpe power station in eastern Germany, Sweden's Vattenfall said the new technology has the potential to allow coal to be burnt without releasing harmful greenhouse gases.

"Today industrial history is being written," Vattenfall Europe's chief executive Tuomo Hatakka told a news conference.

"Coal has a future, we are convinced of that, but the carbon dioxide emissions from it have no future."

After first burning the coal, or in this case lignite, in pure oxygen -- itself a new method -- Vattenfall captures the carbon dioxide released using a technology called Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS.

This involves compressing the gas, transporting it away in liquid form and sending it deep underground where it is safely sealed away, either in depleted gas or oil fields or in underground cavities full of saltwater.

Capturing the gases prevents them escaping into the Earth's atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

In the case of the pilot plant outside Spremberg close to the Polish border, the liquid carbon dioxide is taken 350 kilometres (210 miles) in lorries and injected "for permanent storage" into an empty gas field in northern Germany.

With around two-thirds of the world's power generated by burning fossil fuels and humanity set to rely heavily on these "for the foreseeable future," Vattenfall says the new technology is the way forward.

But environmental groups, which staged a small demonstration outside the plant on Thursday as some 400 guests arrived for the inauguration ceremony, said the technology would never catch on.

Germany's BUND pressure group slammed CCS as a "fig leaf" allowing new coal-fired power stations that chuck out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide to be built while giving the appearance of addressing global warming.

"Vattenfall managers talk a lot about supposedly environmentally friendly coal power stations but they are still planning and building conventional coal-fired power stations with high levels of CO2 emissions," BUND's energy spokesman Thorben Becker said.

Greenpeace said that CCS decreases the amount of energy produced by coal-fired plants by 10 to 40 percent, meaning a much greater amount of coal must be burnt to produce the same amount of energy.

But the World Wide Fund for Nature was more forgiving, believing CCS "can serve as a technological bridge" until a better alternative is developed, WWF climate expert Regine Guenther told the Berlin daily Tageszeitung.

Vattenfall admitted that the technology has some way to go, not least with regard to its high cost, but also in terms of the infrastructure needed to transport and store the captured carbon dioxide.

At the pilot project around four trucks will be needed to take away the 240 tonnes of gas produced every day, and if CCS was applied on a large scale, the volume produced would mean that pipelines would need to be built, Vattenfall's vice-president for research Lars Stroemberg said.

The firm insisted that storing the gas was safe, however, saying underground reservoirs of carbon dioxide already occur naturally in geological formations where it has been trapped by sedimentary rocks in much the same way as oil or gas.

"There is much more storage capacity than will ever be needed," Stroemberg said.

Coal to Liquids Technology

First is China, but now it looks like the USA is moving in the coal to liquids area.

First there is this going on in Benwood WV

The nation’s first modern coal-to-liquids plant slated for construction in Benwood may be the savior of the Ohio Valley, but not for some time to come.

... Coal can be converted to a synthetic gas using SES proprietary technology. The syngas would be used to produce about 720,000-metric tons per year of methanol that can be used as a feedstock for the chemical industry. Officials expect the project will be capable of converting methanol to about 100-million gallons per year of 87 octane gasoline.

Then there is the Crow Indian Reservation, who are signing up Friday to put in a coal to liquids conversion plant that should produce about 50,000 barrels of fuel per day.

The Many Stars coal-to-liquids plant would initially produce 50,000 barrels a day of diesel and other fuels. Crow Chairman Carl Venne (VAN) says construction would begin in several years and coal for the project would come from a tribe-owned mine on the reservation.

The Crow Legislature on Thursday ratified a 50-year development agreement - capping months of negotiations between tribal leaders and the Australian-American Energy Co., a subsidiary of Australian Energy Co.

The train is leaving the station. One thing to note, is coal to liquids can produce a delivered barrel of oil for the barrel of oil equivalent price of $30-40 per barrel. Ethanol is in the $4.80 a gallon for fuel.

Coal is the ace in the hole, shale oil is the second hold card.

Coal Is King

Here are the hard coal facts [Source: World Coal Institute: Coal Facts 2007: a .pdf version can be downloaded] to show you precisely why coal will remain King worldwide for a long time to come:

1. +Coal provides 25% of global primary energy;
   

2. +Coal generates 40% of the world’s electricity;
   

3. +Over the last 25 years, world hard coal production has increased by 92%;
   

4. +In 2006, estimated hard coal use was 5,370 Mt;
   

5. +In 2006, world brown (soft) coal use was 914 Mt, a 0.9% increase over 2005;
   

6. +Important recoverable coal reserves are available in over 70 countries;
   

7. +The top 5 world coal producers are: P.R. of China (2,482 Mt); USA (990 Mt); India (427 Mt); Australia (309 Mt); and South Africa (244 Mt);
   

8. +In Europe, the leading coal producer is Poland (95 Mt); Germany remains the world’s leading brown coal producer;
   

9. +The top 5 countries using coal for electricity production (1995 or 1996 statistics) are: Poland (93%); South Africa (93%); Australia (80%); P.R. of China (78%); and Israel (71%);
   

10. +Despite its ‘green’ image, Germany still relies on coal for 47% of its electricity generation;
    

11. +The top 5 coal exporters are: Australia (231 Mt); Indonesia (129 Mt); Russia (92 Mt); South Africa (69 Mt); and P.R. of China (63 Mt);
    

12. +By contrast, the UK depends on imported coal at 51 Mt....
    

Anyone who thinks that coal worldwide has had its day must think again.

‘Coal isn’t the climate enemy, Mr Monbiot. It’s the solution’ we require new coal power urgently to help us to fill our looming energy gap.

Coal to Liquids, Natural Gas to Liquids

Turning coal into liquid gasoline and diesel transport fuel was developed in the 1920s, the process is generally referred to as the indirect coal-to-liquids (CTL) gasification, formally known as the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis process after the scientists who invented it. In the 1930s Germany recognized their vulnerability to oil cutoffs in wartime and put the process into mass production -- Germany has plenty of coal reserves.

But since that time, it's been all oil, all the time. At least while oil was cheap.

In a few weeks China will start production on their first large coal to liquids demonstration plant, which will be followed up by full scale production models to be built in the next few years.

Coal to liquids is proven technology and can deliver transport fuels at under $40 a barrel equivalent oil prices.

The Republicans are going to try again, After the no drill Democrats have repeatedly blocked efforts to drill and build new refineries ... Notice the push for coal to liquids.

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate

US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S.2958) to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas and to fund the development of oil shale and coal-to-liquids technology. Eighteen other senators co-sponsored. Included in the bill is language for a coal-derived fuels mandate.

The bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration and production; and lift the one-year moratorium on developing oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

I saw a short presser with Sen Dominici talking about his legislation, he stated Sen Reid said no drilling this year. So who is blocking the energy supply -- Same Democrat MArxists who have been doing it for 30 years.

Another use for natural gas, using similar processes

In Qatar, they are near completion of South Africa's Sasol joint venture plant in Qatar to produce gas to liquids oils production facility. This plant takes natural gas and turns it into oil for machinery, autos and other uses. Sasol is the world's biggest maker of motor oil from coal.

Here is your question of the day, why is it when the USA has about 25% of the world's coal supply we don't do the same? Coal to liquid fuel is mature technology, and doesn't require you to burn your food.

More here about Qatar and their gasification plant. Search google for China's similar ventures.

How nuclear power can help relieve future supply constraints with transport fuel

Currently, the generally favored fuel for power plants is natural gas, a clean but limited supply fuel. Natural gas also has a place as transport fuel. Natural gas can be used directly in automobile and trucks or used as feed stock for a liquefaction process which can produce gasoline and diesel. With transport fuel in short supply, using natural gas for fixed plant electricity makes little sense, when nuclear power serves that role much cheaper. Nuclear power makes even more economic sense when you do as the French do, reprocess the spent fuel. By statue, the US cannot do this. Another Democrat Marxist surprise for the unwary.