And now a new proposal for an even bigger environmental disaster.

[NNadir]

In my view, this, which is technically no more than the Carter-era synfuels program, is a very serious threat to the future of our atmosphere.

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/opinion/03schweitzer.html?th&emc=th">The Other Black Gold

"AMERICA has a substance abuse problem, and Montana may have a cure...

...In truth, he had no choice. America is addicted to foreign oil, and like any addict we are at the mercy of the pushers and require an intervention. Montana, among other states, is trying to help America get clean by promoting a range of modern domestic energy strategies. Yet our biggest idea is actually a very old recipe: gasoline made from coal instead of oil.

Most people are surprised to learn that we can produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products out of coal. Indeed, the process was used in America as early as 1928. In World War II, 92 percent of Germany's aviation fuel and half its total petroleum came from synthetic-fuel plants. South Africa has used a similar technology for 50 years, and now makes 200,000 barrels per day of synthetic gasoline and diesel.

"Synfuels" have remarkable properties: they are high-performing..."

America does indeed have a substance abuse problem, but changing from morphine to heroin wasn't a great idea in 1910. The analogue won't be a great idea in 2010.

[AllyCat]

1. Argh!!! You would think that MT with all that land, would embrace

biofuels!!! Why can these thugs not see beyond extraction processes to obtain energy. This is beyond belief.

Switching from heroin to morphine and back to heroin, indeed.

[politicaholic]

2. Is this anything like shale synthetic fuel?

I heard that it was just not economically viable let alone the impact on the environment.

What the hell's wrong with working on another form of fuel that doesn't come from the ground and cough black soot into the atmosphere? Can't that be just as profitable (if not more) if you do it correctly?

[NNadir]

4. No. Shale Oil is even worse.

Shale oil is petroleum permeating porous rock without actually collecting into a subterrean pool (as with traditional oil fields). In this process the rock is strip mined, the rock crushed and the oil is steam distilled from it. (There is a syn gas variant, but I don't think that this is really what is planned in most shale oil schemes.)

This is a proposal to dig up coal and engage in a chemical process to make petroleum through an intermediate, syn gas. If you heat coal with steam you will get this mixture, which is hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

Syn gas is already handled on an industrial scale, although in modern times (obviously subject to change) syn gas has been made from natural gas and not from coal.

As the governor notes however, coal based syn gas processes are well known and have been commercialized on an industrial scale, notably in Germany (World War II) and South Africa. The question is not whether it can be done. The question is whether it should be done. If we are going to survive one more generation the answer to the last question should be an emphatic NO.

[politicaholic]

6. Thank you so much for that fantastic explanation...

I'll look further into it.

[progressive_realist]

3. Link is broken.

You need to remove the extra http:// from the beginning.

Sadly, synfuels are likely to be the initial replacement for petroleum products.

[NNadir]

5. I'm sorry. Try this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/opinion/03schweitzer.html?th&emc=th

[Skink]

7. C'mon guys clean coal and stuff.

We promise not to make a mess.