Let me count the reasons why spending billions on a coal -to-fuel plant is a bad idea

EDITOR:

In an apocalyptic book that came out a few years ago, author James H. Kunstler outlined what he believes will happen to our way of life some years down the road when the era of cheap oil is over.

Kunstler forecasts in “The Long Emergency — Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century” the collapse of the airline industry, highway infrastructure, agribusiness, big box retails stores and suburbia itself.

He outlines the prospects for 12 energy alternatives taking over for cheap oil, some obvious and some not.

One of the energy alternatives Kunstler disparages is synthetic fuel made from coal, which Baard Energy proposes to produce at a $5.5 billion plant in Wellsville. He contends that because of the cost, synfuel production is only viable during a national emergency such as war.

The Nazis made synthetic fuel at 26 plants during World War II for their war machine. South Africa started producing it when under sanctions due to its apartheid policy, and continues to be a large producer today despite massive air pollution from carbon dioxide. There are no liquid coal plants in the U.S. today.

It is doubtful that the Wellsville plant would be viable if oil should hold at its present low price. A Baard spokesman, Steve Dopuch, said recently, however, that “the market’s already telling us that oil is going to go back up by 2013” which is when the Wellsville plant would start production.

Given the dire economic forecasts, recent worldwide oil discoveries, and emphasis on “green” technology including hybrid and electric cars, one has to wonder about Dopuch’s optimism.

Then there is issue of relying on coal to meet future energy needs whether it be to generate power, or, as with the Baard plant, to make synthetic fuel.

Coal is mined in West Virginia, just across the Ohio River from the proposed Baard plant, through the notorious “mountain top removal” process. It would be safe to assume that this coal would find its way to the synfuel plant.

It would thus seem that the Wellsville plant would depend on three main factors for success … the end of the cheap oil era, which may very well lie down the road, a dramatic increase in regional coal production, and a national and state policy lenient toward both CO2 emissions and water pollution. Liquid coal plants also produce vast amounts of wastewater.

There is presently a national outcry against coal usage by clean energy advocates. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, strongly oppose liquid coal plants, including the one at Wellsville.

Plans to study the sequestration of CO2 from the Wellsville plant have been advanced by a $2.12 million federal grant secured with the help of Reps. Tim Ryan and Charlie Wilson. Sequestration would significantly add to the cost of synfuel production.

However, the sequestration of CO2 has yet to be proven feasible on a large scale. In fact, an ambitious sequestration project in President Obama’s own home state of Illinois has been abandoned.

Given the cost of the product, opposition from powerful environmental groups, the likelihood of closer federal CO2 regulation, and the Obama administration’s opposition to heavily polluting industry, I’d say that the chances for the proposed liquid coal plant in Columbiana County range from slim to none.

ROBERT R. STANGER

Boardman