NEG Coal To Liquids CON

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SC Page 1 of 35
CTL – NEG
Coal-To-Liquids – NEG
OPENER....................................................................................................................................................4
1. Liquid coal is not an option.....................................................................................................4
HARMS.....................................................................................................................................................4
1. OPEC realizes the need for reasonable prices.........................................................................4
2. Cheap oil is harmful to the economy.......................................................................................4
3. Historically expensive oil is good for economies....................................................................5
4. Higher oil prices increase worldwide demand for US goods and services..............................5
5. Cheap oil is harmful to the environment..................................................................................6
6. Economies grow when the price of oil is high.........................................................................6
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................7
COAL PRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7
1. US has passed peak coal production........................................................................................7
2. The US is facing coal production difficulties..........................................................................7
3. Montana Coal production faces resource, environmental, political, and economical barriers 8
4. Coal Producing states are facing lower production rates.........................................................8
COAL EXPANSION.............................................................................................................................9
1. Coal expansion faces enormous logistical and technical costs................................................9
COAL RESERVES................................................................................................................................9
1. Coal reserves may not translate into production......................................................................9
2. Coal reserves will last us less than 50 years..........................................................................10
CTL EMISSIONS......................................................................................................................11
1. Liquid coal, at best, produces just as much CO2 as traditional fossil fuels...........................11
2. Coal-to-liquid is horribly inefficient......................................................................................11
3. CTL is not even as efficient as gasoline.................................................................................11
4. CTL fueled cars would be comparable to a lifetime of gasoline guzzling Hummers............12
5. Even with Carbon Capture, CTL is more polluting than oil..................................................13
6. Coal Transport contributes to global warming and PM emissions........................................13
7. CTL produces twice the greenhouse gases that oil does........................................................14
8. Even with (untested) carbon sequestration tech, CTL would pollute more than oil..............14
CTL UNFEASIBLE............................................................................................................................15
1. CTL is economically unfeasible right now............................................................................15
2. Necessary measures to make CTL possible (Aff don't got 'em)............................................15
3. There are 4 specific technology gaps that need to be filled. Aff doesn't solve.....................16
4. The economics of CTL deny it the chance to help reduce our oil dependence, or CO2
emissions....................................................................................................................................16
5. Economic, social, and environmental faults of CTL prevent it from being a sound
alternative fuel option................................................................................................................17
PRICES...............................................................................................................................................18
1. CTL is difficult.......................................................................................................................18
2. CTL will cost pretty much the same as oil, possibly more....................................................18
STANDARDS.....................................................................................................................................19
1. Affirmative standards make CTL impossible, CTL advocacy groups say.............................19
DA #1 – EARTHQUAKES......................................................................................................................19
1. Coal mining causes earthquakes............................................................................................19
CTL – NEG
DA #2 – CLIMATE CHANGE................................................................................................................19
Link: Aff plan increases CTL, and therefor Coal Mining..............................................................19
A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%.......................................19
Uniqueness: CTL pollutes!.............................................................................................................20
1. CTL will ruin climate change gains.......................................................................................20
2. CTL is twice as polluting as fossil fuel..................................................................................20
3. Even with carbon capture, CTL is worse than current energy systems.................................21
4. CTL is twice as dirty as petroleum........................................................................................21
5. The cost and time of plan would undercut necessary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions....................................................................................................................................21
6. Liquid coal impacts would be wide-spread...........................................................................22
7. Increased coal usage would destroy any global warming gains, creating pollution coal plants
for decades to come...................................................................................................................22
Impact: Climate Change laundry list..............................................................................................23
Health & natural disasters..........................................................................................................23
DA #3 – COAL MINING.........................................................................................................................24
Link: Coal Mining Increase............................................................................................................24
A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%.......................................24
Impact #1 – Environmental Degradation........................................................................................24
1. Liquid coal would increase the environmental disasters of coal mining...............................24
2. Coal mining is environmentally unfriendly...........................................................................25
Impact 2: Good-bye Disney World (and other climate change related disasters)..........................25
Liquid Coal will flood Florida, Louisiana, and other areas.......................................................25
Impact 3: Devastated Human Health.........................................................................................25
EXTENSION..................................................................................................................................26
1. Coal mining will destroy the Appalachian Mountain Region................................................26
2. Coal mining devestates local ecosystems and environment..................................................27
3. Mining will ruin rivers and their various habitats and ecosystems both physically and
chemically..................................................................................................................................28
4. Coal mining devastates stream and groundwater chemistry..................................................29
5. Coal mining releases greenhouse gases and Particulate Matter.............................................29
A2 “Mine Reclamation Solves”: MR doesn't restore to pre-mining conditions, and can require
scarce water resources................................................................................................................30
DA #4 – GOVERNMENT BAILOUT.....................................................................................................31
1. Liquid coal would rely on government subsidies..................................................................31
2. CTL Plants are highly expensive...........................................................................................32
3. CTL is expensive, and requires a government prop-up.........................................................32
4. CCS will make coal even more expensive.............................................................................32
5. 10% CTL will cost $70 billion...............................................................................................33
DA #5 - WATER.......................................................................................................................................33
1. Water will be an important factor, either increasing amount lost, or decreasing efficiency. .33
2. CTL relies on large amounts of water....................................................................................34
GENERIC ...............................................................................................................................................34
1. Electricity stimulates social, physiological, and economical well-being..............................34
2. Energy is essential..................................................................................................................35
CTL – NEG
OPENER
1. Liquid coal is not an option

Natural Resources Defense Council “Climate Facts: Why Liquid Coal is not a Viable Option to Move
America Beyond Oil” February 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf
The considerable economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuel preclude it
from being a sound option to move America beyond oil. Relying on liquid coal as an alternative fuel
could:
nearly double global warming pollution per gallon of transportation fuels, and
increase the devastating effects of coal mining felt by communities and ecosystems stretching
from Appalachia to the Rocky Mountains.
HARMS
1. OPEC realizes the need for reasonable prices

Ashley Seager (reporter for The Guardian) “Fuel’s Mate” Guardian Unlimited (Great Britain’s most
widely circulated newspaper), May 22, 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,1222381,00.html
“But why should OPEC care about rising prices? Surely big rises in oil prices mean a bonanza for
OPEC, which consists of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Algeria,
Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela and Indonesia. Not at all, says Yusgiantoro. "We don't like this kind of price
level at all. There would be a big impact on us if the consumer nations had a recession."
2. Cheap oil is harmful to the economy

Muhammad Sahimi(Professor and Chairman of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles. He obtained his BS from the University of Tehran (Iran) in 1977 and his
Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in 1984, both in chemical engineering. He has
been a faculty member at USC since 1984. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe,
the US, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many industrial corporations. He has published over
220 papers in peer-reviewed journals and four books. Among his honours are the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation Research Award and the United Nations UNESCO Khwarizmi Award for
distinguished achievements in science) “Cheap Oil Is Bad For The World” Tuesday, March 7, 2000 in
the LOS ANGELES TIMES
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-104.htm
“The simplistic view of a layman in the West is that as much oil as possible must be produced, and it
must be sold as cheaply as possible. However, the critical question is whether "expensive" oil is bad for
the industrial world…in the long run, expensive oil is good for the world. In fact, cheap oil has deep
and troubling political, economic and environmental consequences… Cheap oil induces people to
overuse it and thus discourages development of alternative sources of energy that are environmentally
friendly. It affects the economy negatively. It costs us huge sums in health care. It causes social and
political instability abroad. Is this the world that we envision for ourselves and our children?”
3. Historically expensive oil is good for economies

“It is a myth that expensive oil is bad for the economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan. Several studies
have indicated that there is a negative correlation between the fluctuations in the oil price and the gross
national product of Western countries. From 1982 to 1986, when oil prices were high, the economies of
the U.S., Japan and Western Europe were expanding, whereas the second half of '80s, when prices
collapsed, was marked by recession.”
4. Higher oil prices increase worldwide demand for US goods and services
“Development of oil reserves is tied to the global economy. Oil-producing countries must maintain a
high level of revenue from oil sales if they are to continue developing their infrastructures and
industrial basis, and at the same time invest in their oil industries to maintain and develop their
resources to meet worldwide demand. All of this means more jobs in the West, since the oil producers
rely on the West for the necessary technology. What would happen to the huge chemical industry in the
West that uses oil-derived materials if the oil reserves of the developing countries were depleted too
fast? Chemical and related industries contribute one-third of the United States' GNP.”
5. Cheap oil is harmful to the environment
“Finally, consider the environmental effects of cheap oil. The main culprit of air pollution is fossil
fuels, mainly oil, which in the U.S. accounts for 85% of fuel use. There are hidden costs of cheap oil,
which we pay for through air and water pollution, global warming and acid rain.”
6. Economies grow when the price of oil is high
Andrew McKillop(former: expert - policy and programming, Division A - Policy, DG XVII-Energy,

European Commission, founder member, Asian Chapter, Intl Assocn of Energy Economists.
Andrew McKillop is an energy economist and consultant who recently edited a book for Pluto Books,
ISBN 0745320929, title 'The Final Energy Crisis' including articles by Colin Campbell and Edward R
D Goldsmith. He has held posts in national, international and supranational (Euro Commission)
energy, and energy policy divisions and agencies. These missions have for example included role of
Energy policy coordinator, Dept Minerals & Energy, Govt of Papua NG, advisory and management at
the AREC technology transfer subsidiary of OAPEC, Kuwait, study missions at the ILO and UNDP, in-
house consulting to the Hydro & Power Authority of British Columbia, Canada, seminar presentations
at the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, study and technology review at the Canada
Science Council, and elsewhere. Andrew McKillop is a regular contributor to many specialist oil and
energy Web sites. He was first energy editor of the journal 'The Ecologist' and has published works
with other analysts, e.g. 'Oil Crisis and Economic Adjustment', Pinter Publishing, with Dr Salah al-
Shaikhly, currently the Interim Iraqi government's Ambassador to London. Andrew McKillop is actively
seeking research, consulting or writing missions at this time.) “Cheap oil myth and energy transition”
June 3, 2003
“Record economic growth and high oil prices. The US economy attained it highest-ever post-war
growth of real GDP, achieving what today would be the completely unthinkable rate of 7.5%. In the
Reagan re-election year of 1984, before inflation adjustment, the economic growth number was about
10.75%. In the whole postwar period, from 1945-2003, the US has never exceeded that rate of growth.
At the time, in dollars of 2003, the oil price was around $60/barrel. Those well-publicized economists
and journalists who claim that “high oil prices hurt growth” must explain this simple fact of US
economic history, or abandon their constant call for cheap oil as the ‘passport to growth.’ …The
revenue impact of increased oil and energy prices, entraining higher earnings for exporters of energy-
intense commodities, can rapidly improve the prospects for growth in the straight majority of the
world’s economies.”
SOLVENCY
COAL PRODUCTION
1. US has passed peak coal production

Dr. Werner Zittel(PhD, Physics; Technical University of Darmstadt; Max Planck Institute for Quantum
Optics; Consultant, L-B-Systemtechnik[LBS]; LBS is a Munich-based consulting company specialising
in sustainable energy and transport strategies. L-B-S is a founding member of the European Business
Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (www.e5.org), a business NGO which promotes compliance
with the Kyoto protocol and lobbies in support of climate-friendly technologies and policies at climate
negotiations) and Jorg Schindler(Managing Director, LBS; Diplokaufmann, Business Economics,
University of Munich; With LBST he was involved with projects addressing the following topics:
Studies on renewable energy sources; Studies on alternative fuels and propulsion systems for
transport; Life-cycle analyses; Studies on future availability of fossil and nuclear energy sources;
Energy scenarios. ) “Coal: Resources and Future Production” March 2007 ENERGY WATCH
GROUP http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-
2007ms.pdf
The USA, being the second largest producer, already passed peak production of high quality coal in
1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more
than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend
can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower
energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy already peaked 5 years
ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner has been
declining since about 2000.
2. The US is facing coal production difficulties

2007ms.pdf
Second to China, the United States of America are the next important producer, surpassing the
production volume of the next important producer states (India and Australia) almost by a factor of
three. The reported proved reserves would allow production for more than 200 years at the present
level. However, probably not all these reserves will be converted into production volumes, as most of
them are of low quality with high sulfur content or have other restrictions. Early signs in the USA for
possible restrictions of future coal production can be concluded from the facts, that
(1) The productivity of mines in terms of produced tons per miner was steadily increasing until
2000, but has declined since then, and that
(2) The bituminous coal production had already peaked around 1990 and is in decline now.
(3) An indication of imminent problems with future coal production is that the USA has recently
switched from a net exporting to a net importing country of steam coal (Kalavov 2007).
3. Montana Coal production faces resource, environmental, political, and economical barriers
2007ms.pdf
Also the production of Montana will probably decline or at best grow only slightly – over the last 20
years it has more or less remained at around 40 Kt/yr. This would be in line with the small reserves at
producing mines. But why are the huge estimated recoverable reserves in non-producing areas not
used? Possible reasons are as follows. Open pit coal mining in
Montana is already causing severe environmental burdens. The subbituminous coal is of poor quality
because of its high sodium content. Mining causes severe contamination of soils and groundwater. Only
2% of the exististing mines have been reclaimed as yet. Therefore the approval of new mines is
politically very controversial (no new surface mines have been
approved in the last 20 years) and is in direct conflict with farming interests (the Montana economy
relies heavily on cattle farming) and environmental goals. In the decade between 1978 and 1988 more
than 40 new surface mines were approved. But since then no further permit for a surface mine has been
given. The last permits for new underground mines were given in 2003, 1994 and 1979. However,
underground mines are considerably smaller than surface mines (EIA 1998-2006), (Montana 1998).
4. Coal Producing states are facing lower production rates

2007ms.pdf
Other federal states with low production rates relative to their reported reserves and resources are
Illinois, Ohio, West Kentucky and Montana. It is very likely that their production will further decline
continuing the trend of the last 20 years. The production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% and in
West Kentucky by 40% over the last 20 years and it seems unlikely that these trends will reverse.
COAL EXPANSION
1. Coal expansion faces enormous logistical and technical costs

2007ms.pdf
There is also the problem of finding customers for a significant increase in coal production. Either the
coal would have to be transported over long distances to the urban centers in the east of the US (and
also existing power stations would have to be adapted to the poor coal quality) or electricity would
have to be generated locally and then transported to the locations of demand. In both cases huge and
expensive new infrastructures (either railways or local power stations in combination with long
distance power lines) would have to be built. It is not obvious how this is going to happen any time
soon. Another reason for the small contribution of Montana might be the low productivity compared
with Wyoming.
COAL RESERVES
1. Coal reserves may not translate into production

2007ms.pdf
To summarize the analysis: Three federal states (Montana, Illinois, and Wyoming) own more than 60%
of the US coal reserves. Over the last 20 years two of these three states (Montana and Illinois) have
been producing at remarkably low levels in relation to their reported reserves. Moreover, the
production in Montana has remained constant for the last 10 years
and the production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on the
significance of their reported reserves. Even if these estimated recoverable reserves (according to EIA)
or proved reserves (according to BP) do exist, there must be other reasons which have prevented their
extraction. In Illinois the reason might be the high sulphur
content of the coal. The possible reasons relating to Montana have been discussed above. Therefore it is
very uncertain whether these reserves will ever be converted into produced volumes. Considering the
insights of the regional analysis it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US has already
peaked, and that total (volumetric) coal production will
peak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will be
lower, only about 20% above today’s level.
2. Coal reserves will last us less than 50 years

Natural Resources Defense Council “Limit to Producing ‘Cheap’ Coal Makes Liquid Coal Plans
Unworkable” March 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdf
Even if producers could supply enough coal to meet the demands of the liquid coal industry there are
concerns about the long-term potential of domestic coal supplies. The coal industry has gone to great
lengths to persuade the American consumer that coal is our best and only “cheap” long-term energy
solution. However, the 250 years of supply figure they have been using to support this statement comes
from a report written more than 35 years ago; more recent research on our coal reserves suggests that
we would exhaust our economically recoverable coal reserves much sooner.
According to a National Academy of Sciences report from 2007, which considers important
factors like rising coal production and consumption rates, transportation costs, and other environmental
and economic considerations, amount of coal that can produced and sold at a profit at current prices
would meet the nation’s energy needs for only the next 100 years.1 While 100 years of supply might
still sound like a long time, that number could fall to just 75 years if we take into account the 0.8
percent rise per year in coal consumption predicted by the EIA, and to just 50 years if the liquid coal
industry were meeting its production targets.
1 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11977
CTL EMISSIONS
1. Liquid coal, at best, produces just as much CO2 as traditional fossil fuels
Alexis Madrigal(Staff Writer; Green-Tech Writer) “Bad News: Scientists Make Cheap Gas From Coal”
March 26, 2009 WIRED SCIENCE http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/
The new process could cut the energy cost of producing the fuel by 20 percent just by rejiggering the
intermediate chemical steps, said co-author Ben Glasser of the University of the Witwatersrand in
Johannesburg, South Africa. But coal-derived fuel could produce as much as twice as much CO2 as
traditional petroleum fuels and at best will emit at least as much of the greenhouse gas.
"The bottom line is that there’s one fatal flaw in their proposed process from a climate protection
standpoint," Pushker Karecha of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote in an e-mail to
Wired.com. "It would allow liquid fuel CO2 emissions to continue increasing indefinitely."
2. Coal-to-liquid is horribly inefficient

Kentuckians for the Common Wealth( ) “Environmental Impact of Coal to Liquid Technology”
December 2007 KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMON WEALTH http://www.kftc.org/our-
work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/coal-to-liquid-fuel/environmental-impact-of-coal-to-liquid-
technology
Burning fossil fuels for transportation purposes is the source of 40% of all carbon dioxide (the major
contributor to global warming) emissions worldwide. That makes it urgently important to increase the
efficiency of our cars, trucks, planes, trains, and boats in order to curb global warming.
But coal-based fuel generates twice as much carbon dioxide as petroleum-based diesel fuel. That’s
because so much carbon dioxide is released in during the process of creating the fuel from coal (one ton
of carbon pollution for every barrel of fuel produced). Even if the technology someday develops to
capture and store carbon dioxide on a commercial scale, using liquid coal would still produce 8% more
carbon dioxide than current fuel. But it is important to understand that industry engineers estimate that
such technology is at least 25 years away, if it is feasible at all.
3. CTL is not even as efficient as gasoline

Ben Dunham(Staff Attorney, US Public Interest Research Group, and environmental advocacy group)
“Liquid Coal: More Global Warming Pollution at Taxpayers’ Expense” May 2007 US PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP http://www.dcourage.com/PIRGLiquidCoalFactSheet6%2007.pdf
Converting coal into fuel is an inefficient process that requires huge inputs of both coal and energy. As
a result, coal-to-liquid fuels produce twice as much carbon dioxide—the primary global warming
pollutant—as regular gasoline.1
The following chart, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, shows how replacing
traditional gasoline with an energy-equivalent amount of alternative fuels would affect lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide). Whereas replacing gasoline
with cellulosic ethanol would reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 91%, coal-to-liquid fuel
would increase lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by more than 118% if the carbon is not captured and
stored.2
As the chart also shows, even if we could capture and store the carbon released while
converting coal to liquid, liquid coal would still release more global warming pollution than regular
gasoline. Moreover, carbon capture and storage—also known as sequestration—is not a silver bullet. It
is a nascent and unproven technology that alone will not achieve the emissions reductions we need to
avoid the worst effects of global warming.
4. CTL fueled cars would be comparable to a lifetime of gasoline guzzling Hummers
Ann Bordetsky(Policy Analyst, NRDC; graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Honors, Environmental Science, Policy, and
Management Department of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley; Biotech intern, Bayer Pharmaceuticals;
Biotech Intern, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education Grant Evaluator, Environmental Protection
Agency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, Outdoor Connection,
environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law Society;
President, Honor Students' Society), Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDC Washington
Bureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in the international
program at the Natural Resources Defense Council office in Washington, D.C; JD, University of Virginia), Deron
Lavaas(Federal Transportation Policy Director, NRDC; Member, Board of 2020 Vision, energy and security group; Chair,
Air Quality Public Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region; National Wildlife Federation; Sierra Club;
Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate Policy Specialist, NRDC;
Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD, International and
Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, Public International Law
and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International Program, NRDC; Senate
Foreign Relations Committee), Bob Randall(Former Executive Director, Urban Harvest Inc; Independent
Environmental Services Professional), and Dan Woynillowicz(Director of Strategy and External Relations,
Pembina Institute; Social Science and Humanities Research Council Scholar; Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute; ) “Driving It
Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future” June 2007 A Joint Report
by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental Action Group),
Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization), and the
Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch – WorldCat Research Database)
The global warming pollution burden of a liquid coal industry would pose a serious
threat to our ability to achieve the 80 percent reduction in heat-trapping
emissions that scientists advise is necessary to prevent catastrophic global
warming. Over the full well-to-wheels production cycle, liquid coal fuel results in
about 50 pounds of CO2 emissions per gallon—nearly double the emissions from
crude oil production—assuming the CO2 emissions are released into the
atmosphere.144 A doubling of CO2 emissions in the fuel system compared with
gasoline today means that running a hybrid vehicle on
liquid coal fuels would result in as much pollution on a lifecycle basis as running a
Hummer on gasoline.
2 EPA, “Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use,” fact sheet, EPA420-F-07-035, April 2007.
5. Even with Carbon Capture, CTL is more polluting than oil
Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future” June 2007 A Joint Report
The U.S. EPA found that even if carbon capture and disposal technology is used to
permanently capture and store 85 percent of the emissions at the production
stage, liquid coal fuel would still result in 4 percent more well-to- wheels CO2
emissions compared with gasoline. And an additional analysis conducted by the
Department of Energy has shown that well-to-wheel liquid coal emissions with 85
percent carbon capture and storage could be as much as 19 to 25 percent higher
than conventional gasoline/diesel.145 That’s because some emissions will escape
at the production end and additional CO2 will be
emitted at the tailpipe that cannot be captured. No matter how you do the math,
liquid coal does not add up to the sustainably made, low-carbon fuel that we will
need in order to solve global warming and protect the health of our lands, air, and
water. In fact, we can easily achieve the level of oil savings liquid coal proponents
are promising, and more, by simply improving the fuel economy of our cars and
trucks.
6. Coal Transport contributes to global warming and PM emissions
June 2007 A Joint Report
Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future”
Finally, the transport of coal from where it is mined to where it will be burned also
produces significant quantities of air pollution and other environmental harms.
Diesel-burning trucks, trains, and barges that transport coal release NOx, SOx,
PM, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), CO, and CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere.
Trucks and trains transporting coal release more than 600,000 tons of NOx and
more than 50,000 tons of PM10 into the air annually.141, 142 In addition to
causing serious health risks, black carbon from diesel combustion is another
contributor to global warming.143
7. CTL produces twice the greenhouse gases that oil does

“Worse than Gasoline” August 2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 297 Issue 2, p32-32, 1p (Accessed
via EBSCOhost)
The conversion technology is well established (the Germans used it during World War II), and liquid
coal can power conventional diesel cars and trucks as well as jet engines and ships. Coal industry
executives contend that it can compete against gasoline if oil prices are $50 a barrel or higher. But
liquid coal comes with substantial environmental and economic negatives. On the environmental side,
the polluting properties of coal--starting with mining and lasting long after burning and the large
amounts of energy required to liquefy it mean that liquid coal produces more than twice the global
warming emissions as regular gasoline and almost double those of ordinary diesel. As pundits have
pointed out, driving a Prius on liquid coal makes it as dirty as a Hummer on regular gasoline.
8. Even with (untested) carbon sequestration tech, CTL would pollute more than oil
via EBSCOhost)
One ton of coal produces only two barrels of fuel. In addition to the carbon dioxide
emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of
carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Which is to say, one ton of coal in,
more than two tons of carbon dioxide out. Congressional and industry proponents
of coal-to-liquid plants argue that the same technologies that may someday
capture and store emissions from coal-fired plants will also be available to coal-to-
liquid plants. But even if the carbon released during production were somehow
captured and sequestered--a technology that remains unproven at any
meaningful scale--some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8
percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline.
CTL UNFEASIBLE
1. CTL is economically unfeasible right now

Natural Resources Defense Council “Limit to Producing ‘Cheap’ Coal Makes Liquid Coal Plans
Unworkable” March 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/unworkable.pdf
For liquid coal to be competitive in the market, and for it to make economic sense to invest in a liquid
coal plant, oil prices need to be above $95 per barrel. Recent fluctuations in the price of oil make clear
that relying on oil to remain at or near a given price is extremely risky. Even if the liquid coal industry
were able to remain competitive against oil, achieving production targets of 300,000 barrels per day of
liquid coal by 2015 would require an additional 58 million tons of coal annually. Such an increase in
demand would require the United States either to import 30 million tons of coal in 2015 or raise prices
enough to make it profitable to mine the harderto- reach domestic coal.3
Given last year’s spike in coal prices—caused primarily by a 20 million ton increase in coal
exports—it is unlikely that domestic coal suppliers could cover such a large increase in coal demand at
a reasonable cost. The higher cost of coal would not only affect the economics of producing liquid coal,
but it would also affect the cost of producing electricity from coal, which is already becoming less
competitive when compared to natural gas due to recent declines in natural gas prices.
2. Necessary measures to make CTL possible (Aff don't got 'em)

National Mining Association “Liquid Fuels from Liquid Coal” October 5, 2005 NATIONAL MINING
ASSOCIATION http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf [Brackets Added]
What is Needed to Make it[CTL] Happen in the U.S.?

Although existing impediments to wide scale deployment of coal-to-liquids technologies are
challenging, all can be mitigated or eliminated through concerted and focused efforts by government
and industry and with public support. For example:
Construction of new coal-to-liquids capacity can be made more attractive with incentives, such
as streamlining the permitting process; offering federal loan guarantees to cover construction costs;
providing federal financing to pay charges incurred through permitting delays; and offering price
guarantees, or providing a price floor, for refinery output.
Tax incentives, such as federal investment tax credits, fuel excise tax exemptions or accelerated
3 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Early Release Overview,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html#production.
depreciation could be used to reduce risk and assist commercial development.
Siting issues can be mitigated by maximizing retrofit opportunities at existing coal-based
power plants or by placing refineries on closed military bases or abandoned industrial or mine sites.
State/federal government partnership consortiums
3. There are 4 specific technology gaps that need to be filled. Aff doesn't solve
Dr. James T Bartis(Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation; PhD, Chemical Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Former Employees, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of
Energy; Former Director, Divisions of Fossil Energy and the Environment, Department of Energy;
Former Member, Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Trade Policy Matters, Secretary of
Commerce and US Trade Representative; Former Vice-President, Applications International
Corporation; Former Vice-President, Co-founder, Eos Technologies) “Policy Issues for Coal-to-Liquid
Development” June 2007 ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE RAND CORPORATION
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.1.pdf
Question [from Senatior Craig Thomas (R-WY)] 15. What specific technology gaps need to be closed
by DOE and private industry working together to reduce the technical and economic risk of coal-
derived fuel plants?
Answer 15. In my testimony, I listed four important measures that the federal government can take, in
cooperation with industry, to reduce the uncertainties in the costs and performance of coal-derived fuel
plants. The first of these measures is to cost-share in the development of a few site-specific front-end
engineering designs of commercial plants based on coal or a combination of coal and biomass. The
second is to foster early commercial experience by firms with the technical, financial, and management
wherewithal to successfully bring a project to fruition and most importantly to capture and exploit the
learning that will accompany actual operations. The third of these measures is to conduct multiple
demonstrations and, by way of such demonstrations, develop the regulatory framework required for a
commercial sequestration industry. And the fourth of these measures is to support research,
development, testing and evaluation of concepts for integrating coal and biomass for the production of
liquid fuels. An early low-risk, high-payoff opportunity in this last area is the construction and
operation of test rigs and/or pilot plants for evaluating the performance subsystems for co-feeding coal
and biomass into entrained-flow gasifiers.
4. The economics of CTL deny it the chance to help reduce our oil dependence, or CO2 emissions
Agency; Assistant Congressional Liaison, Office of Planning and Public Affairs; Participated extensively, Outdoor
Connection, environmental education program for Berkeley school children; Berkeley Model United Nations; Cal Pre-Law
Society; President, Honor Students' Society), Dr. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz(Senior Attorney, NRDC
Washington Bureau; Public interest environmental lawyer; Directed the Canada program as a senior attorney in the
international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council office in Washington, D.C; JD, University of Virginia),
Deron Lavaas(Federal Transportation Policy Director, NRDC; Member, Board of 2020 Vision, energy and security
group; Chair, Air Quality Public Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region; National Wildlife Federation;
Sierra Club; Maryland's Department of Environment), Elizabeth Martin-Perera(Former Climate Policy
Specialist, NRDC; Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists), Melanie Nakagawa(JD,
International and Environmental Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Senior Research Associate, Public
International Law and Policy Group; Peace Fellow, Public International Law and Policy Group; Attorney, International
Program, NRDC; Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Bob Randall(Former Executive Director, Urban Harvest Inc;
Independent Environmental Services Professional), and Dan Woynillowicz(Director of Strategy and External
Relations, Pembina Institute; Social Science and Humanities Research Council Scholar; Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute; )
June 2007 A Joint
“Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future”
Report by: The Natural Resources Defense Council(National Environmental Action
Group), Western Resource Advocates(Non-profit Environmental Law and Policy Organization), and
the Pembina Institute(Canada Sustainable Energy Think Tank). Published by the NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL (Accessed via FirstSearch – WorldCat Research Database)
Liquid coal plants, like many coal-related infrastructure projects, are capital
intensive. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the production
costs of liquid coal to be approximately $50 dollars a barrel.147 It may be a
bargain on paper, but these economics do not sufficiently capture the upfront
capital costs of construction, the risks associated with long lead times, the
enormous environmental costs of liquid coal production, or the industry’s
competitiveness under future economy-wide limits on global warming pollution.
It’s a bad deal for the environment and for taxpayers, and it would siphon off
funding needed for efficiency, renewables, and other low-carbon technologies that
can do both: reduce our
dependence on oil and solve global warming.
5. Economic, social, and environmental faults of CTL prevent it from being a sound alternative
fuel option
June 2007 A Joint
Using liquid coal to produce a significant amount of transportation fuel would

harm communities and the environment in coal-producing regions, as well as
exacerbate global warming pollution nationwide. The considerable economic,
social, and environmental drawbacks of liquid coal preclude it from being a sound
alternative fuel option. Therefore, the United States should not launch a liquid coal
industry, and private capital and public investment should not be wasted on a
dirty technology of the past that is not compatible with solving global warming
and creating a truly clean and secure energy future.
PRICES
1. CTL is difficult
National Mining Association “Liquid Fuels from Liquid Coal” October 5, 2005 NATIONAL MINING
ASSOCIATION http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf
One reason is the historic sharp volatility of oil prices – if the price of oil stays above $35 per barrel, a
coal refinery makes economic sense. If it drops below that figure, as it has in the past (see graph at
right), there is no assurance a coal refinery can remain competitive, posing a substantial risk for
investors.
Secondly, the front end cost is high – coal refineries are expensive to construct, with capital
costs in the $600-million-to-$700-million range for a 10,000 barrel per day plant, according to FT
Solutions LLC. The technical and financial risks of a “first of a kind” plant in the United States have
discouraged consideration of this type of investment in the past.
2. CTL will cost pretty much the same as oil, possibly more
Hari Chandan Mantripragada(Doctoral Student, Department of Engineering and Public Policy;,
Carnegie-Mellon University; MA and BA in Technology, Energy Systems Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Bombay) and Dr. Edward S. Rubin(Professor, Engineering and Public Policy,
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University; Professor, Mechanical
Engineering, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University; Alumni
Professor, Environmental Engineering and Science, Department of Engineering and Public Policy,
Carnegie-Mellon University; PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University) “CO2 Reduction
Potential of Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) Plants” 2009 SCIENCE DIRECT http://www.iecm-
online.com/PDF%20files/2009/2009d%20Mantripragada%20GHGT-9.pdf
For a 50,000 barrel/day liquids-only CTL plant using bituminous Illinois#6 coal, capital cost is
estimated to be $ 90,300 per daily barrel and the cost of product liquid is about $77/barrel. With the
addition of CCS, capital cost increases to about $91,600 per daily barrel and the output cost increases
to about $83/barrel. CCS is more cost effective than paying a carbon tax of as low as $12/ton CO2.
Considering the effects of uncertainties, the 90% confidence interval of output cost is $55 - $97/barrel
for a plant without CCS and $62 - $105/barrel for a plant with CCS.
STANDARDS
1. Affirmative standards make CTL impossible, CTL advocacy groups say

Glenn Hurowitz(Washington Director, Avoided Deforestation Partners; Political Activist; Associate
Director, WILD PAC, an environmental political action committee) “Flirting with Liquid Coal” June
26, 2007 THE AMERICAN PROSPECT http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108
"Imposing an unrealistic standard that specifically requires both a 20 percent lifecycle reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions and an 85 percent capture of greenhouse gas emissions would all but end any
chance America has of using CTL fuels to reverse our growing reliance on foreign energy," the Coal to
Liquids coalition wrote to New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman. "A '20/85' standard would require the
use of technologies that have never been fully demonstrated and would make it virtually impossible to
secure the financing needed to construct the first fleet of domestic CTL plants."
This was an admission that all their grand promises about the potential of "clean" coal -- including their
testimony to the Finance subcommittee -- were just plain lies. Even with $10 billion in low-interest
taxpayer loans, and $200 million in subsidies, they doubt their own ability to actually make coal clean.
The switcharoo didn't bother pro-coal Republicans, however, who followed in lockstep with the
industry and voted against the Tester amendment.
DA #1 – EARTHQUAKES
1. Coal mining causes earthquakes

Noah Barkin(Journalist) “Mining Sets off Earthquake in West Germany” February 24, 2008
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2465800820080224
A mild earthquake caused by coal mining shook the western German state of Saarland on Saturday,
causing damage to buildings but no injuries.
A police spokesman in the Saarlouis region on the French border said the earthquake measured 4.0 on
the Richter scale, the strongest on record in the area, and had knocked over chimneys and caused
electricity outages.
After the quake, roughly 1,000 demonstrators gathered near the epicenter in Saarwellingen, police said,
to demand an end to mining work which has sparked dozens of small tremors this year alone.
DA #2 – CLIMATE CHANGE
Link: Aff plan increases CTL, and therefor Coal Mining
A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%
Sierra Club(For over a century the Sierra Club has been devoted to the conservation of our forests,
mountains, rivers, coasts and other natural areas) “Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming”
April 2007 http://maine.sierraclub.org/energy_liquid_coal.htm
Beyond water problems, liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal that would limit the amount of fuel that
could be produced. If we were to replace only 10 percent of our nation’s transportation fuels with liquid
coal we would have to increase coal mining by over 40 percent.6 Coal mining in our country already
relies on destructive techniques, like mountaintop removal mining. Destructive mining practices put
communities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanently
reshaping and damaging the ecosystem and landscape. And, despite industry claims to the contrary,
reclamation of coal mines and clean up of coal wastes only lead to other environmental problems.
An increase of coal mining on a scale this large would also jeopardize the long-term prospects
for coal, including its use as a source of about half our electricity. Doubling or tripling our use of coal
would quickly deplete our reserves.
Uniqueness: CTL pollutes!
1. CTL will ruin climate change gains

Alexis Madrigal(Staff Writer; Green-Tech Writer) “Bad News: Scientists Make Cheap Gas From Coal”
March 26, 2009 WIRED SCIENCE http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids/
Even with the small efficiency gains, a large, domestic, carbon-intensive source of transportation fuel
would throw a wrench into many plans to reduce emissions from vehicles.
"What they’re proposing is simply not allowable if we want to avoid the perils of unconstrained
anthropogenic climate change," Karecha said.
2. CTL is twice as polluting as fossil fuel

To assess the global warming implications of a large liquid coal program, we need to examine the total
life cycle, or “well-to-wheel”, emissions of these new fuels. Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing
almost double the amount of carbon
per unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 20 percent more than petroleum.
Proponents of coal-derived liquids claim they are “clean” because the fuel is sulfur-free, but
when coal is converted to transportation fuel, two streams of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced: one
at liquid coal production plants and one from exhaust pipes of the vehicles that burn the fuel. Emissions
from liquid coal production plants are much higher than those from producing and refining crude oil to
produce gasoline, diesel, and other transportation fuels; emissions from vehicles are about the same.
The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27
pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If the CO2 from the liquid coal plant is released into the atmosphere,
based on available information about
liquid coal plants being proposed, the total well-to-wheels CO2 emissions from coal-derived fuel would
be about 50 pounds of CO2 per gallon—nearly twice as high. Introducing a new fuel system that
doubles the current CO2 emissions of our
crude oil system is clearly at odds with our need to reduce global warming emissions.
3. Even with carbon capture, CTL is worse than current energy systems
If the CO2 from liquid coal plants is captured instead of being released into the atmosphere, then well-
to-wheels CO2 emissions would be reduced some but would still be higher than emissions from today’s
crude oil system. Even capturing 90 percent of the emissions from liquid coal plants leaves emissions
at levels somewhat higher than those from petroleum production and refining; emissions from the
vehicle using the coal-derived liquid fuels are equivalent to those from a gasoline vehicle. As a result,
with CO2 capture well-to-wheels emissions from coal-derived liquids fuels would be 8 percent higher
than for petroleum. Since policies to cut CO2 emissions are inevitable, proceeding with liquid coal
plants now would leave investments stranded or impose unnecessarily high abatement costs on the
economy.
In summary, using coal to produce a significant amount of transportation fuel would harm
communities and the environment in coal producing regions and is incompatible with solving global
warming.
4. CTL is twice as dirty as petroleum

Natural Resources Defense Council “Repower America with Clean Energy: Don’t Choose Dirty Fuels
such as Tar Sands, Oil Shale or Liquid Coal” February 2009 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/dirtyfuels_a.pdf
Liquid coal produces nearly double the lifecycle global warming pollution as conventional
petroleum fuels. This doubling of emissions means that running a hybrid vehicle on liquid coal would
result in as much pollution as running a Hummer on gasoline. Advocates propose managing these
emissions through carbon capture and storage (CCS). This is not a viable option since CCS does not
improve tailpipe emissions. At best it would produce fuels as dirty as petroleum. At this time when we
must significantly reduce transportation sector emissions. We will not achieve our climate objectives if
we squander limited resources on technologies that are no better-and potentially much worse than
today’s.
5. The cost and time of plan would undercut necessary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
via EBSCOhost)
The country would be spending billions in loans, tax incentives and price guarantees to lock in a
technology that produces more greenhouse gases than gasoline does. This is unacceptable at a time
when leading scientists from all over the world are warning that greenhouse gases must be cut by at
least 60 percent over the next half a century to avert the worst to consequences of global warming.
Instead of spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting industry, we should be investing in
efficiency and in renewable energy technologies that can help us constrain global warming today.
6. Liquid coal impacts would be wide-spread
“Driving It Home: Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America's Transportation Future” June 2007 A Joint
The primary way that coal can be converted into a petroleum-like product is by
breaking it down into basic molecules that can be reassembled to form a liquid
fuel. This process requires a lot of energy—energy that is likely to come mostly, if
not entirely, from burning coal—and large amounts of water in regions with scarce
water resources. The damaging impacts of liquid coal would be widespread, from
the local community around the mine to the health of our global climate.
7. Increased coal usage would destroy any global warming gains, creating pollution coal plants
for decades to come
June 2007 A Joint
Replacing oil with liquid coal would impact our carbon footprint for many decades
to come. By industry’s own estimates, displacing just 10 percent of our total oil
demand with liquid coal fuels would require a 42 percent increase of coal mining
in the United States—an additional 475 million tons a year. Given the limited
capacity of liquid coal plants being considered today, building a large-scale liquid
coal industry would require the construction of hundreds of new emissions-
spewing
coal plants in communities across the country. These plants, like conventional coal
plants, would have a lifetime of 50 to 60 years, adding substantially to the
pollution burden of future generations.
Impact: Climate Change laundry list
Health & natural disasters
United Nations Environment Programme “How Will Global Warming Affect My World?” November
2003 http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guide-E.pdf
The increased frequency and intensity of heat waves could lead to more deaths and serious illnesses,
especially amongst the elderly and urban poor. Hotter conditions would be exacerbated by greater
humidity and urban air pollution. Studies suggest that a number of US cities would experience an
average of several hundred extra deaths each summer. More frequent and intense storms, floods,
droughts and cyclones will also harm human health. These natural hazards can lead directly to death,
injury and mental stress. Indirect effects would result from the loss of shelter, contamination of water
supplies, reduced food supplies, heightened risk of infectious disease epidemics (such as diarrhea and
respiratory disease), damage to health services infrastructure and the displacement of people. In recent
years, major climate-related disasters have had serious consequences for human health, including
Hurricane Mitch, which devastated Central America in 1998, as well as floods in China, Bangladesh,
Europe, Venezuela and Mozambique.
DA #3 – COAL MINING
Link: Coal Mining Increase
A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%
Beyond water problems, liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal that would limit the amount of fuel that
could be produced. If we were to replace only 10 percent of our nation’s transportation fuels with liquid
coal we would have to increase coal mining by over 40 percent.6 Coal mining in our country already
relies on destructive techniques, like mountaintop removal mining. Destructive mining practices put
communities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanently
reshaping and damaging the ecosystem and landscape. And, despite industry claims to the contrary,
reclamation of coal mines and clean up of coal wastes only lead to other environmental problems.
An increase of coal mining on a scale this large would also jeopardize the long-term prospects for coal,
including its use as a source of about half our electricity. Doubling or tripling our use of coal would
quickly deplete our reserves.
Impact #1 – Environmental Degradation
1. Liquid coal would increase the environmental disasters of coal mining

Large-scale deployment of liquid coal plants would cause a significant increase in the amount of coal
mining and its harmful effects. Coal mining creates hazardous and acidic waste, which can contaminate
groundwater. Strip mining,
a technique in which land and vegetation are stripped away by giant machines, not only damages
surfaces and permanently reshapes landscapes, but it also can destroy habitats and affect water tables.
The destructive practice of mountaintop removal to extract coal involves clear-cutting native hardwood
forests, using dynamite to blast away 800 to 1,000 feet of
mountaintop, and then dumping the debris into nearby valleys. And post-mining reclamation is
problematic at best. The increase in coal production anticipated for liquid coal plants using today’s
practices would increase harm to the environment and adversely affect many of the people who live
and work near coal mines.
2. Coal mining is environmentally unfriendly
Coal mining—and particularly surface or strip mining— poses one of the most significant threats to
terrestrial habitats in the United States. According to the same 2008 RAND study noted earlier,
achieving 3 million barrels per day of liquid coal production could require up to 50 percent more coal
mining above today’s levels. Forty-six western national parks are located within 10 miles of an
identified coal basin, and these parks could be significantly affected by future surface mining in the
region. In addition, the Appalachian region, which already is suffering from widespread destruction to
its forests, wildlife habitat, landscapes, watersheds, and communities from mountaintop removal coal
mining, would experience even more environmental and economic harm from this large increased
mining.
Impact 2: Good-bye Disney World (and other climate change related disasters)
Liquid Coal will flood Florida, Louisiana, and other areas
Glenn Hurowitz(Washington Director, Avoided Deforestation Partners; Political Activist; Associate

Director, WILD PAC, an environmental political action committee) “Flirting with Liquid Coal” June
26, 2007 THE AMERICAN PROSPECT http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/26/2108
Alas, there are a few problems. At the top of the list is the fact that turning solid coal into liquid fuel
requires massive inputs of energy. Indeed, liquid coal currently produces double the greenhouse gas
emissions that regular gasoline does. As the U.S. Public Interest Research Group's Ben Dunham noted
to the Prospect, global warming -- which technologies like liquid coal will only accelerate -- will
eventually melt some of the polar icecaps, leading to a 20 foot rise in sea levels inundating millions of
acres of land across the globe. "Liquid coal would lead to liquid Florida, liquid Louisiana, and liquid
low-lying areas around the world," Dunham said.
Impact 3: Devastated Human Health
Todd L Cherry(Professor, Department of Economics, Appalachian Energy Center, Appalachian State

University; Director, Center for Economics Research and Policy Analysis, Appalachian State
University; Interim Direcotr, Appalachian Energy Center, Appalachian State University) and Jason F.
Shogren(Stroock Distinguished Professor, Natural Resource Conservation and Management,
Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming; ) “The Social Cost of Coal: A Tale of
Market Failure and Market Solution” September 2002 CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL
http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/pdf/SocialCostofCoal-ATaleofMarketFailureandMarketSolution.pdf
Moving to a more thorough assessment of the external costs of the coal cycle, we
see that health effects associated with exposure to related pollution generate the
largest external cost. Data suggests the annual health effects from 7 million tons
of SO2 and NO2 are more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 incidents
of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5
million lost work days. Impact analysis at the EPA suggest the health and
environmental benefits from a one ton reduction of SO2 at $7,300, while the cost
is less than $1,000. Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Resources for the Future
(1994) confirm that mortality risks arise as the biggest component on the external
damages. All elements of the fuel cycle that increase the risks of premature death
create sizeable external costs, including ozone exposure, and train and truck
accidents. Estimates of the potential ecological impacts are unquantified because
of the lack of useful information on ecological dose-response functions. Since few
of the potential impact-pathways have sizeable external costs provides a reason
why researchers should focus on what is known and unknown about those impacts
that do have a big impact—like risks to human life and limb. It is not accurate to
simply add up external costs across the coal fuel cycle due to double counting of
costs, not considering all secondary impacts, the inability to reliably quantify
some impacts, estimating damages but not externalities, and finally, adding
independently measured willingness to pay estimates across different impacts
may overestimate total damages.
EXTENSION
1. Coal mining will destroy the Appalachian Mountain Region
Coal mining—and particularly surface or strip mining— poses one of the most
significant threats to terrestrial habitats in the United States. The Appalachian
region, for example, which produces more than 35 percent of our nation’s coal, is
one of the most biologically diverse forested regions in the country.127,128 But
surface mining clearcuts trees and fragments habitat, destroying natural areas
that were home to hundreds of unique species of plants, invertebrates,
salamanders, mussels, and fishes. The destruction of forested habitat not only
degrades the quality of the natural environment but also destroys the aesthetic
values that make the Appalachian region such a popular tourist destination. An
estimated 1 million acres of West Virginia mountains were subject to strip mining
or mountaintop removal mining between 1939 and 2005.129 Many of these mines
have yet to be reclaimed; where forested mountains once stood, there now stand
mounds of sand and gravel.
2. Coal mining devestates local ecosystems and environment
June 2007 A Joint
The terrestrial impacts of coal mining in the Appalachian region are thus
considerable. In the West, as in the east, surface mining activities severely
damage the landscape as huge machines strip and scrape aside vegetation, soil,
and wildlife habitat and adversely impact existing lands and the affected area’s
ecology.130 Strip mining results in industrialization of once-quiet open space
along with displacement of wildlife, increased soil erosion, loss of recreational
opportunities, degradation of wilderness values, and destruction of scenic
beauty.131 And reclamation can be problematic both because of climate and soil
quality. Reclamation of surface mined areas, where it does happen, does not
necessarily restore premining
wildlife habitat and may require scarce water resources be used for irrigation.132
Forty-six western national parks are located within 10 miles of an identified coal
basin, and these parks could be significantly affected by future surface mining in
the region.133
3. Mining will ruin rivers and their various habitats and ecosystems both physically and
chemically
The most significant physical effect on water occurs from valley fills, the method
of disposing of waste rock associated with mountaintop removal mining in
Appalachia. Since the early 1970s, more than 700 miles of streams in the east
have been buried by waste rock, and 1,200 additional miles have been directly
harmed through sedimentation or chemical alteration.134 Valley fills also bury the
headwaters of streams, which support diverse and unique habitats and regulate
nutrients, water quality, and flow quantity. The elimination of headwaters
therefore has long-reaching impacts many miles downstream.135
Together, the waterways harmed by valley fills are about 80 percent as long as
the Mississippi River.
4. Coal mining devastates stream and groundwater chemistry
Acid mine drainage is the most significant form of chemical pollution that can be
produced from coal mining operations. In both underground and surface mining,
sulfur-bearing minerals common in coal mining areas are brought up to the
surface in waste rock. When these minerals come in contact with precipitation and
groundwater, an acidic leachate is formed. This leachate picks up heavy metals
and carries these toxins into streams or groundwater. Waters affected by acid
mine drainage
often exhibit increased levels of sulfate, total dissolved solids, calcium, selenium,
magnesium, manganese, conductivity, acidity, sodium, nitrate, and nitrite. This
drastically changes stream and groundwater chemistry; the degraded water
becomes less habitable, non-potable, and unfit for recreational purposes.136 The
acidity and metals can also corrode structures such as culverts and bridges.137 In
the eastern United States, an estimated 4,000 to 11,000 miles of streams have
been polluted by acid mine drainage. In the West, estimates put the damage at
5,000 to 10,000 miles of streams.138
5. Coal mining releases greenhouse gases and Particulate Matter
The mining of coal also produces heat-trapping emissions and particulates. There
are two main sources of air pollution during the coal production process. The first
is methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas that is the most substantial contributor
to global warming after carbon dioxide. Methane emissions from coal mines
account for 10 percent to 15 percent of global warming pollution in the United
States. According to the most recent official inventory of U.S. global warming
emissions, coal mining results in the release of 3 million metric tons of methane
per year, which is equivalent to 68 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide.139 The second significant form of air pollution from coal mining
is particulate matter (PM) emissions. PM can cause serious respiratory damage
and even premature death.140
A2 “Mine Reclamation Solves”: MR doesn't restore to pre-mining conditions, and can require
scarce water resources
June 2007 A Joint
The terrestrial impacts of coal mining in the Appalachian region are thus
considerable. In the West, as in the east, surface mining activities severely
damage the landscape as huge machines strip and scrape aside vegetation, soil,
and wildlife habitat and adversely impact existing lands and the affected area’s
ecology.130 Strip mining results in industrialization of once-quiet open space
along with displacement of wildlife, increased soil erosion, loss of recreational
opportunities, degradation of wilderness values, and destruction of scenic
beauty.131 And reclamation can be problematic both because of climate and soil
quality. Reclamation of surface mined areas, where it does happen, does not
necessarily restore premining
wildlife habitat and may require scarce water resources be used for irrigation.132
Forty-six western national parks are located within 10 miles of an identified coal
basin, and these parks could be significantly affected by future surface mining in
the region.133
DA #4 – GOVERNMENT BAILOUT
1. Liquid coal would rely on government subsidies
Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. There are currently no operating liquid coal plants in the
U.S., which means this new industry would require huge government incentives to develop the
technology and build plants that would operate with a meaningful capacity. These incentives range
from subsidies to long-term purchasing contracts to price guarantees that eliminate any financial risk to
investors.
Estimates by the Department of Energy put the construction cost of each liquid coal plant at $7
billion in 2004.7 However, since then the costs of construction and materials have rapidly grown.
Additionally, these initial figures did not even factor in the costs of transportation, which have been
growing at an even faster rate. In other words, each plant would cost up to $100,000 for each barrel of
output per day at a plant.8 Alarmingly, these estimates also do not include estimates for mandatory
carbon capture and storage, which would only add to the
construction and operating costs for each plant. Taxpayers gambled on liquid coal synfuels once and
lost billions of dollars 30 years ago.
2. CTL Plants are highly expensive

Liquid coal facilities are expensive, requiring substantial taxpayer subsidies. According to a 2008
RAND study, a first generation liquid coal facility is estimated to cost $100,000 to $125,000 per barrel
of daily production capacity.4 Thus a
50,000 barrel per day facility might exceed $6 billion in capital costs. Failure under a variety of
scenarios would leave taxpayers with enormous stranded investments. Yet all of this risk supports very
little reward. The environmental disadvantages include:
3. CTL is expensive, and requires a government prop-up

Ben Dunham(Staff Attorney, US Public Interest Research Group, and environmental advocacy group)
“Liquid Coal: More Global Warming Pollution at Taxpayers’ Expense” May 2007 US PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP http://www.dcourage.com/PIRGLiquidCoalFactSheet6%2007.pdf
According to the Department of Energy, a plant producing 80,000 barrels of fuel a day – less than most
U.S. oil refineries – would cost more than $7 billion to build.5 In contrast, a new biodiesel plant costs
about one-sixth of the price of a coal-to-liquid plant per installed barrel of capacity. 6Industry
proponents also often fail to factor the cost of capturing carbon dioxide into their business plans and
rhetoric. The Stanford Group—an institutional investor research group—has warned investors to be
aware that “any large investment in [liquid coal] would need significant subsidies to offset
environmental costs.”7
As a result, the coal industry and its supporters in Congress want the U.S. government—and
therefore taxpayers—to provide long-term purchasing contracts, price guarantees, tax breaks, and
outright handouts to attract skeptical investors on Wall Street.8
4. CCS will make coal even more expensive

David Roberts(Staff Writer, Seattle Environmental Publication, Grist) “Blackout: Heinberg on
Dwindling Coal Reserves and the Siren Song of 'Clean Coal'” July 27, 2009 GRIST
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-27-blackout-heinberg-on-dwindling-coal-reserves-and-the-siren-
song-/
Industry insiders admit that CCS technology will not be developed, and costs reduced enough to
prompt widespread adoption, until 2035 at best. By then, if CCS becomes a primary climate strategy
4 James Bartis et al. Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal. RAND Corporation. 2008.
5 National Energy Technology Lab, “Economic Impacts of U.S. Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options,” July 8, 2006. DOE/NETL-2006-1237.
6 John M. Urbanchuk, “Contribution of the Biodiesel Industry to the Economy,” September 30, 2006.
7 Mark Clayton, “Coal in cars: great fuel or climate foe?,” The Christian Science Monitor, March 2, 2007.
8 See, for example, the Coal to Liquids Coalition website, http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/congress.asp/, detailing how the federal government
should financially underwrite new liquid coal plants.
and EWG-style analysis is correct, humanity will be in the grips of four interrelated costs and risks
associated with coal. Quoting Heinberg:
“ the need for substantial investment in new CCS technology;

higher coal prices and shortages due to depletion;
higher electricity generating costs due to the use of IGCC and CCS; and
lower electricity generation efficiencies due to the use of CCS, requiring more coal to
produce an equivalent amount of electricity.”
So at a time when supplies are declining, while commodity and transportation costs are rising, we’ll
need much more coal to get the same amount of electricity from a more expensive generation
technology. Surely you see the wisdom of the strategy.
[Richard Heinberg – Advisor, National Petroleum Council; Senior Fellow, Post Carbon Institute;
Professor, Culture, Ecology, and Sustainable Community, New College of California;
5. 10% CTL will cost $70 billion

via EBSCOhost)
Liquid coal is also a bad economic choice. Lawmakers from coal states are proposing that U.S.
taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for production plants, guarantee minimum
prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big purchases by the government for the next 25 years. Their
mantra is that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline. But no operating coal-to-liquid plants
exist in the U.S., and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate it will cost $70
billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. Some energy
experts worry that the scale of the incentives could lead to a repeat of the disastrous effort 30 years ago
to underwrite a synthetic fuels industry.
DA #5 - WATER
1. Water will be an important factor, either increasing amount lost, or decreasing efficiency
Dr. James T Bartis(Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation; PhD, Chemical Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Former Employees, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of
Energy; Former Director, Divisions of Fossil Energy and the Environment, Department of Energy;
Former Member, Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Trade Policy Matters, Secretary of
Commerce and US Trade Representative; Former Vice-President, Applications International
Corporation; Former Vice-President, Co-founder, Eos Technologies) “Policy Issues for Coal-to-Liquid
Development” June 2007 ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE RAND CORPORATION
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT281.1.pdf
RAND has conducted research on water consumption and production in Fischer- Tropsch plants that
use natural gas as a feedstock to produce liquid fuels. Based on this research, we estimate that at least
1.5 barrels of water would be consumed in a CTL plant for each barrel of liquid product produced. By
consumed, we mean water either used to make hydrogen or lost through evaporation. We assume that
no once-through cooling water is used. To obtain the minimum water usage, the plant would need to
install dry cooling towers and incorporate extensive measures to minimize water losses in the power
generation and oxygen production portions of the plant. The net result of designing such a plant would
be an increase in investment costs and a reduction in the operating efficiency of the plant. As a result,
such a plant would only be built in areas in which water, including suitable groundwater, was in very
limited supply.
In areas in which water is abundant, we anticipate that as much as 10 barrels of water would be
consumed in a CTL plant for each barrel of liquid product produced. Such a plant would likely use less
expensive evaporative cooling towers. The change from dry cooling towers to evaporative cooling
accounts for most of the additional water losses. The remaining losses are associated with less
recycling of process water.
For most CTL plants, the water consumption will fall between 1.5 and 7 barrels of water per
barrel of liquid product produced, with the actual amount depending on the cost, availability, and
quality of local water supplies.
2. CTL relies on large amounts of water

In addition to the serious implications of liquid coal for global warming, liquid coal would cause a
range of other environmental problems. More than 4 gallons of water are needed for every gallon of
transportation fuel produced, threatening our limited water supplies.5 The potential for water shortages
is even greater in the West where water is scarcer, and where unfortunately there has been a growing
interest in building coal-to-liquid plants.
GENERIC
1. Electricity stimulates social, physiological, and economical well-being

World Coal Institute “The Coal Resource – A Comprehensive Overview of Coal” March 2009
http://www.worldcoal.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/coal_resource_overview_of_coal_report
%2803_06_2009%29.pdf
Access to energy, and specifically electricity, is a driving force behind economic and social
development. Dependable and affordable access to electricity is essential for improving public health,
providing modern information and education services, and saving people from subsistence tasks, such
as gathering fuel. Around 2.4 billion people rely on primitive biomass fuels – such as wood, dung and
crop residues – for cooking and heating. Improving access to electricity and allowing people to move
away from the combustion of fuels in household fires would have a significant health impact. The
World Health Organisation has estimated that smoke from burning solid fuels indoors is responsible for
1.6 million deaths each year in the world’s poorest countries. Improving access to energy also supports
economic development:
>> Labour that would otherwise be spent collecting fuel is freed for more productive use, such
as in agricultural and manufacturing industries. This increases household income, labour supply and the
productive capacity of developing
economies.
>> The intensive collection of biomass for fuel for household consumption in many cases
degrades the productivity of agricultural land – through desertification (by removing trees) or through
depriving soil of nutrients (by collecting animal waste).
>> Inefficient combustion of unconventional fuels, especially in households without flues,
creates health complications. Moving households towards modern energy sources, such as electricity,
improves health and productivity.
>> The provision of household electricity provides for the use of modern appliances – such as
washing machines – and lighting which improves the productivity of home labour and frees time.
2. Energy is essential
World Coal Institute “The Coal Resource – A Comprehensive Overview of Coal” March 2009
http://www.worldcoal.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/coal_resource_overview_of_coal_report
%2803_06_2009%29.pdf
Energy is vital to human development. It is impossible to operate a factory, to run a shop, deliver goods
to consumers, or grow crops, for example, without some form of energy. Access to modern energy
services not only contributes to economic growth and household incomes but also to the improved
quality of life that comes with
better education and health services. Unless access to energy is improved, many of the world’s poorest
countries will remain trapped in a circle of poverty, social instability and under-development.

NEG Coal To Liquids CON

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEG Coal To Liquids CON

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SC Page 1 of 35

1. Liquid coal is not an option

1. OPEC realizes the need for reasonable prices

2. Cheap oil is harmful to the economy

3. Historically expensive oil is good for economies

6. Economies grow when the price of oil is high

Andrew McKillop(former: expert - policy and programming, Division A - Policy, DG XVII-Energy,

1. US has passed peak coal production

2. The US is facing coal production difficulties

4. Coal Producing states are facing lower production rates

1. Coal expansion faces enormous logistical and technical costs

1. Coal reserves may not translate into production

2. Coal reserves will last us less than 50 years

2. Coal-to-liquid is horribly inefficient

3. CTL is not even as efficient as gasoline

4. CTL fueled cars would be comparable to a lifetime of gasoline guzzling Hummers

6. Coal Transport contributes to global warming and PM emissions

7. CTL produces twice the greenhouse gases that oil does

1. CTL is economically unfeasible right now

2. Necessary measures to make CTL possible (Aff don't got 'em)

What is Needed to Make it[CTL] Happen in the U.S.?

Using liquid coal to produce a significant amount of transportation fuel would

1. Affirmative standards make CTL impossible, CTL advocacy groups say

1. Coal mining causes earthquakes

Link: Aff plan increases CTL, and therefor Coal Mining

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%

Uniqueness: CTL pollutes!

1. CTL will ruin climate change gains

2. CTL is twice as polluting as fossil fuel

4. CTL is twice as dirty as petroleum

6. Liquid coal impacts would be wide-spread

Impact: Climate Change laundry list

Health & natural disasters

Link: Coal Mining Increase

A 10% increase in CTL would have to increase coal mining by 40%

Impact #1 – Environmental Degradation

1. Liquid coal would increase the environmental disasters of coal mining

Liquid Coal will flood Florida, Louisiana, and other areas

Glenn Hurowitz(Washington Director, Avoided Deforestation Partners; Political Activist; Associate

Impact 3: Devastated Human Health

Todd L Cherry(Professor, Department of Economics, Appalachian Energy Center, Appalachian State

1. Coal mining will destroy the Appalachian Mountain Region

2. Coal mining devestates local ecosystems and environment

4. Coal mining devastates stream and groundwater chemistry

5. Coal mining releases greenhouse gases and Particulate Matter

1. Liquid coal would rely on government subsidies

2. CTL Plants are highly expensive

3. CTL is expensive, and requires a government prop-up

4. CCS will make coal even more expensive

“ the need for substantial investment in new CCS technology;

5. 10% CTL will cost $70 billion

2. CTL relies on large amounts of water

1. Electricity stimulates social, physiological, and economical well-being

You might also like