Energy crisis needs mix of solutions and resources

Lexington Herald Leader - Editorial

The challenge of meeting the nation's growing energy demand while minimizing the environmental impact of energy production is often compared to an ”Apollo Program,“ yet that analogy is probably insufficient to the scope of transforming the world economies away from fossil fuels.

In undertaking such a change, we must realize that all options for energy production are going to be necessary, particularly in the near term. To rule out anything, in particular the use of coal, is impractical. This is especially true for transportation fuels and chemicals derived from petroleum.

The United States consumes 20 million barrels of petroleum a day, roughly 60 percent of which is imported. Estimates of worldwide surplus production capacity are about 2 million barrels a day, almost all of which is in Saudi Arabia.

In the United States, consumption is predicted to drop by a few hundred thousand barrels a day due to increased fuel costs, while the developing nations are expected to see an increase in demand of nearly 1 million barrels a day.

As worldwide demand for oil continues to increase, in a few short years, the tightening petroleum supply may turn into a stranglehold on our economy and, worse, increase political instability around the world.

Coal-to-liquids technologies are not impractical. Economic considerations have been the primary reason for slow acceptance in the United States, not technical barriers. The processes are commercial in South Africa and China, and similar technologies (gas to liquids) are used in the Persian Gulf.

With the current costs of crude oil in the $115- to $130-a-barrel range, a coal-to-liquid plant capable of producing diesel at $55 a barrel becomes viable.

Yes, carbon constraints will require the development of improved technologies for dealing with the carbon dioxide from these processes. However, unlike existing combustion systems, coal-to-liquid plants produce carbon dioxide in a concentrated form, making it easier to capture, store and use. And, the use of biomass along with coal offers options for reducing the carbon footprint of coal-to-liquid fuels to levels at or below those of petroleum fuels while expanding the agricultural and forestry industries of Kentucky.

The technical challenges for carbon capture from a coal-to-liquid facility are no greater than are the equivalent technical barriers to using renewables. Renewable fuels from biomass are an appealing option that must be developed.

However, the perception that we can do this quickly or with existing technologies on a significant scale is inaccurate. Only now are the first demonstration projects on converting non-food crops to liquid fuels going into operation. Assuming that the technical challenges will be overcome quickly, a realistic upper estimate of economically competitive production levels of biofuels is 45 percent of gasoline and 8 percent of diesel now consumed in Kentucky.

That still leaves Kentucky importing the majority of its fuel, and coal-to-liquid technologies can fill a critical gap in meeting demand for diesel and jet fuels.

Increasing efficiency in all aspects of energy consumption must be a major focus of energy policy. Unfortunately, savings due to increased efficiency are likely to simply keep us even with demand growth.