"Congress loves coal"

The coal-to-liquid subsidy rush is one more sign that taxpayers will be the biggest losers in our current energy panic. Our politicians will even subsidize carbon-emitting coal in the name of reducing dependence on carbon-emitting but unsubsidized oil. The “alternative” fuels campaign is on its way to becoming the biggest corporate welfare scheme in U.S. History.

"Liquid coal a new version of snake oil: Don't subsidize energy plans that would worsen global warming"

The solutions to energy independence and global warming must go hand in hand. Liquid coal is not a solution; it’s an expensive distraction from dealing with both problems and reducing carbon output.

"Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle: A risky solution to America's energy woes"

Unfortunately, creating CTL, as it is known, is a very intensive process requiring coal, water and cash. To wean the United States off of just 1 million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water … large-scale and premature subsidies for this untested and environmentally risky technology may amount to nothing more than a big giveaway to Big Coal.

"No subsidy for a filthy fuel"

The effort to reduce U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil often overlaps with efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases of fossil fuels, since improved efficiency and renewable energy achieve both goals. But one proposal for replacing oil -- by using coal as a raw material to produce motor fuel -- has many advocates in Congress even though it would actually increase overall carbon dioxide emissions. In the energy bill now pending on Capitol Hill, Congress should reject any subsidies for liquefied coal.

"It's a Syn"

Soaring gasoline prices are prompting politicians on both sides of the aisle to contemplate a re–embrace of one of the worst financial boondoggles of the 1970s — synthetic fuels. Of course, the coal industry is smart enough to rebrand this technology, so the new term of art is ‘coal–to–liquids.’ While turning coal into oil (and then into gasoline) would be a wonderful idea if it could be done cost effectively, it can't — which is why the coal industry is banging on the federal door for lavish taxpayer subsidies.

"Fool's gold: Coal-fueled special session a waste of money"

The Bush administration may have been shamefully slow to join other countries in reversing the growth of the greenhouses gases, mainly carbon dioxide, that cause global warming. But the writing's on the wall. Even leaders of U.S. industry and electrical utilities are urging the government to set carbon limits so they can know what to expect and begin planning. We're moving toward a low carbon future.

And that future will not include powering vehicles on liquid coal, a process that would produce as much carbon dioxide as burning petroleum […] Kentucky lawmakers should never saddle taxpayers with this white elephant -- and there's certainly no need to spend $60,000 a day on a special session.

"Our view on energy woes: Put brakes on pricey plans to convert coal to car fuel"

Now the only task is to identify what question this process, known as coal liquefaction, is the answer to. Perhaps the question is: How can members of Congress show their lack of concern for global warming? Or perhaps it is: Should Big Coal get the same kinds of largesse showered on Big Corn?

The liquefaction process — which involves subjecting coal to immense heat and pressure to extract liquids, or gases that are later converted to liquids — is economically viable only with vast subsidies … The thought that Congress might push it shows how the current energy bill has less to do with solving problems than with handing out goodies to powerful interest groups.

As for running cars on coal, thoughtful examination of all of the drawbacks leads to an inevitable conclusion: Liquefaction is an answer whose time has not come, and probably never will.

"The Coal Trap"

There is a rule for judging solutions to the twin problems of energy dependence and global warming: A policy designed to solve one problem should not make the other worse.

Researchers at M.I.T. estimate that it will cost $70 billion to build enough coal-to-liquid plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. A similar investment in biofuels like cellulosic or sugar-based ethanol - which could yield substantial reductions in greenhouse gases - would seem a lot smarter.