I attended a five hour long talk this past week with leaders in both the national and local world of alternative jet fuel research and development. Alternative jet fuel seemed a long ways off until the recent announcement that Virgin Atlantic Airlines had managed to fly a Boeing aircraft on a bio-fuel blend. That fuel was supplied by a Washington state company and the largest supplier of biodesiel in the U.S., Imperium Renewables. Imperium’s president was on hand as were a number of other important figures in the world of alternative jet fuels, including the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Air Force, a Boeing representative, a few folks from NETL (National Energy Technology Lab), climate champ Congressmen Jay Inslee and a rep from CAAFI (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative).
The conversation was divided into two primary possible solutions, bio-jet fuel and coal to liquid technology.
First, the good news. It seems that the movers and shakers behind bio-fuels are beginning to understand that we cannot power our vehicles (on the ground or the air) on either our food crops or on unsustainably harvested plants from the Amazon. The mix used on the Virgin flight was made in part from the babassu nut, a nut that thrives in a complete eco-system (although it still comes from South America). Congressman Inslee, a long time proponent of alternative fuels, spoke about the need to develop sustainable alternative fuels that would reduce green house gas emissions without contributing to further environmental destruction. There was also much excited talk about the prospects of algae as a fuel source. And the Air Force is certainly on board, both with making their aircraft more efficient and with helping in the advancement of alternative fuels. And as we all know, when the military gets behind something, things get moving. (And yes, their main motive is still to “put fire and steel on the bad guys” as one colonel put it).
Now for the bad news. Coal to liquid technology.
Thankfully, right now, it’s still a ways off thanks in large part to the tough time that king coal has been experiencing this past year. With increased research and development dollars it could be available sooner. But one rep from NETL made it clear that there are hurdles to be leapt by spending the longest portion of his talk on the difficulties associated with the technology as well as the new infrastructure that must be built and the as yet unproved sequestration technology that is a must. Congressman Inslee talked with him over lunch before speaking and he made it clear that he does not see coal to liquids as a viable alternative at this time which is heartening. I asked the reps from NETL if they think that by the time coal to liquid technology is feasible (2020 by their estimates) it will be outmoded due to tighter GHG emission standards and decreased support for coal in general. The rep said no, that we still have a lot of coal to use up. But she also said that we will probably see an increase support for coal once a federal policy is adopted to regulate GHG emissions, AKA, a cap and trade which is almost certain with our new president.
Here is what I took away as my primary concern: Coal has had a tough year, we’ve seen that. But that has largely been due to the uncertainty surrounding legislation aimed at reducing GHG emissions as individual states adopt their own policies and Bush refuses to sign any federal cap and trade legislation. With so much uncertainty, lenders and other previously pro-coal folks are getting cold feet, but that could change once the new rules are cemented in place and folks know what they are working with. So, our challenge will be to help maintain king coal’s difficulties once a new cap and trade policy is adopted and to insure that the fallacy of clean coal is never adopted.
