Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - June 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to amendment 1628, the Bunning amendment, for a number of reasons.

No. 1, this is a mandate to develop the gallonage from coal to liquids. I don't think it is the right direction to go. This amendment--folks have been using apples and oranges to compare greenhouse gases. The Bunning amendment says coal to liquids will be 20 percent better than gasoline, but coal to liquids does not produce gasoline-equivalent fuel, they produce the equivalent of diesel fuel, and that is 150 percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than diesel produced from petroleum.

The third thing, it is technology-limiting. Fuels produced from coal are only allowed under the Bunning amendment rather than articles such as fertilizer, chemicals, and plastics, as my amendment does.

Finally, there is no path to coal's future in a carbon-constrained world with the Bunning amendment--no requirement to deal with the carbon dioxide produced in the coal-to-liquids plants, no technology incentive to keep coal viable into the future, which we absolutely need. If and when our greenhouse gases are regulated, these plants will not be economic, and the cost to the consumers of the Bunning mandate will soar.

I have seen many signs up today, placards, talking about how coal-to-liquid technology is automatically less than petroleum. That is not correct unless you have carbon capture. The Bunning amendment does not allow for carbon capture. My amendment does.

With that, I would certainly suggest and request that the body vote against the Bunning amendment and support the Tester amendment No. 1614.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. I just want to talk about my amendment, 1614, as long as we have time to do that, very quickly recap it because I think it is important that we know the facts.

First of all, we have enough coal in this country, if it is used at the current rate, to last us for 250 years. We need to develop it responsibly. This amendment for coal to liquids will develop it responsibly. What it does is it provides grants and loans for clean coal technology. Let me tell you the parameters because some folks have said this can't be achieved.

In front of the Senate Finance Committee, it was testified that it is entirely capable, with the technology we have today, to have 85 percent carbon capture. This amendment requires 75 percent carbon capture.

The National Mining Association said that with coal to liquids, adding some biomass with the coal, we could achieve 46 percent less in life cycle greenhouse gases than comparable petroleum--46 percent less. This amendment requires 20 percent less. This amendment is entirely doable by the industry. If we want to develop our coal resources in a manner that meets the needs of consumers as well as being able to develop our coal resources in a responsible way that would not trash the environment when climate change is such a huge issue in the world, we need to step forth and adopt this amendment.

I could go into the amendment further and talk about the potential of replacing foreign oil. I could talk about how it is a win-win situation for the country overall, as far as achieving energy independence, as we push this bill forward that deals with renewables such as biofuels and wind and solar and geothermal. The fact is, with this amendment there are no bogeymen. It is achievable by the industry, and it should be adopted if we are going to lead this country down the road of energy independence, a road that will allow the climate change issue to be put to bed.

By the way, if we pass this amendment, I fully believe, with the two powerplants a month China is putting on board at 500 megawatts each, we can also help lead China down a road to clean coal technology.

I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on amendment 1614.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, what this amendment does is gives loans for equipment to capture and sequester carbon from coal-to-liquid technology. It also allows for loans to construct the plant.

The Federal Government has the opportunity right now to push coal to liquids forward with some dollars. Also, what happens with this amendment is--and these are entirely achievable parameters--75 percent of the carbon would be captured and sequestered, and it would be 20 percent less than life-cycle greenhouse gases from petroleum. It works for this country in making us more energy independent and it works for the global warming issue to make sure we get our hands wrapped around that and it is progress in the proper way for energy development.

It is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the United Mining Association, and Dow Chemical. This amendment is achievable, entirely achievable.

The industry testified in the Senate Finance Committee that they could capture and sequester 85 percent. This amendment does it at 75 percent.

I encourage the adoption of this amendment.

Source