Peter Fagiano sadly died this year. He was an experienced and highly knowledgable industry proponent of coal as the fuel of the future. Listen to his arguments. He explains that coal is cleaner than both gas, and fuels made from petroleum. He says that carbon capture from coal post-combustion as practised in the UK is hopelessly expensive and ineffective. Capture the carbon at the point of combustion, he says, and fuels can be made from coal cost effectively and cleanly, including diesel, gasoline, petrochemicals or methanol.
The captured carbon becomes part of the fuels, when hydrogen is added. He also explains biomass, but says the plants are usually far too small, while coal to liquids plants can have enormous outputs. Peter was one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the hydrocarbon field. His passing is a great loss to the world. His ideas and knowledge don’t need to be lost, if people will just listen to what he was saying.
I sent this information to Roger Helmer, UKIP’s energy spokesman earlier this year. What has he made of it all? Here’s the party’s earlier energy announcement.
UKIP (instead of wind power etc) proposes instead a policy based on proven and economic technologies: gas, coal and nuclear. This implies a rejection of EU policy and particularly of the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, which seeks to ban coal.
The policy statement points out that ironically, our approach could in fact achieve the emissions reductions called for by green lobbyists more effectively and more cheaply than a policy based on renewables.
UKIP also calls for urgent investigation and exploitation of domestic energy sources including shale gas (which has achieved a 50% reduction in gas prices in the USA).
TAP – Not true. The USA cannot export gas so the price was artificially held down by overproduction. The industry lost fortunes. The water tables were destroyed, and national water reserves like The Great Lakes depleted.
TAP – UKIP talks of an investigation into fracking in latest policy statement. Not very reassuring as they also demand urgent exploitation of domestic energy sources in the same breath. You would think exploitation would follow on after the investigation, if and only if it was favourable.
Is this a climbdown on fracking? It’s not exactly a very clear one if it is.
Coal is the way to go. Carbon capture at the point of combustion makes coal cleaner than gas. The carbon captured can be used to make methanol cheaply. The engineer/scientists who advocate doing that don’t seem to live very long, which proves how easy it would be if the hydrocarbon cartel would only permit it to happen.
Sadly it seems that Roger Helmer has been sold the lie that fracking is safe. He needs to go to Pennsylvania and see the damage inflicted across that state, or Queensland. He’s convinced himself that fracking gets a bad name due to Russian-paid propaganda. Not very impressive at all. Paid for MEP junkets are not a great way to get wise about energy.
Here’s Paul McCartney Russian agent against fracking. Helmer needs to find another way of seeing what’s proposed – the destruction of Britain’s countryside and way of life.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.