Climate Progress has long been a fan of plug-in hybrids as a critical climate solution for the transportation sector. Google has joined the fight, and they have put together a good video explaining both what a plug in hybrid is and what their strategy will be.

Kudos to the entire Google.org team, lead by Dan Reicher Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives Google.org and a former colleague of mine at the Energy Department.

The Senate crushed both the Republican and Democrat liquid coal amendments today. Quite a sight to see on C-Span — I hope you are all watching the Energy Bill debate online for these fleeting moments of wisdom.

First up, Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an “amendment backed by the coal industry: a national coal-to-liquid fuels standard that reaches 6 billion gallons by 2022″ [E&E Daily (subs. req'd)]. Their plan “would require a 20% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional gasoline specifically.”

As the Democrats pointed out, though, comparing diesel from coal to gasoline makes no sense, unless you are trying to rig the life-cycle analysis in favor of coal. This amendment died when every Democrat and the greener Republicans voted against it.

Next up, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Jon Tester (D-MT) offered a $10 billion proposal to “provide loans for carbon capture and storage equipment on coal-to-liquids plants.” Eligible plants “would have to capture and store at least 75% of their carbon dioxide emissions” and “must produce fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 20% lower than equivalent conventional fuels.”

This would require biomass to be blended with the coal, so the target is achievable, though not easy. The high environmental bar frustrated the Republicans, who all voted against this amendment together with the greener Democrats.

And so partly by design and partly by accident, the liquid coal boondoggle died in the Senate. Just like the founding fathers would have wanted.

The Washington Post joined coal state newspapers in attacking Congressional plans to push liquid coal. An editorial yesterday, “Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle: A risky solution to America’s energy woes” gets the story mostly right:

The most troubling aspect of CTL is that producing it will roughly double climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.

That would be more accurate if “producing” were replaced by “producing and burning.” The story goes on to note that capturing and storing the emissions from CTL production is

so untested on a large scale that the Senate energy bill seeks to conduct demonstration projects across the country to answer some vital questions, such as whether the carbon dioxide, once stored in a variety of geological settings, will remain there.

And even if capture and storage works, you are still left with the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the fuel in vehicles.

The story does have one misleading item:

Read more

It’s hard to imagine competing with someone for water access in the U.S. today. It’s even harder to imagine competing with something, like a utility, for water in 2030. But an article in the Christian Science Monitor hinted at an energy-versus-water conflict in the Southwest that is likely to become more common.

Consider that power plants use three times as much water as households, and 150 coal-fired plants are slated for construction in the U.S. over the next 30 years. Those coal-fired plants will fuel changes to the climate system, which will in turn further impact the hydrological cycle.

Clearly, we need to scrutinize our use of coal-fired plants without carbon capture and sequestration. In the meantime, we have to sustain our energy supply. In part, that will involve smart biofuel production, an equally important contender for the water supply.

Add households and food production to the stress on water resources, and we’ve got our work carved out for us.

The decisions we make now will be literally as vital as water.