Many presidential candidates support coal-to-liquid fuel
American news outlets are certainly full of updates from the voting in New Hampshire today, where the It's not just some of the leading candidates for president who like CTL. The 2007 Energy Bill that passed in December includes $2.2 billion in tax incentives for clean coal technology applications, something that Silverado's President and CEO Garry Anselmo says means Silverado "is in the right place, and at the right time. [...] Silverado Green Fuel uses low rank coal. America has centuries of domestic supply of low rank coal, an underutilized energy resource." American politicians might be in favor, but China has had second thoughts about CTL.
Related:
- Think coal gasification and coal-to-liquid is the same? Not even close
- Huckabee tells us God is green
- New method to obtain cheap natural gas from coal
- More coal to liquid fuels research from Penn State
- China may abandon liquified coal projects
Obama, Huckabee, Clinton, Rockefeller and Romney Support Coal-to-Liquid Fuel
VANCOUVER, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Silverado Green Fuel Inc. (Subsidiary of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. - Trading Symbols, OTC BB - SLGLF, FRANKFURT - SLGL) : - Silverado Green Fuel Inc. is at the forefront of one of the U.S.'s highest priorities in domestic energy supply and security, namely coal-to-liquid fuel.
"The endorsement from most Presidential candidates and key U.S. political figures, and the recent (Dec/07) U.S. Energy Bill's $2.2 billion in tax incentives for clean coal technology applications are sure signs that Silverado is in the right place, and at the right time," states Garry Anselmo, Silverado's President and CEO. "Silverado Green Fuel uses low rank coal. America has centuries of domestic supply of low rank coal, an underutilized energy resource." The company has a proven process to produce green fuel, equivalent to crude oil, but commercially created without any CO(2) or harmful environmental emissions in the production process. "And at less than one fifth the cost of crude oil," he adds.
"Achieving energy independence and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions are two of the greatest challenges America faces. With the right technological innovations, coal has the potential to be a cleaner burning, domestic alternative to imported oil"......" "Moving forward, I believe we should invest in coal-to-liquid fuels..." "...we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world." - Barrack Obama
"We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal...." "We need to develop an environmentally friendly use of coal."...."Coal - to - liquid fuel can be a major industry." - Mike Huckabee
"We will accelerate the production of advanced coal technology. Coal currently provides 50% of our electricity in America, but it comes at a high price in greenhouse gases and other pollutants. We need to accelerate the development and deployment of technology that can safely capture and store carbon dioxide emissions." - Hillary R. Clinton
".....I consider coal-to-liquid a "clean" technology."...."part of my national energy plan would include federal funding for technology to convert coal into liquid fuel." "We will invest as a nation in new sources of energy, including clean coal." - Mitt Romney
"The overwhelming support of the Senate sends a clear message. Coal conversion is a technology worth investing in." - Jay Rockefeller
A Silverado Green Fuel production facility can be established anywhere in the world where there is a supply of low rank coal, combined with a need for environmentally friendly and reasonably low cost, readily available energy. Silverado Green Fuel Inc. is a world leader in low rank coal-to-liquid fuel technology. Plans are underway for a $26 million Demonstration Plant in a joint venture with the State of Mississippi.
Silverado Green Fuel is commercially produced without releasing any harmful emissions into the air. Initial production costs are estimated at under US$15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis, compared to current $90 - $100/barrel crude oil prices.
Green Fuel can be used to power oil-fired power plants directly, or be used as a feedstock for further processing to produce transportation fuels (jet, diesel, gasoline), key agricultural compounds (fertilizers, synthetic petrochemical feedstocks, urea), industrial products (oils, lubricants, synthetics) and even consumer products (plastics, packaging, etc.). Silverado Green Fuel can also be further processed to produce pure, clean hydrogen to power fuel cell automobiles and electrical generation (power) plants.
Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.
Silverado Green Fuel Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of its publicly traded parent, Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. Silverado is an international company focused on Gold exploration, and a new environmentally friendly Fuel Technology. Silverado has gold properties located throughout Alaska which include the 100% owned Nolan Placer Gold Mine. Trading Symbols, OTC BB - SLGLF, FRANKFURT - SLGL
To learn more about Silverado Green Fuel Inc. and watch the Green Fuel Video, visit :- www.silveradogreenfuel.com
Nov 5/07 : NON POLLUTING $15/BARREL 'GREEN' FUEL BASE REPLACES SKYROCKETING $90-100/BARREL CRUDE OIL This Press Release received widespread coverage, including Yahoo!Finance, Los Angeles Times Business, bizjournals, MarketWatch, MSN.Money, PR NewsWire, Excite Money and Investing, Comtex NewsNet, MyWay, ADVFN, Chroncilcle.com Houston, EarthTimes, Centre for Energy, Boise@mania, Breitbart.com, WFAA.Com Dallas, Myson.de Germany, and others.
This Press Release may contain, in addition to historical information, forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements are based on management's expectations and beliefs, and involve risks and uncertainties. These statements may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results to be materially different from the results implied herein. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements made in this Press Release.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
richardbee 11:15AM (1/25/2008)
These statements show how deeply the US presidential candidates are "under the thumb" of BIG OIL and the mainstream media it owns. Where is the federal funding for development of free energy via hydrogen on demand systems that have already been proven and patented ? Are these candidates so obtuse that they are unable to even research feasible alternatives ? Why are successful alternative fuel researchers being murdered rather than idolized ? To the memory of Stan Meyer, Carl Cella and others who developed a true workable and easily replicable alternatives, and who paid the ultimate price for their success.
Reply
Erik 9:04PM (5/26/2008)
Sure, we need alternative sources of energy, but untill we have the technology in hand, we need to utilise sources of energy we have available now. Lots of people are being hurt by the high gasoline and diesel prices, and blaming big oil. Yes, big oil is making lots of money, but the green movement, and left leaning politicians have been waging an all out war on oil for years. Why is everyone surprised we have energy problems and high prices? More energy is the only way to bring down prices. If we get the scientific breakthroughs necessary to wean us off of hydrocarbons, fantastic. Untill then, drill, mine and build nuclear reactors. Otherwise we are going to be in big trouble.
Reply
carwaterguide.blogspot.com 11:50AM (11/26/2008)
You can truly get better mileage...... http://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 5:35PM (1/08/2008)
A Godwin's Law gimme!
The Nazis used gasoline made from coal.
I win.
Reply
Lad 5:48PM (1/08/2008)
Just like the oil companies, I suspect the coal interests have made considerable campaign contributions to Congress and the named candidates to get them to support more fossil fuel programs. Is there but one candidate that cannot be bought by special interest money? They all profess to be for change but yet they tie their campaigns to the status quo industrialist/lobbyist/politico system in Washington. If we don't limit this pay-for-access power, I fear our nation is doomed to becoming a third world country.
Many of use believe that the future of America lies in Solar energy and battery electric vehicles. And by the way so does China and India. It is predicted that China will start importing mass market battery electric vehicles into the U.S. within ten years. I believe we need to rescue our people from the hundred years of control by the oil ,gas and coal industries. Where is Mr. Smith when you need him?
Reply
Mort 5:50PM (1/08/2008)
i KNEW THAT CRAP WAS COMING. wE HAVE SEVERAL CENTURIES WORTH OF GARBAGE WE CAN BURN TOO. {/cap locks]
Reply
Bill 6:09PM (1/08/2008)
Blame South Africa as well as the Nazis.
Apartheid was the mother of invention there for coal to liquids.
IIRC, they still get a majority of their diesel from coal.
Reply
Kardax 9:58PM (1/08/2008)
If coal-to-liquid takes off, our "centuries" of supply won't last nearly that long...
Reply
rob 10:05PM (1/08/2008)
Yeah, and South Africa's largest CTL plant is also the largest manmade point-source of CO2 in the world...
"And Sasol's largest plant (Secunda) releases an estimated 7.7 million tons of carbon a year through the fuels it produces, helping make it the largest point source of carbon dioxide in the world, according to a CMI paper looking at mitigating global warming with current technologies."
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/10/16/news/01synfuels.txt
Reply
sensitive_man 10:11PM (1/08/2008)
And this is why I am not voting for any of the above candidates.
Reply
susan.kraemer 10:55PM (1/08/2008)
This is out of context:
All year long the Republicans have been fighting the clean energy bill because it did not have enough coal, oil n nukes for them - they don't have any sun or wind or ocean or biomass or geothermal or hydro power in their states, poor babies.
They wanted $12 billion for making fuel from Murkas own coal to fight that fornoil from terrists.
The environmental groups shut it down. Obama originally voted with them, but then backed out after education from the environmental activists, and got smacked down by Inohofe for being a traitor to dirty energy.
Obama On Coal To Gas Synfuel -WRONG!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/30/122446/528/868/340846
After the amendment failed, the Democrats agreed to fund $2 billion for RESEARCH to see if it could be made cleanly. Clinton was clear that this was R&D money only in the context of her quote.
All the Republican candidates except MCain really could give a shit about climate disruption. The solution to global warming? Drill in Murka.
Reply
J Jones 1:26AM (1/09/2008)
Today's primary in New Hampshire was the first of the 2008 campaign, not the second. Iowa held a caucus. Wyoming's GOP also held a caucus.
Reply
rgseidl 7:42AM (1/09/2008)
Calling a company that advocates CTL "Silverado Green Fuel" must be anew definition of chutzpah. Of all the alternatives to oil, CTL is arguably the least green. It would address US energy security but what's the point if all you buy yourself as a world of hurt wrt to the climate. After all, you can hardly tell China, India, Russia and Germany to cut back on coal use if you expand your own.
Reply
Tim 9:59AM (1/09/2008)
Republicrats/Democans on the take! Anyone surprised?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution limits their ability to choose technologies. Why do “We, the People…” let them get by with this?
Ignorance, stupidity, greed, fear, laziness etc, that’s why and we get EXACTLY what we deserve… ignorant, foolish, lazy and corrupt politicians.
There will be NO change in 2009 because these politicians refuse to obey their oaths of office and obey the limits placed on them by the Constitution.
Reply
dcmike 4:06PM (1/09/2008)
Your post is simply wrong on what was in the 2007 energy bill. There were no tax incentives of any kind included, much less anything for CTL. There is simply nothing at all in the bill to encourage CTL.
Reply