a brief summary from a layman, page-16

Poyndexter:

"You are saying that 1 litre of ucg generated CTL diesel is 95% more polluting that drilled and extracted crude refined to produce 1 litre of diesel?"

That's a reasonable estimate based on DOE figures and giving a slight discount in emissions from using UCG. The only real emissions benefit to using UCG is that the coal doesn't have to be dug up. It does NOT imply that the CO2 produced stays under the ground. That is geo-sequestration which is a separate technology - currently unproven, assumed to be costly, but applicable to all CO2 producing plants not just CTL. It should be left out of the equation for that reason.

"What about the opportunity cost pollution of using the coal for surface combustion (for electricity) that would otherwise have been used for ucg CTL?"

I've pointed out repeatedly on this thread that using coal or gasified coal to produce electricity is far less polluting (for the energy produced) than the liquifecation process.

"What happens if our oil addicted existence just cant find another replacement for production lost due to peak oil than ucg CTL?"

If we are going to invest money in finding alternatives then that money should be invested in genuinely beneficial alternatives such as electrically powered vehicles, CNG powered vehicles, perhaps even hydrogen. This is just another subsidy for the coal industry.

"Dont give me grief in your reply lol ... I just replaced a Disco 3 4WD with a Peugeot 307 turbo diesel touring wagon to do my bit for the planet (and my wallet)."

The easy gains are in efficiency though if you were to fill it up with CTL diesel you would negate any benefit. You would be better off driving a Hummer filled with
petrol. I am looking forward to the next generation of plug-in hybrids. Electrically powered vehicles will make a huge dent in emissions even if the electricity were produced from the dirtiest brown coal-fired plant with no attempt to capture the emissions.