Coal could provide alternative fuel

Isn't it funny how relieved we feel that gasoline is selling for less than $4 a gallon?

Many see the danger now, that we'll grow complacent and accept the lower price, while going back to our old energy-wasting habits.

There's no reason to pay as much as we do for transportation, and send as much money as we do for foreign oil.

Many of the components of energy independence are in place, and need only sufficient support to make that goal a reality.

One source of alternative energy that doesn't receive much notice, although it is the focus of U.S. research, is the conversion of coal into liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel.

Like natural gas and oil, coal is a fossil fuel, but it's one of the most abundant sources of energy available to us, about 95 percent of our fossil fuel reserves.

For proof that it is viable, one only has to look to Germany, where the Fisher-Tropsch process was invented in 1923, and where it was used to fuel the Nazi war machine during World War II.

It also provided as much as 70 percent of South Africa's liquid fuel needs during the world oil embargo that was imposed because of that country's racial apartheid.

According to E. Ralph Hostetter of the Free Congress Foundation conservative think tank, numerous coal-to-liquid plants are operating or under construction around the world, and can produce gasoline, diesel or kerosene at very competitive prices.

Like any source of energy, there are drawbacks, such as carbon dioxide associated with its production, as well as putting transportation in competition with other uses such as heating and electrical production for the supply of coal.

But the production of liquid fuel from coal may be a very important card in what could be a winning hand for America's energy future.

Editorial Roundup

Drinking age deserves discussion

By Daily News,

Bowling Green, Ky.

... College presidents from about 100 of the nation's colleges and universities, including Dartmouth, Duke and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the country's drinking age, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus. Lawmakers would have to repeal a law that says any state that doesn't abide by the 21-year-old drinking law would have federal highway funds withheld. If this was repealed, states could make a decision to lower the drinking age to 18 or not.

The movement, called the Amethyst Initiative, began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

We can see both sides of the argument.

Why should an 18-year-old be allowed to vote, buy cigarettes, join the military and possibly die for his country, but not be allowed to buy alcoholic beverages, proponents ask?

Another part of the argument is that even though a person isn't of age to buy alcohol, chances are that person will still be able to get it, so why not lower the drinking age? Many students who aren't of legal drinking age still drink, and sometimes to excess. Perhaps lowering the drinking age could lower underage consumption. ...

We know that this is a controversial proposal, but it deserves thoughtful discussion among college presidents, citizens and lawmakers.