NO 111 I I.IKI AN OLD FOSSIL FUEL 



851 



makes it somewhat difficult to give MHD a balanced consideration with the other 

 long-term energy options, such as breeder, fusion technology and solar electric 

 technology. 



One of the most outspoken advocates of MHD on the committee 

 was Gore, who on several occasions elaborated on the pioneer MHD 

 work which was being carried on by the University of Tennessee at 

 Tullahoma. 



The Flowers subcommittee heard witnesses representing major 

 component manufacturers, MHD test facility centers, government 

 laboratories involved in MHD R. & D. and the Department of Energy. 

 In a report published in October 1978, the subcommittee reached 

 encouraging conclusions concerning the future development of MHD, 

 but recommended a tightening up of administrative management and 

 control over the programs being developed at Butte, Mont.; Tulla- 

 homa, Tenn.; and Pittsburgh, Pa. 



A large number of held trips and on-the-spot inspections were 

 undertaken by the Flowers subcommittee and staff. Committee mem- 

 bers and staff visited coal conversion facilities in Leatherhead, Eng- 

 land and Westheld, Scotland, in addition to coal liquefaction and coal 

 mining operations in the United States. The staff also inspected 

 fluidized bed pilot plant sites, the MHD program development in 

 Montana, and the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center. 



CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT ON COAL LIQUEFACTION 



Two significant staff investigations were undertaken at the coal 

 liquefaction facility at Cresap, W. Va., and the H-coal liquefaction 

 plant at Catlettsburg, Ky. Both reports were prepared by Ron E. 

 Williams of the committee staff. During the January 1978 DOE au- 

 thorization hearings, serious questions were raised by the Flowers 

 subcommittee as to the increased cost and lack of productivity of the 

 Cresap facility. Originally constructed by the Consolidation Coal Co. 

 in 1966, the Cresap operation was developing a process to convert coal 

 into gasoline. After being taken over by the Office of Coal Research 

 in the Department of the Interior, the plant was deactivated in 1970 

 and reactivated after the Arab oil embargo in 1974. The subcommittee 

 staff discovered that corrosive elements had destroyed much of the 

 equipment and piping in the interim. Technical difficulties repeatedly 

 plagued the operation. The staff report concluded: 



The project was entrusted to a private firm and the Government completely 

 failed to exercise any real supervision over the project. Cost, schedules and technical 

 control were almost totally absent in that the Government did not assign a project 

 manager with authority to make decisions across the technical, administrative and 

 contractual spectrums. In other words, no one was in "charge." 



