Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
Hi MH, I do like the excerpt “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area for a faulty federal energy policy.” I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take. Coal is a loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room. I think the grass roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more change. It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to write a guy like Brian a letter. Thanks for the interesting post Jim MH wrote: Peering into Montana’s energy future By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289 Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium: Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward energy conservation and renewable energy. The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants (not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup. The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow, ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground. DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining. The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality permit should still be valid. A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations” for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region. One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south. So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and full of salts that would have to be removed. Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words, dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive – although not so expensive that gas producers would not reap enormous profits anyway. Coal bed methane is a crucial issue for Montana, but other coal technologies – either gasifying or liquefying coal – are what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer lately has been promoting. Prodigious amounts of water are used (or abused) in both of these, also. The chief push to create liquid fuel from coal seems to be coming from the Department of Defense - one of the major consumers of oil on the planet - and indeed, Ted Barna, an assistant under secretary of the DOD was there to endorse that concept. Another federal agency official was
Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy. It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost. JJJN wrote: Hi MH, I do like the excerpt “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area for a faulty federal energy policy.” I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take. Coal is a loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room. I think the grass roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more change. It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to write a guy like Brian a letter. Thanks for the interesting post Jim MH wrote: Peering into Montana’s energy future By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289 Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium: Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward energy conservation and renewable energy. The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants (not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup. The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow, ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground. DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining. The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality permit should still be valid. A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations” for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region. One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south. So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and full of salts that would have to be removed. Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words, dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive – although not so expensive that gas producers would not reap enormous profits anyway. Coal bed methane is a crucial issue for Montana, but other coal technologies – either gasifying or liquefying coal – are what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer lately has been promoting. Prodigious amounts of water are used (or abused) in both of these, also. The chief push to create liquid fuel from coal seems to be coming from the Department of Defense - one of the major consumers of oil on the planet - and indeed, Ted Barna, an assistant under
Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
OK Mike, I went to, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/ and it says we do have a policy National Energy Policy to be exact, but you must be referring to hopelessly pathetic message it contains, if not that then perhaps the cryptic coded quote by our great leader that we can still have Yellowstone Park while we find more oil (who me worry?), or perhaps if we manipulate our clocks some more we can save the world,or or or well ok Mike your right We really don't have an energy policy, not even a failed one. ;-) Jim Mike Weaver wrote: Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy. It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost. JJJN wrote: Hi MH, I do like the excerpt “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area for a faulty federal energy policy.” I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take. Coal is a loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room. I think the grass roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more change. It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to write a guy like Brian a letter. Thanks for the interesting post Jim MH wrote: Peering into Montana’s energy future By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289 Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium: Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward energy conservation and renewable energy. The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants (not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup. The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow, ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground. DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining. The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality permit should still be valid. A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations” for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region. One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south. So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and full of salts that would have to be removed. Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words, dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive –
Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
OK Mike, I went to, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/ and it says we do have a policy National Energy Policy to be exact, but you must be referring to hopelessly pathetic message it contains, if not that then perhaps the cryptic coded quote by our great leader that we can still have Yellowstone Park while we find more oil (who me worry?), or perhaps if we manipulate our clocks some more we can save the world,or or or well ok Mike your right We really don't have an energy policy, not even a failed one. ;-) Paying for the next election is top of the list for the politicians, cutting a bigger slice in the interdepartmental budget wars and office-politics territory battles is uppermost for the bureaucrats and oaf-icials, and for the corporations that own them all the next board meeting, the AGM and the bottom-line are all that count, and you want policy?? It would be quite nice I suppose. Japan doesn't do policy either, no actual policy on anything anywhere to be seen, policy is what emerges from mostly invisible horse-trading among powerful fiefdoms constantly jostling for position and defending their share of the spoils, whose thinking and goals are in no way representative of those of the community. The EU does policy, good or bad or both, so do China, India, Brazil, South Africa and a few others, and people like Chavez and Castro. Saudi Arabia et al's policy turns out to be a sham - having helped deliver the US election as promised it now emerges that the rumours are true that they haven't got the reserves anyway and neither has anyone else (like Shell), their policy's just a big slice of pie-in-the-sky. (See Matt Simmonds in the list archives.) Most of the rest of the world is just trying to survive, not enough options for much policy as such. Which leaves a whole bunch of rich industrialised countries with lots of window-dressing on the policy front but it's just a puppet show, like the US and Japan. Methinks this is no longer a good survival model, there seem to be several meteorites headed its way. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't get meteorites on a Flat Earth do you, lots of dinosaurs, no meteorites (according to the dinosaurs). Best Keith Jim Mike Weaver wrote: Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy. It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost. JJJN wrote: Hi MH, I do like the excerpt Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area for a faulty federal energy policy. I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take. Coal is a loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room. I think the grass roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more change. It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to write a guy like Brian a letter. Thanks for the interesting post Jim MH wrote: Peering into Montanas energy future By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289 snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: Montana's energy future - was [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
Hi MH, I do like the excerpt But I hate the subject title, and it sure won't make archives searches any more chic either. US =?windows-1252?Q? ??? (Well, maybe it does, who knows these days anyway.) I think it's these little and thingies that do it, yuk. Please set emailer defaults to ASCII plain text mode! It's Be Kind To Your Friendly Neighbourhood List Server Week this week (and all weeks). Thanking you. Keith Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area for a faulty federal energy policy. I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take. Coal is a loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room. I think the grass roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more change. It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to write a guy like Brian a letter. Thanks for the interesting post Jim MH wrote: snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
MH wrote: Sounds like a great conference! This paragraph caught my attention: A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations” for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Why does running a coal fired generating plant require so much water? Thanks, --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future
Cooling. Any thermal power plant rejects roughly 60 - 70% of the energy from burning fuel as waste heat. Some plants use big ponds that just sit there and give off heat (evaporating in the process), and some use cooling towers (that's what the giant concrete things are on nuclear power plants, with plumes of steam coming out).Either way, they use alot of water. Which in the dry west, is a big problem. On 10/28/05, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MH wrote: Sounds like a great conference! This paragraph caught my attention: A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city's funds on preparations for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city's rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Why does running a coal fired generating plant require so much water? Thanks, --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
