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=18357&issue=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 whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it 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 there to push for building new > pipelines and new electrical transmission lines. Suedeen Kelly of FERC, > the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, told the audience that > energy-producing states like Montana owe it to energy-consuming states > to send them their energy, and if states lagged in upgrading its > transmission infrastructure, FERC’s job under the new federal energy bill > was to step in and make this happen. > > This led Brady Wiseman, a Democratic state representative from Bozeman – > during a “what have we learned” session at the end of the symposium – > to complain about “this top-down, high-voltage approach, mandated by > the Pentagon.” He said that electricity deregulation in Montana > “was like that. And it did not work.” > > Some very specific doubts about whether coal liquefaction will work > were set forth by Northern Plains Resource Council in the week > leading up to the Energy Symposium. In a meticulously researched > position paper, Northern Plains disagreed with Schweitzer’s assertion > that coal liquefaction would be “clean,” pointing out that oxides of > sulfur, nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen, along with other pollutants, > are emitted by this World War II-era German technology, called the > Fischer-Tropsch Process. > > Northern Plains also questioned whether enough water exists in all of > Eastern Montana to run coal to fuel facilities on the scale that > the governor has been proposing. > > The governor’s office replied that NPRC’s data was based on > out-of-date technologies and suggested that newer, cleaner technologies > are in the works. (Schweitzer, a soil science graduate of Montana State > University, makes no secret of his desire that MSU be a leading researcher > in these “clean coal” technologies.) Northern Plains, however, had drawn its > data from Sasol, the South African company that operates the only existing > commercial scale coal-to-liquid fuel plants on the planet. > > This thrust by Northern Plains may briefly have muted Schweitzer’s enthusiasm > for coal liquefaction. In his opening speech, Schweitzer spoke first of > conserving energy, the only solution in the short term to the sudden crisis > of rising energy prices. > > Then he celebrated the Judith Gap Wind Farm which - when its 135 megawatts of > windpower come on line – “will take Montana from 50th place to 15th place > (among states) in windpower” and will produce “8 percent of Montana’s > electrical portfolio.” > > Judith Gap windpower will be sold to NorthWestern Energy for $32 per megawatt, > and NWE has “firmed that power” (with sources that, unlike wind, are not > intermittent) so that “the collective cost is $38 per megawatt,” Schweitzer > said, “the cheapest new energy produced in America. And it is green!” > > The governor mentioned his administration’s support for producing biodiesel > and ethanol from crops. Although he refrained from specifically mentioning > coal-to-liquid fuels or coalbed methane, he did speak of breaking America’s > dependence on oil and gas imported from countries governed by > “dictators and rats” and specifically mentioned coal as > “a bridge to the new hydrogen economy.” > > Of course, there were plenty of others, on panels and in plenary sessions, > to talk up coal. Andre Steynberg, technical manager of research and > development at Sasol, the South African coal-to-liquid-fuel producer, > breezed through a power point presentation of flow charts and photos > of giant “reactors” on the large screen behind the podium on > the MSU fieldhouse floor. > > But Steynberg eventually went “off message” when he revealed that > Sasol had been converting many of its liquid fuel operations from > coal to natural gas. (Sasol recently spent $1.2 billion constructing a > pipeline to import natural gas from Mozambique.) Coal is just too > environmentally costly, and for Sasol to invest in converting it to > liquid fuel, Steynberg said, would require “incentives.” > > Translation of “incentives”: government subsidies. Other > coal-to-liquid-fuel promoters at the symposium cited their > frustration with the lack of private sector funding, and > their hope for an infusion of government cash to get a > pilot plant up and running and show the private sector it works. > > At a panel of five Western governors, Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming > unexpectedly dampened their hopes. Even though Wyoming now > “exports more BTUs than any other state” and is rolling in cash > from its coal – and coal bed methane – boom, Freudenthal had > this to say about coal liquefaction: “If the private sector says > ‘we won’t put money in it,’ the states ought to be cautious.” > > Schweitzer’s remarks were not characterized by caution. He charged > that the federal energy bill (recently signed into law) offers > “no vision” and that consequently “the future starts with the states, > working with private industry” and coming up with “big ideas.” > He means the Rocky Mountain states in particular, as well as the > Western provinces of Canada: all rich in coal, oil shale, > tar sands and - oh, yes – renewable resources such as wind. > > So it was an odd juxtaposition, after Schweitzer’s state-centric > speech, to have FERC’s Suedeen Kelly follow him with her > unmistakable message that if the states did not act to solve > transmission bottlenecks, the federal government would > ensure that “transmission corridors” opened up. > > This was an eerie echo of a message Montanans heard in 1971, > when the federal government and the fossil fuel industry – > in a document called “The North Central Power Study” – > decided that this region’s coal should fuel as many as > 42 power plants, sending electricity to population centers > east and west. > > Montana’s transmission system, now as in 1971, has bottlenecks > both east and west. I missed breakout sessions about how to > “solve” these bottlenecks, partly because I am among those who > really don’t want to see them solved. > > Montana already produces twice as much energy as it consumes, > and building more long-distance transmission lines to fill with > power generated here, either by expensive polluting coal plants or > cheaper clean wind farms, does not thrill me. Long distance > transmission lines leak enormous amounts of energy, are vulnerable to > natural disaster or sabotage, and may become obsolete as more and more > utilities turn to conservation and generation closer to the centers of > demand. > > I also missed a other sessions that normally I would have attended, > on subjects such as renewable resources, energy efficiency, hydrogen > and fuel cell technology – and on the intriguing topic of how to > “sequester” carbon to keep it out of the atmosphere. > > I dutifully attended one session dealing with what is (and is not) > in the new federal energy bill and sat through two sessions on coal – > turning it to gas and turning it to liquid fuel. > > Logically, biofuels should have been treated the same way – > one session on biodiesel and another on ethanol. But both were > crammed into one session, to which nonetheless I went with relief, > and which turned out to be, for me, the high point of the symposium. > > Joe Jobe of the National Biodiesel Board began with a jibe at > liquefied coal. “How many gallons of Fischer-Tropsch fuel is being sold > in the U.S. today?” he asked. Zero gallons. But 25 million to 30 million > gallons of biodiesel, he said, were sold in the United States last year. > Truckers, enraged at seeing diesel prices climb higher than regular gasoline > and then stay high, are avid for information on biodiesel and are driving > demand for it. > > Biodiesel is interesting because it can be produced in your garage from > used French fry oil, but also in large plants that crush and refine > oilseed crops. Ethanol, too, can be produced on a variety of scales. > > One of the larger facilities in the Northern Plains region is a > 34 million gallon per year ethanol plant that Husky Oil is > integrating with its heavy oil upgrader in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, > according to Bert Faber, senior environmental adviser for the company. > > Montana will produce very little ethanol from corn – that’s for > places like Iowa and Minnesota – but this state has a variety of crops > that can be converted to fuel and also produce a high quality > by-product to feed livestock. Phil Madsen, whose company > Katzen International has designed ethanol plants around the world, > looks to Montana wheat and barley. So does microbiologist Cliff Bradley, > who adds sugar beets (which at current prices are worth more as a fuel crop > than a sugar crop) and cellulose (such as from perennial grasses – > $2.50 per gallon gasoline makes ethanol from cellulose viable, he said). > > Bradley is co-founder of the Missoula-based company Montana Microbial > Products, > which has produced enzymes that break down a variety of cellulosic materials, > thus reducing the energy requirements of the distillation process. > > Bradley had sat through the coal liquefaction presentations and began with > this policy recommendation: “We don’t turn over one shovelful of coal to > turn into liquid fuel until the U.S. implements energy conservation, > mass transit, and eliminates gas hogs from the road. Then I’ll listen > to schemes to ‘liquefy’ Eastern Montana.” > > But he had a better idea than that. In 2004, Bradley said, retail sales of > gasoline and diesel fuel for transport in Montana totaled 870 million gallons. > The price of those fuels was rising by about $1 a gallon during that time, > which means that an extra $870 million simply left the state for corporate > bank accounts in Houston or Los Angeles. None of it stayed here. > > These high prices, however, have made ethanol and biodiesel competitive with > the fossil fuels. So why not stop sending our money out of state and > invest it here, to grow our own fuels? > > He calculated that Montana could produce 500 million gallons of E85 ethanol > from a variety of crops, including perennial grasses and straw > (with half left on the ground). > > “The technology is here. It’s not how you do it, but who owns it. > If you sell your crops to Archer Daniels Midland (to make ethanol) > this gains us nothing. But biofuels can be an opportunity for > farmers and communities to keep value-added dollars in the local economy.” > > Bradley said that one coal to liquid fuels plant was projected to cost > $3.3 billion to build and would produce 10,000 gallons of fuel per day. > Assuming we could use this fuel in-state and not ship it off to the military, > this still would cover less than 10 percent of Montana’s transport fuel > needs. > > For much less than that amount, perhaps as little as $1.1 billion, > Bradley figures we could build enough biofuels capacity eventually to > furnish 100 percent of Montana’s liquid fuel needs. > > Where to get a billion dollars? Bradley suggests we start by > keeping 10 cents of every dollar of that gasoline price increase in state. > That would raise $80 million per year in capital. > > “The governor says, ‘Think big.’ So let’s think big with > diverse and small scale systems, community owned, integrated with > agriculture and local economic development strategies,” he said. > > “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area > for a faulty federal energy policy.” > >_______________________________________________ >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/
