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=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whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it 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/ > _______________________________________________ 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/
