"Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle"

Bad idea?? (0.00 / 0)

Well, actually, the internal combustion engine is a BAD idea.  But right now it's all we got!  So, I think that Tester has a GOOD idea and a good approach.  See if it's feasible.  But if you've got a plan to find more gas without coal to fuels, let's hear it!  I'm all ears. 

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 19:06:00 PM UTC

Larry - (0.00 / 0)

You don't think subsidies and tax breaks might not be better spent on searching and promoting newer renewable technologies?

Hell, increasing domestic production by 1/20th of our usage won't even keep up with our growing consumption.

Really?  You don't think we should be weaning ourselves off of oil?

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 03:46:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in capitalism (0.00 / 0)

Regardless of how the government can try to step in; the market will want to run itself. Don't get me wrong I think the feds should stand up and say, "Energy is as just a natural and universal right as is defense." (I think education and health care fall under that too), but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. The only way we are going Hell, we wouldn't be thinking about it now if gas wasn't $3 a gallon. Wait until it hits $7 then you'll find every other American saying, "Screw the market it ain't working." I call it growing pains.

---

by: Mathello @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:52:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happened to renewables? (4.00 / 1)

Well, I'm with Tokarski on this one...and not just because we're both Polish.  Larry says "feed the beast" again, which is nothing new, but hardly on the right side of the environmental line (which at this time, pretty much means on the wrong side of the survival of the planet line) and I guess I'm surprised to see a Ranger turn into a supply-side fan After all, it was Ronald Reagan who brought us that phrase/concept/economic model.

Since this is a new thread and I told Larry I'd be happy to discuss alternatives to the CTL jive, perhaps we should do it here.  But before I put in the considerable effort to lay out all the alternatives, I guess I'd like to ask for a little work in return -- and that would be having Larry actually tell us what his perception of Schweitzer's energy plan (and now Jon's little CTL bill) are.  No need to go into great detail, Larry, just explain briefly how you think the plans work and what they ultimately provide, for whom, and at what cost.

Somehow, though, spending so much time on the CTL discussion is a lot like Tester's bill.  When we have known, proven, tried and true alternatives such as conservation, renewable solar, wind and bio energy, why aren't we investing in those instead of offering subsidies to the filthy coal industry?  Put $10 billion into solar panels and we'll have electricity for millions of people...simply no question about it.  One billion would put 1,000 1.35 megawatt wind generators on the land.  Ten billion puts 10,350 megawatts of truly clean energy on the grid that produces NO carbon, and thus requires no capture and sequestration.  Consider that Montana's entire Colstrip plant complex produces only about one-fifth of that and  you get the perspective.  Then consider we export half of the electricity we produce in Montana and it becomes very obvious that had Jon tucked a billion in the bill for wind and solar, we'd be sitting pretty.  And hell, why not give every state a billion for renewables?  It would cost less than a month's worth of what we're spending in Iraq.

Alternatively, put $10 billion into coal subsidies to produce liquid fuel for the military and we have what, exactly -- besides an unproven technology, a risky scheme to  store highly-compressed carbon dioxide underground, and an extension of the military-industrial pig trough to good old Montana.  And that giant sucking sound -- well, that's just what's left of the water we used to have.

---

by: ochenski @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 21:58:16 PM UTC

Sorry,George,..... (0.00 / 0)

but I can't do that.  I can't give you Schweitzer's energy plan.  I saw it on the Charlie Rose show I believe it was.  If you search a bit, I'll bet you can find it.  And yes, conservation was a part of his plan.  Now, George, I've read your plan above.  And it's all good and well.  And I think that most of us realize that we produce more than twice the electricity that we use here in Montana.  Old news.  The conservation argument.  Old news.  Dirty coal fired plants.  Old news.  George, for a guy with his OWN column, do you have anything new??  Just kidding.  Look, George, last time I checked, I could NOT fill my gas tank with electricity!  I think it's disingenous to mix energy apples and oranges.  Electric is one thing, and gas for fuel quite another.  Now, I think I understand all the drawbacks to CTL.  But it appears to me that we need SOMETHING in the mix until we can invent something better.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe  I don't know my ass on this on.  But the scientists do.  And they are  talking about peak oil.  And we are fighting senseless wars.  So, let's do something about it.  Sure, I'm an enviro.  But I'm also a realist.  I would MUCH rather have some  pollution than have to fight senseless wars in an attempt  to steal oil!  What is it to  date?  Bout 480 BILLION dollars in Iraq?  And HOW many people slaughtered?  Gotta  be a better way.  THAT'S why I think that sequestration deserves a looksie.  That's all.  Peace.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 22:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I truly appreciate.... (4.00 / 1)

..all I learn from this site when good 'ol fashioned grown up discourse happens.  Thanks George.  Thanks Larry.  Please keep it up. Like a lot of folks, I'm having a hell of time getting my head around this subject.

---

by: Truxton Rolfe @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 00:22:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happened to renewables? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Glen @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 03:47:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The real boondoggle would be to do nothing (0.00 / 0)

Refusing to invest in improving CTL and other energy technologies would be the real boondoggle. Refusing to invest in new energy technologies means a permanent American military presence in the Middle East to protect oil fields. Governor Schweitzer is a scientist and neither he nor Senator Tester support the old and destructive *rape and scrape* method of energy development. But they do believe in leading our state and our country to a secure energy future. Providing technology dollars now hastens the day we're weaned off of foreign oil and lessens the chance our grandchildren are protecting oil fields in Iraq, Iran and countries that end in -stan.

---

by: Viola @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 04:45:49 AM UTC

the real boondoggle (0.00 / 0)

As GO wrote, the same amount of cash buys you more power with existing tech that doesn't have carbon-producing side effects.

So, why coal?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:28:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And we ALL know that GO has his OWN column! (0.00 / 0)

Jay, one more time.  YOU CAN'T PUT FRIGGIN' ELECTRICITY INTO A FRIGGIN' GAS TANK!  Well, maybe you can.  But the results are gonna be quite interesting!  Look, we like to drive.  We like to procreate.  We like progress.  SO, until someone figures out how to stop procreating, driving, and progressing,  the agurment is friggin' MOOT!  Oh sure, there may be some who'll take one in the nads for the team. They'll stop procreating.  They'll stop driving. And they'll stop progressing.  BUT  I'VE NEVER MET ANY!  Have you?  Electricity is easy.  There are MANY ways to produce it.  But there just ain't that many friggin' ways  to produce the stuff that goes in the gas tank!  SO, and that's a big SO, until someone can WEAN THE ENTIRE FREAKIN'  COUNTRY OFF BEIN' MOTORHEADS, all the enviro whining is just that.  ENIVIRO WHINING!  And no one likes a whiner!  But by GOD (or Allah if you prefer), I'll give up MY car and truck and truck and truck and truck (yes, I have four trucks) just as soon as YOU (or GO) does!  In the meantime, let's figure out how to make some gawdammed FUEL!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:40:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Viola, I agree in part, but............ (0.00 / 0)

I also think that we shouldn't be continually pissing off countries that end in -za!  As in Venezuela!  My  GOD, (or  Allah if you  prefer) Hugo Chavez is our natural ally!  He was DEMOCRATICALLY  elected not once, but TWICE!  So, why is that drugged out dry drunk with a wet brain pissant AWOLer from TexASS (who wasn't even elected once) continually attempting to KILL Chavez?!!  I don't GET it!  Seriously though, when you elect oil fascists, you get the government you deserve!  Oh wait!  Not me.  I don't deserve it.  I LIKE Chavez!  He is a true American hero!  What?  You say he's not American?  Well he surely is!, as are ALL Latin Americans!  We are ALL Americans!  I  think we need to get rid of the little prancing, preening pissant from texASS and his dick BEFORE we can address energy issues in this country.  When you allow a dick to make energy policy, DON'T DROP THE SOAP!, cause you can just guess where he's gonna go with it!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:29:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can you argue? (0.00 / 0)

Larry -

If you only know what Schweitzer's coal-to-liquids plan is from watching him on one TV interview -- and can't even explain the plan -- how can you argue that it is something we should support?  I've seen him give the presentation with the PowerPoint slides a number of times up close and personal, so I do understand what he's proposing and I think it's, in Jay's words, "a boondoggle."  Bush and Co. are supporting maximum coal production...does that give you pause to think our guy is right in there with them?  Or how about the military link?  You say if we don't have CTL we'll be in endless wars in the Middle East.  Do you really believe, even for one second, that the U.S. is suddenly going to pull out of the Middle East because we begin to produce some tiny fraction of our liquid fuels consumption from coal in Montana -- especially when that tiny fraction most likely will be headed not to domestic use, but to military use?  And finally, I guess I'm puzzled at the logic dichotomy that a hard-core Environmental Ranger would repeatedly vow to use force to stop the oil and gas exploitation of the Rocky Mountain Front (that would be liquid fuels), but supports digging up massive quantities of Eastern Montana and draining its groundwater to produce liquid fuels from coal. Huh?  Is the Tongue River less worthy of protection than the Front?  If so, which "sacrifice zones" are next -- and how will we determine them?

I applaud the discussion here (as did Truxton) because it's asking the hard questions and finding little in hard answers.  I don't think we're off base, dis-loyal, or anything like that.  I also think these questions have enough merit that Congress voted down Tester's CTL amendment yesterday by a 2-1 margin, which ain't small potatoes.  Faith, hope, and charity are all fine virtues, but digging for answers and numbers instead of campaign-oriented sound bites may be a better way to actually design and implement a sound energy policy for the future.  Far as I can see, that's what we're doing here and the CTL proponents are falling short of the mark.

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 14:37:59 PM UTC

credit where credit is due (0.00 / 0)

"Boondoggle" was the Washington Post's word. The word I'd like to use shouldn't appear on this family blog.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 16:06:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can you argue? (0.00 / 0)

Larry -

If you only know what Schweitzer's coal-to-liquids plan is from watching him on one TV interview -- and can't even explain the plan -- how can you argue that it is something we should support?  I've seen him give the presentation with the PowerPoint slides a number of times up close and personal, so I do understand what he's proposing and I think it's, in Jay's words, "a boondoggle."  Bush and Co. are supporting maximum coal production...does that give you pause to think our guy is right in there with them?  Or how about the military link?  You say if we don't have CTL we'll be in endless wars in the Middle East.  Do you really believe, even for one second, that the U.S. is suddenly going to pull out of the Middle East because we begin to produce some tiny fraction of our liquid fuels consumption from coal in Montana -- especially when that tiny fraction most likely will be headed not to domestic use, but to military use?  And finally, I guess I'm puzzled at the logic dichotomy that a hard-core Environmental Ranger would repeatedly vow to use force to stop the oil and gas exploitation of the Rocky Mountain Front (that would be liquid fuels), but supports digging up massive quantities of Eastern Montana and draining its groundwater to produce liquid fuels from coal. Huh?  Is the Tongue River less worthy of protection than the Front?  If so, which "sacrifice zones" are next -- and how will we determine them?

I applaud the discussion here (as did Truxton) because it's asking the hard questions and finding little in hard answers.  I don't think we're off base, dis-loyal, or anything like that.  I also think these questions have enough merit that Congress voted down Tester's CTL amendment yesterday by a 2-1 margin, which ain't small potatoes.  Faith, hope, and charity are all fine virtues, but digging for answers and numbers instead of campaign-oriented sound bites may be a better way to actually design and implement a sound energy policy for the future.  Far as I can see, that's what we're doing here and the CTL proponents are falling short of the mark.

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 14:38:00 PM UTC

Course I do, George. (0.00 / 0)

George, of course I love the Tongue River country.  I'm quite familiar with it. Does it have the same value as the Front?  Not to me.  But my larger point is this.  Americans are fat pigs.  Yes, I hate to be so blunt, but it's true.  Americans are indeed fat, lazy pigs who are NOT going to change their habits!  Percy Cerutty, the famous Australian distance running coach was even more blunt in his assessment of Americans.  He simply referred to Americans as "hopeless bastards".  I don't  see ANYTHING in the American character that will cause them to radically change any time in the near future.  And what we need IS a radical change in behavior to survive.  So, the issues I bring up are the ones that we will not confront.  Obscene wealth, conspicous consumption, and an outta control population growth.  THESE are the things that are really fueling the destruction of the environment.  And these are the things that are NOT being  addressed, even by enviros.  Look, Abbey said it best long ago.  He said that, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer".  And he was right.  The  corporate fascist state says, and is accepted  by most Americans, that we must continually grow and "progress".  Until  that  mindset changes, we're doomed.  As far as eastern Montana goes, the gas boom is already on, especially  on the Hi-line.  There soon will not be any decent water left up there.  I am not very optimistic regarding  solutions to any of these enviro problems.  I think that enviros need to  stop talking conversation  and alternative fuel sources, and address the problems head on.  But in the meantime, people want gas.  Fat, lazy Americans want gas.  Wealthy Americans want gas.  And they'll do whatever to get it.  Do I have the answers?  Nope.  I can only predict what might happen.  And all scenarios are ugly, very ugly.  Thank God I'll probly be long gone before the shiite hits the rotating cooling device!

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 15:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

which brings up a good point... (0.00 / 0)

The only -- and for me, I mean only -- reason to support grants, loans, and subsidies for coal-to-gas is to mitigate the damage our invetible use of coal will bring.

Still, I think we're at a moment of opportunity in which we can change things, make energy cheap and clean for everyone, and wean ourselves away from the teat of Big Energy.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 16:09:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No choice but change (0.00 / 0)

Sure don't disagree even a tiny bit with what Larry posted on the nature of our grotesque modern society.  But Jay is right on -- we either change or perish.  Continuing to feed the beast is a dead-end trail -- and I mean dead end.  Dead oceans, dead rivers, a razed and dying landscape, and on and on.  We are literally consuming ourselves to death and just finding new ways to turn old carbon into liquid fuels with about the same or worse pollution profiles ain't gonna save us.

We can and are changing, however slowly.  Just the economics of energy these days is causing people to drive less, use less, and conserve more.  That said, think how great it would be to see the kind of money these guys are willing to toss into unproven, risky, expensive technologies were it to be put into helping people use less and use other sources.  In the 70s Montana was actually investing some of its coal tax money and interest in grants to achieve those changes --to put solar greenhouses up, to insulate, and to install solar hot water heaters.  Now, of course, we have much more efficient solar panels for producing electricity, too, so there's even more potential to be realized from proven technologies.  All we lack is the will to do so -- and the leadership vision and guts to stand up and tell the coal companies and oil companies that we've had it with their stranglehold on our society.  But so far, only a few elected officials have either the vision or guts to do it...and Brian isn't one of them, sad to say.  In fact, if his plan goes through, the same old mega-corporations will be in charge of the same old large, concentrated facilities and the stranglehold on one of society's most necessary resources -- energy -- will continue to be held hostage to the profit motives of corrupt boards and gluttonous CEOs.  Hence, the battle to change, and the resistance against destructive coal to liquids proposals.

We can do it, folks, but not by kicking back and just letting someone else take charge of our future with some fairly whacky, unproven, proposals. We must demand that the money and the laws move us in the right direction - and coal is not the path to the future.

Larry says we won't change.  I say we have no choice. We could both be right.

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 23:14:22 PM UTC

Governor Schweitzer: Energy (0.00 / 0)

I sincerely appreciate the debate on energy here on Left in the West. I just wanted to add a little bit about the Governor?s ideas for energy.

Governor Schweitzer has a passion for energy - particularly clean, affordable energy such as wind power, biodiesel, and ethanol that can be produced in America while adding value to agricultural products. He also believes the coal-to-liquids processes are a good solution for the near future, bridging the petroleum economy of the past and the hydrogen economy of the future.

Montana will accentuate renewable forms of energy, including: wind power, bio-diesel, ethanol, power generated from oil seed crops

I think it is fair to say we are really excited about all the wind projects that are being looked at across the state right now (growing up in Grass Range I certainly understand how much power that darn Montana wind has!)

Also, for anyone interested in learning more about what is going on with oil seed crops ? check out Sustainable Systems (formerly Montola) in Culbertson.

In developing all of our energy resources, but especially our coal resources, we will be on the cutting edge of clean energy development.  The tax breaks provided for in the ?clean and green? energy incentives bill require carbon sequestration for projects such as coal plants in order to qualify for the tax breaks.

From the time the Governor entered office he has supported legislation and ideas that promote the development of clean energy ? renewable portfolio standards for Montana, the ethanol mandate bill and bio diesel tax credits to name a few. In fact, he was the first Governor to sign on to the 25X25 Initiative and was one of the first Governor?s to form a climate change council in their state.

I hope you will check out our website (mt.gov) for more information on our energy ideas for Montana.

---

by: Sarah Elliott @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 00:55:43 AM UTC

Good summary on Gov's plans (0.00 / 0)

Thank you, Ms. Elliott, for so neatly summarizing Governor Schweitzer's energy philosophy. I'm hopeful that agriculture producers now struggling to keep up with their equipment payments -- not to mention the rest of the bills -- will have a brighter future with the Governor's plans for growing alternative energy sources. The Judith Gap windfarm is awesome and strangely beautiful. I have hope that the small towns along the Hi-Line, or anywhere East of Billings, will once again thrive and grow with clean and green energy projects and a revitalized ag economy.

---

by: Viola @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 03:53:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about some answers to the tough questions? (0.00 / 0)

Good to see Sarah checking in, but she has pretty much just regurgitated the repetitive rap we've heard from the Gov's office for well over a year now.

Sarah apparently posted her comments before today's Great Falls Tribune hit the stands with the lead headline above the fold reading:  Schweitzer's coal-to-liquids push taking a beating." Read it at:  http:www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/NEWS01/706210303 -- you'll be glad you did.  And since the topic of this thread is "coal to liquids boondoggle," the article adds considerably more focused information to the discussion than broad generalizations about energy in general.

As for Sarah's comments, well, once again we got the good old "trust me" rap without answering any of the hard questions.  In the meantime, Sarah slides effortlessly into broad and inaccurate generalizations such as "clean and green" in relation to coal mining/use.  To help move the CTL discussion forward in a constructive manner, here are a couple of those questions that need to be answered and I'm sure everyone would appreciate hearing something solid instead of just more self-promotion from the Governor's Office:

1.  Where does all the water come from to run these coal-to-liquid plants?  Certainly the major proposal for the CTL plant in Roundup (or was it merely the major promotion?) completely ignored the question -- as did the shoddy "economic analysis" shuffled out by the Office of Economic Opportunity.  We live in Helena, but my partner Polly was born and raised in Roundup.  To this day she shuts off the water in the shower while she soaps up and turns it back on to rinse because the lack of water in Roundup required such conscientious conservation measures -- at least from normal citizens, perhaps not so for coal companies.  So where do you get the significant quantities of water necessary for the CTL plant?  (Even at the Gov's energy conference in Bozeman the speaker from South Africa, where they are making liquid fuels from natural gas, freely admitted it took an enormous quantity of water to manufacture the same liquid fuel from coal instead of natural gas.)

2.  Where is the legal framework for carbon sequestration in Montana?  Who will be liable if it causes unforeseen disasters such as groundwater pollution/disruption/destruction, or blows out?  Who will perform long-term monitoring everyone says is necessary for  high-pressure sequestration, and who will pay for it?  What happens if the private energy companies (many of which are foreign-owned), like Montana's sad history with private mining companies, simply go bankrupt, walk away, and leave us with the environmental destruction?  And finally, what kind of effects will occur when we criss-cross the countryside with pipelines, compressor stations, and roads necessary to actually perform the complex and expensive carbon sequestration operations?  Wyoming's coalbed methane production, with its web of pipelines, compressors, and roads, is now responsible for continuous noise, dust, saline discharge water, and significant disruption of wildlife habitat and reproduction.

3.  Why mis-lead the public to believe these plants will be "clean and green" when the Governor supports giving tax breaks to companies that only capture and sequester 65% of their carbon?  Just so everyone knows, that's 10% less than Congress requires in their latest energy bill, although word has it the Governor is lobbying in DC to lower that standard to allow more, not less, pollution.  If this is inaccurate, perhaps Sarah could tell us exactly where the governor stands on those sequestration levels.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to characterize the Governor's proposals as saying his energy company tax break bill only requires capturing "some" of the carbon?  The rest will go up into the atmosphere, adding to our global warming woes and transferring all the attendant externalized costs of continuing warming onto the backs of society at large -- including the farmers who will suffer from increasing droughts, more severe storms and heat, and the general environmental impacts (forest fires, beetles, dewatered streams) that affect us all as well as the entire biosphere around us.  Adding even more emisions to the greenhose gas load of the atmosphere can hardly be described as "clean and green" -- which is perhaps why Governor Schweitzer refused to sign on to greenhouse gas letter that six other Western Governors just sent to Congress.  And, I might add, did so without a single explanation to Montanans.

4.  Why mis-lead the public to believe we will be on the "cutting edge" of "clean coal" given that people all over the world are further ahead in virtually all of the preparations, legal standards, and physical infrastructure than Montana? 

5.  Why not tell Montanans that most if not all of the "affordable" power you say the Governor wants to produce is slated for export -- especially the wind and coal-to-liquids fuel...and admit that CTL is essentially a military fuels project that will do nothing for the cost of gasoline or diesel?

As I said, I appreciate Sarah checking into the discussion, but what we've gotten is more "faith, hope, and charity (to coal companies)" than any specifics on costs, impacts, or benefits.  Some real numbers and an honest and objective assessment of both the projected impacts and benefits would be much appreciated in helping all of us understand what's at stake...and why CTL is a waste of time, energy, and money...or "a boondoggle" as increasing numbers of people are finally realizing.
 

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 18:03:15 PM UTC