Fool's Gold for the twenty-first century

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM MST

Yellowstone Valley had questions about Highwood's prospects for adequate financing and was concerned about the steep cost of compliance with shifting environmental regulations for coal-fired plants, amid growing concern the fuel contributes to climate change, according to Terry Holzer, general manager of the co-op based in Huntley.

"We don't feel it's a viable project any longer," Holzer said. "Many utilities across the country have pulled the plug on coal-fired power plants."

Betting on coal is a fool's game.

Coal embraced by Obama, Clinton

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:33 AM MST

But then you read something that they both kinda suck on...like coal...that reminds us to keep our little inner Mark Tokarskis lit, just in case.

Both Obama and Clinton have rallied environmentalists with their promises to develop windmills, solar power and other renewable energy sources and order mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases from power plants to counter global warming.

It's an energy policy that would seem to target coal, which produces half the country's electricity but also nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, each year.

Instead, "clean coal" has become the mantra of both candidates. Some environmentalists are not too happy with that.

"They keep using the term 'clean coal.' That's really an oxymoron," snaps Brent Blackwelder, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "They absolutely are pandering the coal industry's propaganda that clean coal is the hope of the future. There's no such animal as clean coal."

("Snaps"?)

Illinois - home of Senator Obama - is a coal state, one of the top ten coal producers in the country. Clinton is learning the talking points very quickly, however, what with another coal state's --  Pennsylvania - primary coming up tomorrow.

Yearning for a little "creative destruction"

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:05:58 AM MST

Consider: Alternative energy produces far less emissions. That means it's clean. Less pollution. Burning coal puts mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide (and loads o' carbon dioxide) into the air. Solar puts...nothing...into the air. Alternative energy is cheaper, especially for the consumer. Producing and building alternative energy sources has an almost minimal impact on our environment. There are no "external costs" -- like waging war in the Middle East - for alternative energy, so it'd cost the taxpayer less in the long run, too.

And best of all, there's a whole sh*tload of money to be made in the new alternative energy economy.

Staying ahead of the power curve

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM MST

You might not expect Montana to be a climate change pioneer. Though Montanans emit nearly twice as much greenhouse gases as the average American on a per-capita basis - thanks to the state's long distances and cold weather - the Treasure State accounts for just 0.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. But under Gov. Brian Schweitzer, this often right-leaning state is tackling both the effects of global warming and its causes, in a way that puts the federal government to shame.

The report mentions the findings of the recent climate change advisory committee, which made recommendations that would reduce Montana's "greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020," and our state's involvement in a Western coalition to impose a regional carbon cap-and-trade program.

The interesting part of the report is Schweitzer's nod that investing in alternative energy - and shying away from coal - is good for Montana's economy. Not only is coal an antiquated industry, alternative energy brings in money for the state. For example, while producing biofuels from corn may not be possible in Montana - putting aside the fact that producing corn for fuel negatively impacts food prices - but the state can produce "waste crops for cellulosic ethanol."

One thing for sure is that we don't want to be like Wyoming, as many big energy advocates are saying. From New West's report on the recent state Oil & Gas Symposium:

Wyoming currently has 67,000 gas wells operating, with another 60,000 planned. Photo after photo was shown of the Wyoming gas fields, the drilling rigs and pads, the traffic, the truck-killed antelope, the winter range under the dozer's blade, the sage grouse habitat and mating grounds, or leks, surrounded with dots that represented drilling operations.  And it was freely admitted, over and over, that many of these photos were of one place- the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline developments in the Green River of Wyoming.

Montana is known as the "Last Best Place," not because it's the last place to freely drill for coal and oil. Preserving our wild spaces is paramount. Destroying those same qualities of Montana that drew us and keep us here for a temporary, dead-end infusion of jobs and money is not the answer. Investing in energy technologies sitting on the forefront of development is.

Conrad "Duke" Williams, Louisiana conservationist and lawyer:

"When I was a flier in the Navy, we had a saying: always stay ahead of the power curve, or you'll crash. Well, we started out behind the power curve, and we never caught up, and it is not pretty. Don't make the same mistakes we made down there ... they'll tell you this is no big deal, only a trillion cubic feet of gas, no need to worry. But they are here, leasing all this land, so it must be a big deal ... This oil and gas issue is one of the most important issues this state has ever faced."

Let's not let a few big business advocates push us behind the power curve. If we're going to develop energy, let's do it on our terms that brings the most and best benefit to all Montanans, not to the bottom lines of Big Energy and the bonus payments of a few suits on Wall Street.

Rural schools tether themselves to coal...why?

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:04:11 AM MST

Schools are naturally concerned about funding. They were shorted in the 2007 state legislature, and the Good Guv has told them not to expect much of an increase in the next session, either.

Republican hacks jumped to attack. (Possible former?) House Speaker Scott Sales called Schweitzer's remarks hypocritical because he, you know, spent money on schools in 2007, and blamed the Guv's spending for the upcoming national recession. And Republican gubernatorial candidate, Roy Brown, said the Good Guv won't develop the coal tracts that would give schools a funding boost.

First, Pogie pretty much eviscerates Brown and Sales for me:

So, the principled conservative position on education is basically this: schools are rapacious, wasteful institutions that a new Republican governor would give more money to. Maybe Scott and Roy should get their anti-schools rhetoric together before they issue their press statements.

I'd also add that, if the schools are facing upcoming shortages, these jokers could have done something about it in the last legislative session. Only they didn't. In fact, Sales went even further and was against the education spending increases as they were proposed. If schools are facing budget crunches, Sales et al. are the biggest culprits. His brand of radical conservatism wants to destroy public schooling, not preserve it.

Second, schools tying themselves to coal is a bad idea. I've written before on the indications that coal is a dying industry. Siphoning off money from the sale of public coal would put money into school coffers, for the short term. But what about ten years from now? Five years, when coal prices skyrocket because of a carbon tax? Mining operations halt, and the state is left with land devastated from coal extraction, and no revenue can be made off it?

Such an agreement would benefit the big energy company that would mine the coal, probably at a state-subsidized price. And it's telling exactly which candidate is supporting the idea. (The Oil man?)

Third, mining coal from the Otter Creek tracts is simply not feasible. Due to the patchwork array of state lands there, negotiating a deal there is difficult, at best; and even if a deal were made, there's no rail line, and none likely to be built. In short, it ain't gonna happen.

And there's a better way to make money off of state lands. Ochenski:

Ironically, at the same time the rural educators were trumpeting Otter Creek as their fiscal salvation, Madison Valley Renewable Energy and its partners were moving ahead with leasing state lands near Norris for a wind energy project they say will eventually cover some 14,000 acres. Their test towers are going up now and if all goes as planned, 150 megawatts of clean wind energy will be available for sale with 3.1 percent of the revenue going to-you guessed it-Montana's schools. A similar wind development near Judith Gap produced $50,000 last year from land leases and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

In that editorial, Ochenski says that the Montana Rural Education Association "got some bad advice" in staking its future to the Otter Creek coal tracts, which begs the question, from whom?

Let's see. Who could that be? Who benefits from distracting the public from who is actually responsible for shorting Montana 's schools, financially...presenting a false promise that Big Energy is Montana 's fiscal salvation...and making the Good Guv look responsible for it all?

Hmmm....

CTL secret meeting planned for Great Falls

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 13:44:46 PM MST

Take the proposal to build a coal-to-liquids plant under the auspices of the Air Force in Great Falls, for example. Assistant Air Force Secretary William Anderson is coming to Great Falls to talk with local citizens and business leaders about the proposed plant. He'll discuss the plant and take comments at a public town hall meeting on January 30th, and then the next day, he's hosting an "Industry Day" for local businesspeople and government officials. There's a catch, of course:

As many as 70 to 100 private sector officials, including financiers, designers and developers, plus many local and state government officials, have been invited to a "technical, roll up the sleeves, working session," which will be closed to the public and media, Griffin said.

Say, what?

What is it - they don't want any pesky concerns from average folks about costs, feasibility, and pollution associated with a CTL plant? What is this? A democracy or something?

It smacks of Dick Cheney's secret energy policy meetings at the beginning of the Bush administration, doesn't it? What could they possibly be discussing? How to fob the project onto an unwilling public, and how to divvy up the spoils among the Great Falls business community?

One thing I do know in my thus far short stay on this planet: local businesses and governments are easily bought.

Let's have open government. Let the media and public attend.

Investors scared away from coal development

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:02:14 PM MST

The intentional humor quote of the article:

"You have environmental sensitivity that has just gone nuts," says Chuck Kerr of Great Northern Properties, the nation's largest private owner of coal deposits. "The utilities are in what I call 'decision gridlock.' Do you bet on traditional coal, or do you bet on (gasified coal-power production)?"

Or, "C," do you bet on alternative energy?

Remember we live in a society that thinks smoking in public places should be banned - but coal emissions are much more toxic than cigarette smoke. Forget CO2 - coal spits out mercury, one the most toxic metals in existence. Why bet on coal when it's more expensive and more dangerous to human health and the environment?

Evan Barrett, Governor Schweitzer's chief economic developer is exactly right:

"We don't want traditional, pulverized coal plants developed in Montana," says... Barrett.... "There isn't a future in the traditional, 30-year-old technology."

Let's not stake the future of Montana's economy on a dying industry.

Solar cheaper than coal

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 15:02:55 PM MST

Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Just a coating, thin as a layer of paint, that takes light and converts it to electricity. From there, you can picture roof shingles with solar cells built inside and window coatings that seem to suck power from the air.... That's the promise of thin-film solar cells: solar power that's ubiquitous because it's cheap. The basic technology has been around for decades, but this year, Silicon Valley-based Nanosolar created the manufacturing technology that could make that promise a reality.

That means producing solar energy will be cheaper than burning coal - and that's not calculating the following costs of coal:

-- Fuel (i.e. coal itself)
-- the damage done by greenhouse gas emissions
-- the damage done by particulate and mercury pollution
-- the damage done by mining and transporting coal

The future of coal is bleak, folks. There will be the usual proponents for kick-starting a booming coal industry in the state, but it's a fool's game, an industry that's already wavering amid environmental concerns and talk of a carbon tax.

Not a single tax dollar from this state should be spent on promoting or buying coal-produced energy. Instead, we should be papering our state, county, and city roofs with solar "tar paper," and handing out low-interest homeowner loans to state residents and businesses who want to increase home energy efficiency and use wind and solar to create their own power. It's safe, clean, and puts money into our pockets.

Tester and CTL

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 15:26:29 PM MST

Craig Sprout mentioned a conference call several Montana bloggers recently had with Senator Jon Tester, I was one of the fortunate ones both invited and able to attend. (And bless Craig for making the event; he sounded dazed by his newborn. I remember those days - actually, I don't. It was a blur.)

I want to thank Jon for reaching out to bloggers, both left and right. We're definitely not quite legitimate yet - whatever that means - and I think it's smart and brave to give us occasional access for us to ask our questions and grill our Senator on issues we care about. So, we did. And oddly enough, it was yours truly who probably asked the toughest questions. Go figure.

As you might have guessed, I challenged Jon over his views on coal-to-liquids. As regular readers know, I oppose CTL. Senator Tester supports it, if done responsibly:

Tester isn't against coal. He supports it; he's from a coal state. But as his spokesflack says, Tester believes "we must first pave the way for a sustainable and responsible future in coal development by ensuring the capture and storage of carbon emissions."

Coal plants expensive, unpopular

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:22:06 AM MST

At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming and rising construction costs.

The slow pace of plant construction reflects a dramatic change in fortune for a fuel source that just a few years ago was poised for a major resurgence. Combined, the canceled and delayed projects represent enough electricity to power approximately 20 million homes.

Costs and concerns for the environment are slowing coal development. Last thing our community needs - or should want - is large conglomerate-owned fossil-fuel-burning plants.

Of course, increasing energy demands haven't slowed, so the pressure still exists. Now's the the time to start talking about cheaper, sustainable sources of energy that are locally owned. The technology is there, why aren't we using it?

A convenient delusion

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:40:29 AM MST

Take coal. Recently a bunch of GOP legislators have made a big stink about the lack of interest Governor Schweitzer has in coal-fired electricity plants. No, I'm not talking about a CTL plant, which the governor still (wrongly, IMHO) dotes on, I"m talking the good old-fashioned carbon- and pollutant-spewing plants featuring nineteenth-century technology.

And they shameless promote the plants because of economics and jobs. So a few people get very, very rich, and a few hundred more get union jobs, and the bulk of the community pay for the health fallout of the crap the plants spew, not to mention the economic hit the state takes because of climate change. Instead in-state Republicans ignore all the harmful effects of coal and plow on ahead with their irresponsible, short-sighted little plans.

Steven Running - a climatologist at the University of Montana and a guy who's been presenting the evidence and pleading for some action, any action to mitigate global warming - has this to say:

Large social changes always unavoidably breed pain for some and new opportunity for others, depending much on how rapidly people react to new realities. We really need most of our political, business and intellectual leaders to reach Stage 5 acceptance in order to move forward, as a nation, and as a global citizenry. There is no guarantee that we can successfully stop global warming, but doing nothing given our present knowledge is unconscionable. How otherwise can we look into our grandchildren's eyes?

It's time to acting like grownups, people.

The coal-to-liquid tycoons

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:07:16 AM MST

But the Roundup plant is old news. The CTL gang has found a new location for its plant: Malstrom Airforce base. Ochenski:

The idea is so ludicrous it's hard to know where to start, but here's basically what it boils down to: First they dig the coal out of the ground, presumably somewhere in Montana and, most likely, somewhere in the vicinity of the massive coal fields in the Powder and Tongue River basins. Mind you, digging coal from strip mines is not exactly an environmentally benign activity...

Next, you ship the coal to Malmstrom by rail. My maps say it's about 250 miles from Colstrip to Great Falls, so contemplate what it will cost (and how much it will pollute) to ship millions of tons of coal a year from one end of Montana to the other and you're beginning to get the picture...Considering that the price of Powder River coal is about $10.60 a ton right now, that means the shipping alone would nearly double the cost of the raw fuel.

But hey, money is no problem for our "defense" budget, which is setting all-time spending records and burdening future generations with trillions of dollars in debt. No matter what it costs, apparently keeping Malmstrom open is worth it-at least to Baucus, Tester and Rehberg.

Finally the coal would be unloaded at Malmstrom where, through the miracle of military appropriations, a multi-billion-dollar coal-to-liquids facility will be waiting with open maw. In goes the coal, the wheels go round, and out comes the spiffy new liquid fuels for the military.

But wait, there's this other little catch besides the cost: what to do with the massive amounts of carbon dioxide-the main greenhouse gas causing global warming-that the coal-to-liquid process produces. By the best estimates, carbon capture and sequestration technology is still a decade or more from reality at the industrial scale such a plant would require. When and if the technology becomes available, it will require massive compressors, hundreds of miles of pipelines, and someone to take long-term liability for the carbon dioxide pumped deep beneath the earth.

Implementing carbon capture and sequestration takes a lot more energy than you'd think, too. The latest studies indicate it would require another 1/3 or more coal just to cover the energy needs of carbon capture and sequestration?which means that much more coal needs to be strip-mined and shipped to produce the same amount of end-product liquid fuel.

Given the economics and logistics, it just doesn't seem possible that our congressional delegation could back such a looney idea. Then again, with the insane military feeding frenzy in D.C. these days, maybe they thought no one would notice a few billion more.

I've heard estimates that just to build a CTL plant would cost $8 to $10 billion. And Ochenski didn't even mention the vast amounts of water needed in the process. Water is scarce in this area: where's it going to come from? Will they have to ship that, too?

There's all sorts of different kinds of pork. There's pork that we need - for schools, roads, etc. -- and there's pork that we don't - the "bridge to nowhere." You can guess int which category I think a Malstrom-based, DoD funded CTL plant fits. Surely there's a more efficient way to create a thousand jobs in Great Falls. H*ll, just give me the money, and I'll build a dental floss factory...

Look who likes coal!

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 22:01:45 PM MST

Hey, Mr. Fiscally Conservative, have you told anyone how much a CTL plant would cost? And that taxpayers would be footing the bill? That's kind of like charging us to pay for the sock you're going to strangle us with. Only it's a ten billion dollar sock.

Law-and-Order Dems Target Energy Industry Tax Loophole

by: davidsirota

Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:09:41 PM MST

The Greeley Tribune reports today that thanks to a push by Colorado's Law-and-Order Democrats, "Legislative changes might be coming next session that could mean a windfall [in tax revenues] after lawmakers and a state working group learned Colorado is losing out on millions of dollars in unpaid severance taxes." Yes, "despite booming revenues from oil and gas extraction in Colorado, counties are not getting all they should from the people mining the state's natural resources, according to the state auditor."

John Adams on coal

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:57:28 PM MST

I don't want to go too much in depth on the issue: I think I've already clearly expressed my views on coal. I've b*tched and moaned about coal and Schweitzer's CTL proposal, so it's really time for some positive policy suggestions, which I'm working on...

But I did want to highlight this passage from Adams' story:

Republican critics say Schweitzer's talk of a clean coal future for Montana is just that, talk. They think he's a phony who's trying to take a popular issue away from Republicans in eastern Montana, and that while Schwetizer says he supports coal development, he's done little to actually affect it.

"The governor seems to do a lot of talking, but I've never seem him get actively involved in any of these permitting processes," says Roundup Republican Rep. Alan Olson, one of the Legislature's biggest cheerleaders for coal development. "He likes to have his name in the paper as far as trying to promote things like this, but he's gotta quit talking."

Compare that with Republicans, who not only want to rush CTL into reality, they want to build regular ol' carbon-belching, mercury-emitting coal plants straight out of the nineteenth century. Which reminds me of the old quip, "Why should I do anything for posterity? What has posterity done for me?"

Too often the right gets left out of this discussion, as if they weren't a real menance lurking around the corner. But let's not forget about them while we rake Schweitzer and CTL across the coals.

Chinese coal moguls descend on Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:47:30 PM MST

The governor's office said Yankuang controls China's second-largest coal company, Yan Zhou Coal.

"It's a large company, and through intermediaries we understand they have an interest in the United States in advanced coal development," Barrett said. "We made contact and worked to get this set up."

He said the company is interested in building a coal-to-liquids plant, touted as the next generation of clean coal technology, and a staple of Schweitzer's agenda.

Let's review, shall we? It's expensive. It isn't clean. It's predicated on technology that's largely theoretical.

And the Chinese? How's their record on flip flops (NS@ lunch)? Toothpaste? Pet food? These are people we'd trust with a $10-billion project that slurps up water and spits out carbon dioxide?

Frankly, I'm as crazy about Chinese coal moguls swooping down on Montana with their CTL dreams as I am about Australian investment bankers snapping up our energy plants.

That is, not very.

Democratic efforts to fund coal-to-liquid panned at TAP

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 13:47:40 PM MST

Last week, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showed that despite  efforts to build support with progressives suspicious of their close ties to corporate America, when it comes to real decisions and real votes, big business will often come first. This was reaffirmed when the two senators voted for an amendment to the energy bill offered by Montana Democrat Jon Tester that would have provided $200 million in grants and $10 billion in taxpayer loans for projects to turn regular old solid, black coal into new, shiny liquid coal to power cars and trucks.

"Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle"

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:05:23 AM MST

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has proposed an amendment to the Senate bill that would provide loans and other incentives to companies to build plants that would turn coal into liquid fuel while capturing and sequestering the greenhouse gases they emit. It makes sense to find out whether trapping carbon dioxide underground is feasible. But large-scale and premature subsidies for this untested and environmentally risky technology may amount to nothing more than a big giveaway to Big Coal.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, coal-to-gas is a bad idea.

Just say "no" to the "filthy fuel"

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 13:42:29 PM MST

Quite correctly, Ochenksi recognizes that the scheme is dependent on "carbon sequestration" -- a process that's mostly theoretical -- and possibly billions in taxpayer dollars. That is, it's dirty, risky, and expensive.

It's hard to see this scheme as anything other than a badly-thought-out environmentally-unfriendly government handout to Big Energy.

hermans tour, day whatever

by: Kilgore

Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 06:45:38 AM MST

Well, I'm still in the back of a van, watching America go by, and it's been going by for a while.  For those of you who don't know me, I play bass in a little Missoula rock band called the Hermans.  We've spent the past two weeks crossing the country trying to sell a book we wrote called The Hermans: Stalking America, due out in September.  All this travel, the people and places, have made me remember why I love America and why all of us fight so hard for what we believe in.  We are true patriots.

We were reminded that Wyoming loves coal, but we saw wind farms all across the midwest.  We visited small towns where diversity wasn't even a buzz word and we saw poverty in the inner cities of the East.  There've been streets so clean they sparkled and alleys so nasty you didn't want to walk in them, for fear you might stick to the ground.

I spent one morning glancing at the front page of the Philadelphia Gay News and just a few days later watched the rising sun shine off of the spires of mega-churches in northern Indiana, delivering its mixed message of love and intolerance.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I guess what I've realized once again is how wonderfully diverse this country is.  Yes there is a lot of baseless fear, stubborn nationalism, and in a lot of places, down-right bigotry, but there are a lot of people on our side, even behind enemy lines here in the breadbasket.

We do live in a bastion of diversity and that's what makes our country the greatest country in the world.  I don't think I will ever get sick of traveling across it in the back of an automobile.  We forget what we're fighting for because we fly all over the place.  Get out there and drive (if you can afford it).  Meet the people you want to help.  It feels good and it'll remind you of what motivates the opposition.  There's a lot we can learn from compassionate conservatism.  First and foremost, how to win.