Question As Yet Unanswered
Every time I read a story about Gov. Brian Schweitzer talking about making fuel from coal, like this newest one, in Eastern Montana I ask the question, " what makes Schweitzer or anyone else think the Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRC) and other environmental groups allow this to happen?"
I would love to see some of the coal resources in my area exploited more but any time you talk about it the NPRC does everything in its power to shoot it down. Just look at the battle over the power plant in Roundup if you wonder if the environmental groups would be capable of stopping such a thing.
What made me think of this is the newest announcment out yesterday.
Governor announces coal-to-liquid fuel plant
Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Monday announced Montana will have one of the nation's first coal-to-liquid fuel facilities, a $1.3 billion project several companies have agreed to build in the state's midsection.
DKRW Advanced Fuels, Arch Minerals and Bull Mountain Coal plan to develop the project at the Bull Mountain mine 14 miles south of Roundup, in central Montana, Schweitzer said. The governor said that although he announced the project, the state is not a partner in it nor did the developers request tax breaks or other incentives.
So fine, we have an agreement to develop the coal into more products in the mountains north of Billings. Does anybody remember what happened to the last power plant proposal in the Roundup area? The Environmentalists shut it down.
Federal Government Withdraws Coal Plant Permit
In a victory for clear skies in Big Sky country, the federal government has withdrawn its approval of a major new coal-fired power plant in central Montana. The plant, located about 160 miles northeast of Yellowstone Park, would threaten visibility in the park as well as several other pristine wilderness areas.
So what makes this one different than the previous power plant and why won't the environmentalists shut this one down? I don't see any reason they won't try to shut down this project like the last one. Can anyone explain to me how a power plant 160 miles downstream and downwind, the large majority of the time, is going to cause pollution and visibility problems in Yellowstone National Park? I'm sure not smart enough to figure it out. I was always taught and experience has shown me that pollution moves down country and with the prevailing winds which would take any pollution away from Yellowstone national Park, not towards it.
I would love to see more of the coal resources of Montana exploited in a responsible manner, but the hard core environmentalists will never allow this to happen and anybody that thinks differently is in for an interesting fight.
Wally no longer converts grass to beef. Through other ventures he has enough money he doesn't need to worry about such things so he just opposes any signs of development in the area. He doesn't have a very good name in this area, unless you like curse words, anymore.
The push for cleaner, cheaper energy has led scientists to study the possibilities of coal, which is the world's most abundant fossil fuel; the volume of coal in the U.S. alone is greater than the entire global supply of oil. Despite the great availability of coal, it has a major problem: it isn't a clean fuel. If scientists can work past the challenges posed by the pollution coal causes, the Department of Energy believes coal could be part of some of the "most promising" energy technology of the future. For more information, view BSRNews` new topic, Coal.