Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

Governor announces multibillion dollar transmission line

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, joined by industry executives, announced plans Monday to build one of the longest electricity transmission lines seen in the West in 40 years _ a line that would carry "green" energy to big energy markets thousands of miles away.

The governor, who has placed coal-to-liquid fuel facilities as one of his top priorities, said he is promising to help TransCanada get environmental permits for the project that the company said could cost $2 billion.

If successful, the line would run from the coal fields of Montana to the Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Phoenix energy markets. It would carry electricity created by either wind power or synthetic gas derived from coal to meet clean energy requirements in the Southwest.

I complained about being old the other day but now I obviously a dinosaur. WHEN IN BLUE BLAZES DID MONTANA COAL BECOME "GREEN" ENERGY?

Don't get me wrong, the process that gassifies the coal allows the capture of the CO2 but to call the whole thing "green" seems a little far fethced to me. Then you need to consider what to do with the CO2. It has been proposed to pipe it into underground formations but the long term storage potentials of this have never been proved, so green, I'm not to sure.

Just the other day I was also discussing mercury and coal. How does the gasification of coal affect the mercury potential of the coal. You know mercury causes many health problems including disruption of the nervous system, damage to brain functions, DNA damage and chromosomal damage and many other effects. So, by burning this coal in Montana are we damaging future Montanans with the mercury? Does the mercury emissions make coal green too?

Now don't get me wrong, I support tapping our coal resources and using them wisely but I don't think we need to delude ourselves by saying it's "green."

I guess this dinosaur will never understand how coal can be considered "green." That's a little to big of step for me.

A person's fears are lighter when the danger is at hand. Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I first see a headline to a story in the Gazette.

Panel OKs treating 2 coal types alike

This seems to indicate that,

a.) there are two different types of coal,

and

b.) they will be treated the same.

I scratch my head and start to read the story and get a big surprise.

Montana's new rule to limit emission of mercury from coal-fired power plants will have different standards for two kinds of coal, one of which contains more mercury than the other, a state board said Wednesday.

The Montana Board of Environmental Review voted 4-3 against establishing the same standards for plants that burn lignite coal and for those burning sub-bituminous coal.

Lignite has about double the mercury of sub-bituminous coal, often described as the cleaner and more efficient fuel. The standards endorsed by the board allow greater releases of mercury from lignite.

The very first sentence says there are two types of coal but they will have "different standards" for mercury.

SO, THE HEADLINE IS WRONG!!!

Unless somebody smarter than me out there can explain where I am wrong in my assumptions, the headline is all screwed up. It has to be a conspiracy to make the Schweitzer Administration look good while destroying the environment of Montana.

Seriously though, I don't understand how they can screw a headline up like that. It doesn't make sense. As for my opinion on the decision, I think it's wrong. I agree with the headline, the mercury rule should be the same for both types of coal. That's not what happened. While it might be harder to remove from the one type, it can be done if they want to. Politics are just trumping the environment yet again.

If ye despise the human race, and mortal arms, yet remember that there is a God who is mindful of right and wrong. Virgil

UPDATE: I see they changed the headline. Must be to make me look like a fool. I swear what I reported was true this morning when I read the story. The headline now is;

Panel sets 2 standards for coal emissions

It makes a lot more sense to the story, doesn't it.

The question I posed over a year ago is still not answered, what makes Gov Schweitzer and his sycophants ever believe the environmental groups are going to allow coal production of any kind in the state of Montana?

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.

I have ranted here more than once about Gov. Brian Schweitzer's idea of a coal to fuel plant in the Otter Creek area being premature and that people need to slow down and think. It's never done any good, Schweitzer's sycophantic legions just keep touting his plan like it is going to solve the woes of the world all in one shot.

Well, finally I see some reporting that blasts holes in Schweitzer's ideas and brings a little dose of reality to the equation.

Wyoming leads Montana in coal-to-liquid projects

Dan Fessler spent five years looking for a site to launch his vision of a new industry that could produce clean fuel from coal -- and, last year, he chose Wyoming.

"The mines are there; they're massive and they're well-financed," he says. "The rail infrastructure is there. For me to do (this project) in Montana would require me to develop a coal reserve and a transportation infrastructure, which is very expensive.

"I'm having enough trouble finding financial backing (just) for the coal-to-liquids plant. That's why you find people like me being at the mouth of the Powder River Basin (in Wyoming) rather than going up and talking to your governor."

You have to learn to walk before you can run the old saying goes and that is the case here. There needs to be a mine and infrastructure in place in the Otter Creek area before there is going to be any interest in a coal-to-fuel plant in the area. Any businessman knows this and I can't understand why Schweitzer and his legions don't understand this.

Schweitzer claims he shouldn't be blamed for the situation since the Republicans were in control for so long and didn't do anything about increasing coal production and that is why there is no infrastructure. I will point out up until now most of his energy has been on the Otter Creek coal which only come into the equation late in the Martz, the last Republican Governor, administration so there is now way the Republicans can be blamed for it since they didn't have time to screw it up. Schweitzer gets to screw it up all on his own and it looks like he is doing a pretty good job at it.

To get anything going in Otter Creek there needs to be basic infrastructure and a mine. The market conditions are now ripe for such a project and the Governor needs to get off his ass and let the lease out for the coal so some development can get started. Then down the road, many, many moons away, can we start dreaming about his other plans. Build the frame of the house before you build the whole house, it makes a lot of sense.

He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying. Friedrich Nietzsche