(
From the diaries -- kos)
The New York times has a pretty long and mostly favorable article on Governor Schweitzer's plans to develop coal-to-liquids technology which makes a number of points that all energy- and environment-minded kossacks should appreciate.
Further to the earlier dialogue on dKos on this topic (see my diary, and Governor Schweitzer's response following his Op-Ed in the NYT in early October), I'd like to comment on this article and expand on the topic of energy policy.
Seeking Clean Fuel for a Nation, and a Rebirth for Small-Town Montana
If the vast, empty plain of eastern Montana is the Saudi Arabia of coal, then Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a prairie populist with a bolo tie and an advanced degree in soil science, may be its Lawrence.
Rarely a day goes by that he does not lash out against the "sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks" who control the world oil supply or the people he calls their political handmaidens, "the best Congress that Big Oil can buy."
Governor Schweitzer, a Democrat, has a two-fisted idea for energy independence that he carries around with him. In one fist is a shank of Montana coal, black and hard. In the other fist is a vial of nearly odorless clear liquid - a synthetic fuel that came from the coal and could run cars, jets and trucks or heat homes without contributing to global warming or setting off a major fight with environmental groups, he said.
This introduction can hardly put things in a better light.
- energy independence. We've discussed this in our Energize America series, and it is probably one of the strongest arguments to sell a new energy policy. If that concept can "stick" to the Democrats, it would be a great political victory, and anything that puts it together with a senior Democrat, in favorable light, is great;
- the best Congress Big Oil can buy. While this undoubtedly has a populist touch, it also underlines the fact that oil is the problem, not the solution. The "sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks" line makes the same point - oil use leads to dependency on Arab oil, questionable diplomacy, and shady deals at home and overseas. Dependency on oil leads to corruption - and Republicans only want more of it; I won't comment on the "prairie populist" label, but I am sure that kos will undoubtedly appreciate it as part of the fight to regain the West for Democrats;
- environmental soundness. Again, this is a fundamental point, and this is why I am happy to promote Governor Schweitzer's plans: the explicit intention to promote this as a clean technology.
"This country has no energy plan, no vision for the future," said Mr. Schweitzer, who spent seven years in Saudi Arabia on irrigation projects. "We give more tax breaks and money for oil, and what do we get? Three-dollar gas and wars in the Middle East.
What was that slogan again? America can do better. It definitely applies here... and it requires vision - from the Democrats.
"This is not a pipe dream," said Jack Holmes, the president and chief executive of Syntroleum, an Oklahoma company that has a small synthetic fuels plant and wants to build something bigger. "What's exciting about this process is you don't have to drill any wells and you don't have to build any infrastructure, and you'd be putting these plants in the heartland of America, where you really need the jobs."
Certainly jobs are a big motivating factor. Montana is a poor state and ranks last in average wages. Mr. Schweitzer, whose approval rating is near 70 percent, says thousands of good-wage jobs can be gained in towns that are dying.
He is also promoting wind energy and the use of biofuels, using oil from crops like soybeans as a blend. The governor signed a measure this year that requires Montana to get 10 percent of its energy from wind power by 2010, a goal he said would be reached within a few years.
More important arguments:
- the technology is real, and a number of companies are willign to invest in it today (although scaling it from what exists today is probably an underestimated task);
- it will create jobs - non-offshoreable jobs;
- it is part of a plan to promote other energy sources. Diversity should be one of the key qualities of any energy policy, so it's good to see that Governor Schweitzer is also pushing actively renewable energy sources (and obviously wind - neither space nor wind are missing in Montana).
The United States imports about 13 million barrels of oil a day. To replace that oil would be a monumental undertaking, with hundreds of coal-to-fuel plants. But Mr. Schweitzer points to South Africa, where a single 50-year-old plant provides 28 percent of the nation's supplies of diesel, petrol and kerosene. But the South African plant uses old technology that does not remove the pollutants.
In this country there is a small factory in North Dakota that converts coal to natural gas. And Pennsylvania is moving forward on a plan to produce diesel from coal. Neither of these plants would come close to the scale of the plants Mr. Schweitzer is envisioning in Montana, where it would cost upward of $7 billion to build a plant that could turn out 150,000 barrels of synthetic fuel a day, for about $35 a barrel.
That's the major drawback of his plan. That 150,000b/d plant (which represents just 1% of imports, and even less of total consumption), apart form its price, will require about 2mt/y of coal - about 2% of Montana's current production, i.e. vast quantities of the stuff. That's why I would not tout CTL as the magic bullet. It's certainly one of the solutions that can be used to diversify gasoline/diesel sourcing, but it is unrealistic to expect it to provide more than a fraction of total demand. 20% of imports - 2.5 mb/d will require $120 billion of investment and a 30% increase in Montana's coal production, a worthy goal for the next 10 or 15 years, but unlikely to be reached without a major political push.
One surprising thing, thus far, is that many people in the environmental community have not rejected the coal-to-fuel idea out of hand. Environmentalists like the process for producing clean fuels from coal. They say the technology is there and it can be done in coal-rich empty quarters of eastern Montana, North Dakota or Wyoming.
(...)
"Certainly this process can be done. This is a promising direction. The question is, Are we going to do it clean?"
(...)
Because there is no federal mandate to process coal in a way that reduces the emissions that can cause global warming, Mr. Cavanagh says he fears that any new coal operations will simply add new pollutants to the atmosphere. Coal plants without the cleaning technology are the biggest source of man-made carbon dioxide, a gas that is considered a central contributor to the warming of the earth, according to many studies.
There is another problem as well. Some Montana ranchers and environmentalists who fought big coal-mining proposals in the 1970's are worried about what new mining will do to the grasslands.
(...)
Mr. Schweitzer said the mining could be done in a way that restored the land afterward. "I call it deep farming," he said. "You take away the top eight inches of soil, remove the seam of coal, and then put the topsoil back in."
The article makes a good summary of the stakes:
- coal is one of the most horrible pollutants, both in its mining and in its use, and this technology presents inherent risks if it is used without precautions;
- it is possible to do a lot better and cleaner, but it is also more expensive - and industry is unlikely to follow such rules voluntarily.
Governor Schweitzer has said all the right things on this topic, but we will need to hold him accountable for these promises, and make sure that
the goal is not to get cheap gasoline, but to get clean gasoline, because the consequences will otherwise be pretty stark - for Montana grasslands, for the quality of air in the region, and for global warming.
But at least he is keeping energy up and center in the political debate, he is keeping the initiative with a smart proposal, and he is associating Democrats with a lot of positive concepts. We should encourage him to continue, so long as the "clean" part is not forgotten.