More coal processing water problems
December 31st, 2006
Evergreen Energy is having water problems at its Ft. Union, Wyoming gasification plant. Why am I not surprised? It’s hard to tell from the article, but this is NOT gasification, it’s drying out coal to increase its burnability, essentially. But it’s another piece in the saga of coal and water not mixing.
Remember Wabash River’s water problems, that it was “routinely” in violation of its water permit for selenium, cyanide and arsenic?
Click here: Wasash River Final Technical Report
Remember the Beulah, ND synfuel plant and that it’s a hazardous waste site?
Click here: Report on Beulah water contamination
Here we go again…
Although Evergreen — formerly KFx — made several shipments to customers and recorded successful test burns in both the industrial and utility markets, troubles with water handling have prevented the Fort Union plant from achieving full production of 750,000 tons per year.
As Evergreen reconfigures an entirely new water handling system, it also must resolve issues with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality over alleged illegal dumping of wastewater.
And note they talk about coal gasification at Coal Creek? is Great River Energy getting into coal gasification (IGCC)? NOOOOOO! It’s a reference to their coal drying efforts. Click here for GRE COAL DRYING. I have visions of them doing laundry and ending up with a mess like I have only worse! Anyway, the odds are good that new generation is coming out there given the new Coal Creek to Wisconsin transmission line coming through Minnesota!
Listed on Evergreen’s success side this year are tentative agreements to build mine-mouth K-Fuel plants at the Buckskin and Coal Creek mines in the Powder River Basin. Next, Evergreen plans to deploy K-Direct, suited to achieve water and heating efficiencies alongside electrical generators themselves.
The difference between today’s K-Fuel plant and the one that made only a brief appearance in Wyoming 15 years ago is that it operates in a completely different world of market fundamentals. Sexton said financials demand a more efficient product, and environmental concerns demand a cleaner product.
“Demand clearly exceeds our ability to produce the product right now,” Sexton said.
Clean coal debut
Lack of investor enthusiasm forced Clear Energy Solutions to table its hopes for a coal-to-liquids project in Converse County in 2006, yet DKRW Energy LLC made sure-footed strides toward its Medicine Bow coal gasification and liquefaction project in Carbon County. And the state received more than a dozen formal proposals from parties interested in partnering in Wyoming’s first integrated gasification combined cycle plant.
Yet for all the talk, speculation and real work toward finally advancing Wyoming’s primitive shovel-and-ship coal industry to cleaner and more “value-added” processes, only one company actually produced tangible results in Wyoming this year.
Only Evergreen Energy Inc. actually fired up two Lurgi coal gasifiers at its new Fort Union K-Fuel plant here in 2006 after more than 15 arduous years of trying to take the process from laboratory to the commercial market.
The fact that Evergreen secured the millions needed to launch its first K-Fuel plant without any government subsidies was a milestone in and of itself. Martin Malloy, investment analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said despite encountering water handling troubles, Evergreen seems to have weathered the expensive start-up phase rather well.
“It’s a step in the right direction. They’ve been able to fund the start-up of this plant and still have more than $100 million cash on the balance sheet with minimal debt,” said Malloy, who does have a “buy” rating on Evergreen Energy stock. Hibernia has done investment banking for the company in the past 12 months.
Still, Evergreen’s 2006 start-up didn’t come without missteps that provided naysayers with plenty of fodder. Some customers experienced dusting issues with the product, which resulted in tinkering with a treatment process utilizing molasses to prevent dust-ups in the transportation and handling of the product.
More lemons into lemonade, according to Sexton. Cause for caution, say others.
“The start-up is much slower than anybody expected, about a year longer than expected,” said Phil Dodge, investment analyst for Standford Group Co.
The biggest challenge, by far, is handling the water that’s stripped from the coal. A $2 million reverse osmosis water treatment facility at the plant failed to perform as expected. Only one of the two Lurgi gasifiers is currently in use as the other is refitted with a different water piping regime.
Dodge said having a good deal of cash on the balance sheet buys Evergreen some time to work out the water kinks. Introducing any new fuel product to the market is extremely rough, but Evergreen seems to have a good shot at finding a home in the market.
“It really takes a long while, if not forever, to get one of these (alternative fuels) up and running commercially,” Dodge said. “This is the one that seemed to have the best shot, because the product is a desirable one.”
Regulatory issues
As Evergreen reconfigures an entirely new water handling system, it also must resolve issues with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality over alleged illegal dumping of wastewater.
Evergreen is involved in two separate “notices of violation,” which are yet to be resolved. For the most serious — an alleged illegal dumping in the plant’s mine pit — DEQ Director John Corra recommended a $35,000 penalty. Evergreen disputes that alleged violation, and said it fired a contractor involved in a second illegal dumping.
“As a company with a strong environmental theme to our business, we make great efforts to comply with environmental regulations and do not believe that any violation took place,” said Evergreen Energy spokesman Paul Jacobson.
A start is a start
Rob Hurless, energy adviser to Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, works closely with energy officials to bring clean coal technologies to the state. He said a rocky start-up is not unexpected for any new technology.
Evergreen’s Fort Union plant is the first of what is likely going to be a wide array of clean coal efforts in the state.
“I think that’s a normal process,” Hurless said. “These are significant technical advancements. When you’re working at that level of complexity in a marketplace that is itself complex, those are rough-and-tumble places.”
Hurless said Wyoming’s sub-bituminous coal hasn’t been the first-choice fuel source for such processes. But because Wyoming’s coal production is the cheapest and most prolific in the nation, there’s great interest to pair the resource with the emerging technologies.
“Any product or process faces challenges in its own marketplace. Some challenges are financial; some of them are market challenges,” Hurless said. “Fortunately, you have entrepreneurs up there who said, ‘OK, we’re going to take a chance, put our money in this and do the best to produce the product.'”
Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 682-3388 or dustin.bleizeffer@casperstartribune.net.
Coal, coal gasification – don’t they get it?It’s NOT the panacea…How long will we go on flogging the dead canary?
Sierra Club challenges Texas coal plant fast-track
December 30th, 2006
Click logo for link to Environmental Integrity Project
A lawsuit, a power plant moratorium, doctors standing up for the health of their communities… is this sounding familiar?
Here’s the TXU site to see what they’re planning:
In the words of an industry guy with an interest in seeing more power plants:
“For now at least, it would seem that the ‘fast track’ process is toast.”
I’m just not so optimistic, but this is an important step — they cannot get away with this.
Issues continue to brew in coal-fired plant process
Associated Press
AUSTIN â?? The Sierra Club, represented by the Austin office of Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), took legal action today to stop the â??unprecedented, unreasonable, and … illegalâ? plan by Governor Rick Perry to â??fast trackâ? administrative hearings for construction of up to 18 dirty coal-fired power plants in the state. Most of the plants in question are being proposed by the Dallas-based utility giant TXU.
EIP Austin Office Counsel Ilan Levin filed the petition on behalf of the Sierra Club to intervene in a state district lawsuit originally brought by Environmental Defense over the processing of coal plant permits. Todayâ??s legal action by Sierra Club stems from a recent state agency decision to consolidate six proposed TXU coal plant permits into one hearing, and to set those permits for a speedy decision. The lawsuit seeks to halt Perryâ??s controversial executive order of October 27, 2005, directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to accelerate consideration of permit applications and the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to issue unusually fast decisions on air pollution permits for new electric power plants.
EIP Austin Office Counsel Ilan Levin said: â??Today, Sierra Club is asking a judge to overturn a Governorâ??s executive order that imposes unfair burdens on regular people simply trying to avail themselves of the common-sense environmental protections built into state and federal laws. Weâ??re saying that speeding up the required decision process for major new sources of smog and other air pollution is illegal and unfair, especially to citizens trying to participate.â?
Rita Beving, Conservation Co-Chair for the Dallas Sierra Club Group, whose areaâ??s air quality would be impacted by coal plant emissions, said: â??This legal action is a critical step in the fight by Texas citizens to assert their rights to protect their health and environment from an ill-considered rush to permit these polluting coal-fired power plants, whether we need them or not. The tragedy is that we could meet our energy needs through greater efficiency and renewable energy, without subjecting our cities to further air pollution from coal plants.â?
The lawsuit notes: â??The executive order imposes an unreasonable schedule to thoroughly develop the required technical and legal issues for one major air permit of the type being considered, let alone six of them … The Governorâ??s Executive Order RP 49 infringes on the rights of Texas citizens to participate meaningfully in the environmental permitting arena. The right of any affected party to participate in agency permitting decisions is rooted in the constitutional right to due process. The Governor lacks authority to unilaterally alter this system. Further, the Governor lacks the authority to dictate to an administrative law judge exactly how much time is allowed for a judicial administrative decision, and to do so violates the doctrine of separation of powers.â?
The Perry fast-tracking scheme has huge consequences. The Sierra Club petition notes: â??To put the magnitude of the six TXU permits in context, it is worth noting the additional greenhouse gases associated with these new coal plants. While not addressed in the permits, the new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. In 2005, all existing Texas power plants emitted 255.4 million tons of carbon dioxide.â?
The Sierra Club contends that a full and deliberate hearing process on each of the power plant applications is crucial due to the serious health and environmental consequences associated with coal-fired power plants, such as increased sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury pollution.
For example, the legal filing points out: â??Sulfur dioxide … interacts with nitrogen oxides to form nitric and sulfuric acids, commonly known as acid rain, which damages forests and acidifies soil and waterways. Harvard School of Public Health studies have shown that SO2 emissions from power plants significantly harm the cardiovascular and respiratory health of people who live near the plants. According to U.S. EPA studies, fine particle pollution from power plants causes more than 20,000 premature deaths a year.â?
On the topic of mercury pollution, the EIP/Sierra Club petition notes: â??Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide. Mercury is a highly toxic metal that, once released into the atmosphere, settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans. The Centers for Disease Control has found that roughly 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.â?
Another major pollutant — nitrogen oxide — is a major contributor to ozone smog-forming pollution, which has been a major problem for ambient air quality in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin areas.
Usually each power plant application would be considered separately with a full review of the risks associated with its additional pollution impact. The new plants also would be examined to verify that that are using the best available technology in order to not degrade air quality.
From PR Newswire
========================
Here’s one County standing up to TXU, initiating a moratorium:
By Jerrie Whiteley
Herald DemocratGrayson County commissioners Monday voted to approve a moratorium on power plant permitting in the state until a court decides the appropriateness of the expedited process currently under way for pulverized coal-fired plants.
However, the decision was not a quick or unanimous one. Commissioners listened to more than an hour of comments both for and against the plant planned for Savoy before taking a vote. Commissioner Johnny Waldrip, Precinct 1, declined to vote on the issue saying he has family members who are employed by TXU.
That left four members of the court with votes. Jackie Crisp, commissioner from Precinct 3, made a motion that commissioners support the moratorium. David Whitlock, commissioner for Precinct 2, said â??I donâ??t have a problem signing the resolution … I donâ??t know if it will do any good.â?
Whitlock and other commissioners urged those who are opposed to the power plant or who want the process slowed down to go to the law makers who can do something about their concerns. Those law makers, commissioners said, work in Austin.
Whitlockâ??s vote put Gene Short, commissioner for Precinct 4, in the hot seat. Short stared at his hands and the desk in front of him while he apparently thought about the issue. He looked up a time or two and then back down.
Just as he seemed about to answer, a Denison man reminded him from the audience that Shortâ??s television ads for his recent re-election efforts had featured his grandchildren. Several people who spoke out against the power plant or at least against the fast-tracking, urged the commissioners to think about future generations.
â??My first inclination is to vote No,â? Short said, â??But I will go ahead and go along with it.â?
His vote set the record at three to one abstention. Judge Tim McGraw didnâ??t vote. It was McGrawâ??s last court session as county judge.
Before the vote, commissioners heard from a number of area residents, some more than once, on their opinions about the proposed power plant. At the end of all of the comments, Short asked, â??Are you all wanting to kill the project?â?
A loud round of â??Noâ? filled the air and then several people at once tried to explain that what they really wanted was more time.
â??We want to get to know what is going on,â? someone called from the back. Grayson County Clerk Wilma Blackshear Bush repeatedly told people they have to come to the front of the room and give their names before talking, but by the end of the time set aside for the comments, that rule broke down.
So did the one about only speaking for five minutes. Most of the people who spoke Monday have addressed the issue wih commissioners before. Some were at the commissionerâ??s meeting last week and others have discussed the matter at area city councils.
One of the people who went over his five minutes and addressed the commissioners more than once, Dr. Stanley Feld, said the commissioners canâ??t get lost in the confusion about what is allowable by Environmental Protection Agency standards and what will actually hurt people.
â??Last week I felt like I didnâ??t communicate with you,â? Feld said. He said he asked himself what he had missed when he talked to them about the potential dangers of mercury poisoning and the problems that could result from other chemicals the proposed changes to the plant in Savoy could produce. He explained the amount of mercury that the EPA says a plant can produce and not hurt the people who live around it is not, in his understanding, a healthy amount. He said converting the metric amount to the standard of measurements most average people will understand is hard and hiding behind that is a ploy used by TXU.
Whitlock asked Feld if he thought commissioners should join the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition.
â??No. I think you should take a stand. You gotta understand TXU says (it will be) better than EPA (requirements) but EPA stinks. It takes advantage of us not understanding the difference between metric (measurements) and pounds.â?
Dr. George Diggs said he asked that the item be put on the commissionerâ??s agenda. He said he, and many of the others present, â??Just wants to be able to look at it better. We want Grayson County to be a successful, healthy place to live.â?
He said to make that happen, he thinks the residents of the area need as much information about the proposed pulverized coal burning plant. People must know the pros and cons for both sides before they can make rational decisions.
Not everyone who spoke was against the plant. Pat Hillard, Fannin Count commissioner Precinct 4, showed up to explain why that countyâ??s court voted in favor of the plant. Hillard said it wasnâ??t just about economics. â??It is because of the light switch,â? he said. He explained he wants electricity when he goes to a switch to turn it on.
â??I am not going to tell TXU how to build a power plant,â? Hillard said. He said he wouldnâ??t want them telling him how to do his business. He added that if the counties â??bullyâ? TXU into building the plant the way the counties want it built, â??Where is the responsibility for a disaster there?â?
He hinted that the responsibility might fall to the counties. Hillard said one thing is sure, if the area loses out on power, it will lose out on industry and economic gain. Hillard said he and other Fannin County commissioners did their homework on the issue and he urged Grayson County to the same.
Chip Brusard of Bells said he is favor of the plant and the fast track. He said slowing the process down will cost more money and that cost will be passed along to the utility costumers.
TXU representative Tom Rose said he couldnâ??t possibly address all of the questions about the proposed plant that the commissioners heard Monday. He did say if the company didnâ??t add to its power production the state would be below reliable reserves by 2009 or 2010. He said that is because of the stateâ??s increase in population and power consumption. He also said the power consumption is related, at least in part, to economic improvement. â??People make more money and they go out and buy Plasma TVs,â? Rose said. He said those appliances use more power than regular televisions.
Rose said the company continually adds improvements to its existing plants as new technology comes along. However, when asked point blank if TXU were likely to change the Savoy plant over to coal gasification later on down the line, he said it would be a very costly process.
In the end, the commissioners passed the resolution in support of the moratorium, but urged those present to take their fight to the legislators in Austin.
#2 Hibbing Daily Tribune – Citizens voice opinions on gasification plant
December 22nd, 2006
Citizens voice opinions on gasification plant
Melissa Cox
The Daily Tribune
Thursday, December 21st, 2006 10:33:21 AM
TACONITE â?? The proposed coal-fired gasification plant was once again the topic of debate this week.
Six public hearings regarding Excelsior Energyâ??s proposed power purchase agreement (PPA), which would require Xcel Energy to purchase power from a base load power generating facility to be located near Taconite or Hoyt Lakes, were held in St. Paul, Hoyt Lakes and Taconite this week.
The hearings allowed the public to voice comments and concerns on the Mesaba Energy Project. The comments will be placed on record and taken into consideration by administrative law judges from the state Office of Administrative Hearings.
After the record is closed, the parties involved will file briefs and replies, and then the administrative law judges will make reports to the Minnesota PUC. The Minnesota PUC makes the final decision regarding the PPA.
Story Continues Below
Story Content
The proposed coal-fed Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation facility would be constructed in two phases. Each phase would have the capability of producing approximately 600 megawatts of base load power. Construction of the proposed project would begin in 2008 with the expected serve date of 2011. There would be approximately 1,000 construction jobs and about 100 people employed during operation. Excelsior Energy would construct and operate the facility.
Two public hearings were held at the Taconite Community Center regarding the PPA Wednesday. The community center was packed for the 1 p.m. hearing.
Bruce Johnson, administrative law judge, facilitated the hearing, which lasted more than two hours.
â??We will be forwarding all your written comments as well as this oral testimony on to the Public Utilities Commission for the commissionâ??s consideration when it receives our report,â? Johnson told attendees.
After Johnson explained the process, representatives from Excelsior Energy, Xcel Energy, Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, Minnesota Department of Commerce and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy had a chance to speak. Then, the floor was open to the public with more than 30 people commenting. People spoke both for and against the project.
â?¢ â?¢ â?¢
Those in favor of the project focused on economic benefits to the region including high-paying jobs.
Peter McDermott, president of Itasca Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit corporation for helping create quality jobs in Itasca County, discussed the economic needs of Itasca County. He pointed out the county has high poverty levels, and this project would create jobs both directly and indirectly in the county.
Fred Tanner of Bovey said the schools have lost many children over the years and any type of economic improvement in the area would help the district and tax base. Tanner also pointed out that an advantage of the project would be using the water from Canisteo Pit, which could help with ongoing overflow issues.
Mark Mandich, Itasca County commissioner, said he is on record of supporting the project dependent on state permitting that is required in order for the plant to move forward.
Darrell Godvoug of a local ironworkers union said he supports the project because of the economic impact it would have.
Paul Dulong of Pengilly said economic development is required to keep this area going, to keep the school districts growing and to provide opportunity for people that are raising young families.
He said he was fortunate to have the opportunity to find a good-paying job in the area, but many of his classmates did not.
â??Generally, when you go to college you move on,â? he said. â??Thereâ??s no place to come back to. I was a displaced worker at Blandin. I went through the cutbacks of the forest industry. I watched the mining industry struggle. We have to diversify.
â??I heard people say, â??This is 100 jobs. What is 100 jobs?â?? Well, economic development spurs economic development and you have to take that step.â?
Being as strong on environmental standards as the state is, Dulong asserted that if this project passes those requirements, there is no doubt it needs to move forward to help the area grow.
Bob Schwartz noted as a small-business owner it is difficult to talk on record about the project. He said creation of 107 jobs is significant. He said he ran an ad for two full-time permanent positions with benefits for one day in the newspaper and received 197 applications, which is an indication that the area needs jobs.
Also, as a local football coach he has seen a lot of kids graduate and move away. He estimated that 90 to 95 percent would love to come back to the area and have good-paying jobs.
â??Those are the type of quality people we need to bring back,â? he said.
Schwartz said if it isnâ??t the power plant, then everyone in the room should band together for economic development.
Other supporters placed letters of supports from their organizations on record and talked about how they would like this area to be a place for future generations to live and work.
â?¢ â?¢ â?¢
Many concerns were raised from those who spoke in opposition to the project with a focus on environmental, health, economic and financial issues.
Jim Merhar, tribal chairman for White Earth Reservation on the Iron Range, said they are building an assisted living facility about a mile and a half from the plant. He said they have big concerns with the project including mercury, pollution, carbon, wetlands and water quality.
â??As native people, we really want clean water and clean air,â? he said. â??I donâ??t believe the taxpayers of this county should spend one dime building a railroad for this company …â?
LouAnne Hansen of Grand Rapids agreed that poverty is a huge problem in the area.
â??But, 100 jobs is such a small payment for the added financial responsibility for people living in the area to help pay for the infrastructure projects and the possible extra financial burden of Xcel customers,â? she said.
She noted that the economic ripple can go the other way with loss of tourism and other concerns, which she added is too big a price to pay.
Susan Backe of Grand Rapids said that a plant that offers 100 jobs will not eliminate poverty in Itasca County.
â??I would as a human being rather be poor and live in a clean house, than be rich and live in a dirty house, which is what is going happen to our lakes when the emissions from this proposed plant starts up,â? she said. â??I donâ??t feel this plant is beneficial for the citizens of northern Minnesota.â?
A concern raised by Charles Grant was that the technology needed to pull the carbon from the coal to keep it out of area lakes and peopleâ??s lungs isnâ??t there. Which in turn could cause health problems and environmental concerns.
Elmer Pederson said he supports the idea of having jobs in this area, but cannot support the project. He said the power isnâ??t being distributed in this area of the state, and residents shouldnâ??t have to deal with the contamination.
Murray Mills, of the Itasca Citizens for Responsible Government, opposed the project.
â??I think the key here this afternoon is the word responsible and we believe this project is irresponsible,â? he said.
Other concerns raised and questions asked include effect of carbon sequestration on reservoirs, mercury omission, effect on stock in Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, too many uncertainties, effect on well water, cost of the project, potential of acid rain, who the project is going to benefit, and effect on property value.
Comments voiced at the meeting and other written statements filed before Friday will be placed on record and considered in the proceedings.
Written comments regarding the power purchase agreement can be mailed to Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2138, emailed to bruce.johnson@state.mn.us or faxed to 1-612-349-2665. Comments have to be submitted by 4:30 p.m. Friday in order to be included as part of public record.
mncoalgasplant.com’s Mesaba Rebuttal Testimony
October 11th, 2006
.
The Power Purchase Agreement docket for Excelsior’s Mesaba Project is ramping up to a delightfully warm level. Yesterday, our Rebuttal Testimony was due, and I got it done with a couple hours to spare, finally managed to get in on the discount rate at the local copy shop, left for the airport Post Office before dark, and got a couple hours of sleep the night before even — hey, life is good!
mncoalgasplant.com has been blessed with two great witnesses, Ed Anderson, M.D., and Ronald R. Rich, and here’s what they have to say:
Ed Anderson, M.D.
anderson-exhibit-2-price-of-pollution.pdf
anderson-exhibit-3-environmentalcostsofdiseasesdisabilities-davies.pdf
anderson-exhibit-4-environmental-pollutants-and-disease-in-american-children.PDF
Ronald R. Rich
Exhibits are too big — will link to them
Ex. 6 – The Economics of CO2 Storage
Ed and Ron are a treat to work with, and it means so much more when they not only are the perfect witnesses in their areas, but they literally have a stake in the geographical area in question. This community means a lot to them and they are playing an important part of making sure the record is built about the impacts of this proposed project. Ed is one of the Co-Presidents of CAMP, Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, and Ron, of Atmosphere Recovery, Inc. fame, is an active member of the Swan Lake Association. Both have contributed comments and testimony for the DOE Scoping process and the “agency formerly known as the EQB” (maybe a glyph contest is in order here, this mutant agency needs it!), and Ed was on the Citizens Advisory Task Force, as perverted a public process as I’ve ever seen. Those who were part of real task forces in the past wouldn’t recognize it as a Task Force! Anyway, they’re both actively part of this PPA docket, and will be testifying in November’s hearing. We’re so fortunate to have them drop out of the sky, the right people at the right time.
As for the rest of the testimony, I’ll get that posted next. It is real kick-ass stuff, Xcel and Minnesota Power and even Commerce — NO Ed Garvey testimony this time! Given where it’s at now, I cannot imagine a scenario where this would be approved. Yeah, yesterday a good time was had by all, except Excelsior, I imagine. Great Testimony. So sit there on the edge of your chairs… naaaaaah, get comfortable, because it may be a while. And if you’re looking for the latest testimony in the enviro’s case, well, don’t hold your breath, MCEA, Fresh Energy, and the Waltons didn’t file any. And they didn’t file any Dispositive Motion, didn’t file any response to either of our Summary Judgment Miotions that were made, and didn’t bother to show up at the hearing to argue them. So next time you see them, ask them what they’re doing to STOP Mesaba…
I guess the best we can hope for is that they keep out of the way. I mean really, we’re the ones who entered “The Price of Pollution” into the record — this is a cost docket after all, an appropriate place for it! Is something wrong with this picture?
The Waltons and Coal and ME2 !!
November 15th, 2005
It’s been a very “interesting” week, in the Chinese sense, particularly for someone like me who’s jawing about everything at a time when jawing in any way whatsoever is excruciating. FINALLY, my stitches are out and the swelling is down and I’m weaning myself off a 2-3 pack a day habit of frozen juice/fruit bars.
Remember that front page piece in the Sioux Falls paper about a deal to put up some wind and add pollution control equipment to Big Stone II and slide through transmission? Deal opens door to wind power
There’s more:
Check the most recent ME3 newsletter (scroll down) : Proposed coal plants threaten energy system innovation
ME3 regional partnership tackles global warming, promotes clean energy solutions You’d have a hard time guessing what it means because it’s so vague.
And Neil St. Anthony had an interesting piece on coal last week. It’s all connected!
Cleaning up coal: Promising new, cleaner technologies
A group of strange bedfellows banded together to look for clean answers to the region’s energy potential.
Neal St. Anthony, Star Tribune
Several big, coal-fired power plants are proposed for construction over the next decade in the Upper Midwest, and an unlikely coalition of environmentalists, utilities and regulators is quietly working toward a “clean-coal” future.
The ultimate goal: a path toward technologies and licensing standards designed to eradicate vexing greenhouse gases that are the bane of coal-fired plants.
“What’s different about this group is that we have very strange bedfellows at the same table,” said Betsy Engelking, manager of resource planning at Xcel Energy Inc., the biggest utility in the neighborhood. “It shows the conundrums. But as we look at our energy future — the price of gas going up and the risks around foreign oil imports — we’ve got a great group that’s willing to come together and talk instead of fighting it out in a courtroom over a plant.”
Of course, a court challenge could happen, Engelking acknowledged, but in the meantime, “We’re talking.”
In short, there’s an estimated 300 years’ worth of coal sitting under the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. It’s cheap, secure energy compared with the oil and natural-gas fields of the Middle East. And with known U.S. oil and natural-gas reserves declining, the stuff isn’t getting any cheaper.
“We’re not saying don’t burn another ton of coal,” said Bill Grant, associate executive director of the Izaak Walton League. “It’s not practical.”
But existing technology, which can scrub some of the deadly mercury and other pollutants from the combustion process, doesn’t stop the production of carbon dioxide — a leading source of greenhouse gases. (Auto and truck emissions are the other major source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.)
Most scientists say greenhouse gases are warming the planet in dangerous ways. Litigation already has spilled beyond environmental groups. Attorneys generals in several Eastern states are suing Ohio and utilities that operate pollution-spewing plants, charging that they’ve done hundreds of millions in environmental and health damage.
The good news is, there are promising technologies.
“Integrated gasification-combine cycle technology” is designed to chemically remove the carbon dioxide before combustion. That technology is estimated to add 20 percent to the cost of a new plant, but it could prevent a host of downstream issues.
And there is potential for direct economic benefit as well. The captured carbon dioxide in a demonstration project in North Dakota is being piped to pressurize a depleted oil field in Canada that’s now producing more oil.
The “Coal Gasification Work Group,” put together by the Great Plains Institute (www.gpisd.net), a public policy platform based in North Dakota and Minneapolis, is charged with developing recommendations in 2006 for several Upper Midwest states, said Brad Crabtree of Great Plains.
“We can be a worldwide pioneer, a regional project that can help solve a national issue,” Crabtree said. “There’s an urgency about this in the industrialized world. If we get this right, the market for clean coal will come to us.”
The Great Plains group will prepare a “coal roadmap” for the region — which contains half the coal reserves in the United States.
It will make recommendations in support of advanced technologies and specific projects that demonstrate the combustion technology, carbon capture and geologic storage, as well as integrating advanced facilities with enhanced transmission and wind-energy development.
Environmentalists and industry folks are saying the first test case — it may end up being the first battle — will be over the plans of Great River Energy and its partners to build the proposed Big Stone II plant in South Dakota that would bring coal-fired power to the Twin Cities.
The $1.2 billion Big Stone II plant, when combined with the smaller Big Stone I plant in eastern South Dakota, will generate less mercury and other pollutants than Big Stone I generates today, thanks to waste-heat usage, pretreatment of the coal and advance scrubbers that will be installed in both units.
However, that won’t mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions.
Great River CEO Dave Saggau has said he believes new technologies are too far off to be included in Big Stone II, which is scheduled to start construction in 2007.
Environmental groups plan to fight the necessary construction and transmission permits before state regulators next year in Minnesota and South Dakota.
They will insist that it’s foolish to proceed with old, pulverized-coal technology and that the plant can wait until carbon-capturing technologies are in place.
It could prove to be a watershed case.
Mike Gregerson, an engineering consultant and former plant-licensing executive at Xcel who is part of the clean-coal work group, said utilities don’t want to put an undo burden on their ratepayers. But they want government to lay down the rules so they aren’t vulnerable to millions in damages from lawsuits later.
“The utilities and the regulators need some help on the technologies and the regulations and the costs so they can make the leap” Gregerson said. “The clean-coal working group can work the issue along.”
As a pilot project, Xcel is planning a 100-megawatt clean-coal plant in Colorado next year that also should yield a lot of answers.
Neal St. Anthony â?¢ 612-673-7144 â?¢ nstanthony@startribune.com
More than a few eyebrows are up, and the listserves are filled with questions that inquiring minds are asking. Here’s their explanation of what they’re doing:
Upper Midwest Dialogue on Coal Gasification, Carbon Sequestration and Related Wind and Hydrogen Development
Just who all is involved here? Look at the membership of this workgroup.
PTP Coal Gasification Working Group Participant List
Nongovernmental Organizations
* Steve Brick, Associate Director, Energy Centerof Wisconsin, Madison, WI
* Bill Grant, MidwestDirector, Izaak Walton League of America, St. Paul, MN
* Mark Redsten, Executive Director, Clean Wisconsin, Madison, WI
* Beth Soholt, Director, Wind on the Wires, St. Paul, MN
* John Thompson, Advocacy Coordinator, Clean Air Task Force, Carbondale, IL
Let’s see… Who’s regarded as a “stakeholder?” “>Bill Grant and Beth Soholt representing Minnesota. No one else. Beth Soholt was Izaak Walton until the WOW grant came through with enough dough to build an “organization” around. They’re operating out of the same address.
Where’s the Sierra Club and its Air Toxics Campaign? Paula Maccabee’s no longer there, but the Campaign is going strong. Doesn’t Sierra Club count?
Where’s Elizabeth Dickenson? She as an individual has done more to raise awareness of coal plants than anyone, in her mayoral campaign, she woke up St. Paul about energy responsibility, and she was in there testifying against Mesaba in 2002 and 2003. And the Izaak Walton League did not testify against it.
Where’s Barbara Freese of Union of Concerned Scientists and author of Coal: A Human History? Doesn’t she know a thing or two about coal?
Only the Waltons are regarded as stakeholders? What the hell…
Who’s funding this anyway?
Corporate and Corporate Foundation Contributions
* Aggregate Industries
* Basin Electric Power Cooperative
* Donaldson Company
* Entegris Company
* Great River Energy
* Izaak Walton League for America
* Manitoba Hydro
* Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy
* Minnesota Corn Growers
* Xcel Energy
Oh. Duh. Say no more…
… sigh…
And look who’s representing the state!
State Officials and State Legislators
* Mike Bull, Assistant Commissioner, Renewable Energy and Advanced Technologies, MinnesotaDepartment of Commerce, St. Paul, MN
* Catherine Boies, Executive Assistant, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
* Gary Hanson (R), Commissioner, South DakotaUtilities Commission, Pierre, SD
* Roger Johnson(D), Commissioner of Agriculture and Member, State Industrial Commission, Bismarck, ND
* Bob Raney (D), Commissioner, MontanaPublic Service Commission, Helena, MT
* Rich Wardner(R), State Senator and Executive Director, DickinsonChamber of Commerce, Dickinson, ND
Shoulda asked Mikey about it last night in Preston, when he was stumping for Rep. Greg Davids, the guy with the telemarketing skills that City Pages wrote about in Burn Baby Burn:
If nothing else, the conversation provides a colorful window into the world of small-town politics. Davids expresses extreme displeasure with the letter to the Republican-Leader, and then threatens to sue the letter writer absent an apology. “That’s not acceptable. That’s lawsuit city. If he makes [an apology], I’ll accept it… But if this continues, I’ll protect myself,” Davids says. What bothered Pechulis most was what came next: Davids declared he would also take other members of SEMEP to court. “Does this SEMEP group have insurance?” Davids says on the tape. “You better get some. This happens again, I’ll sue them. I’ve got good attorneys. Junkyard-dog-killing attorneys that will rip their eyes out and pee in their brains.”
Stay tuned for updates on this coal gasification group.