Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Global Warming Solutions- A Montana Perspective

VIEWS: 74 PAGES: 39

									Global Warming Solutions:
    A Montana Perspective

              Presented to the
  State Environmental Leadership Program
                      by
             Patrick Judge, MEIC
             November 16, 2006
Montana Impacts . . .




                        2
Montana‟s Contribution . . .




                               3
MT Supply & Demand (MW)

 6000

 5000

 4000

 3000

 2000

 1000

   0
        Capacity   Production   Consumption



                                              4
MT‟s Electricity Production
1999-2002 Average
(EQC 2004 Report, Tables E5 & E3)

        Petroleum   Other
           2%       <1%

                            Hydro
                                    Hydro
                            36%
                                    Coal
                                    Petroleum
       Coal                         Other
       62%




                                          5
MT‟s “Nuclear Vote Initiative”
   I-80, passed in 1978
   Requires a majority vote of MT‟s voters
    before siting a nuclear facility in MT
   “Substantial public concern” over:
       Radioactive waste
       Cost overruns
       Potential for catastrophic accident
       Proliferation of nuclear bombs & terrorism

                                                 6
Boiler Room of the Nation?
   In 1971, the Bureau of Reclamation released the
    North Central Power Study
   The study projected 42 energy parks to be located in
    MT, ND, SD, & WY, each producing 10,000 MW of
    coal-fired power
   21 of the plants were to be located in eastern
    Montana (210,000 MW)
   Nearly a trillion gallons of water would have been
    needed each year, enough to meet the domestic
    needs of 13 million people!


                                                      7
Colstrip Power Plant Complex




                               8
Recently Permitted Plants
PROJECT     LOCATION TYPE               SIZE
Bull Mtn.   Roundup Coal                780 MW
Continental Butte    Gas                500 MW
NWE         Great Falls   Gas           262 MW
MDU         Hardin        Coal          116 MW
Basin Ck.   Butte         Gas           55 MW
MDU         Glendive      Gas           40 MW
T. River    T. Falls      Coal / Wood   16 MW
TOTAL                                   1769 MW
                                              9
Other Proposed Coal Plants
PROJECT          LOCATION        SIZE
Kennecott,       Otter Creek     3000 MW
Bechtel, Wesco                   (4x750)
Great Northern   Circle          500 MW
Crow Nation      Crow Reservation 500 MW
Comanche Park    Broadview       200 MW
SME G&T          Great Falls     250 MW
TOTAL                            4450 MW
                                        10
11
MT Supply & Demand (MW)
12000

10000

8000
                                              Proposed
6000
                                              Existing
4000

2000

   0
        Capacity   Production   Consumption



                                                   12
Public Policy Considerations
   1971 BOR North Central Power Study
   The response?
       1971   Montana Environmental Policy Act
       1972   New Constitution
       1973   Montana Strip & Reclamation Act
       1973   Montana Water Use Act
       1973   Montana Utility Siting Act
       1975   30% Coal Severance Tax
       1975   Major Facility Siting Act

                                                  13
Can you find the “Major Facility”?
         a) 100 mile long 500 kV transmission line?




         b) 10,000 MW coal-fired power plant?




         c) 785 mile, 24 inch diameter pipeline?



         d) 8 MW geothermal plant?


                                                      14
Strategies
   Negotiation
       Montana First Megawatts
       Basin Creek
       Hardin
   Legislation
       Incentives & Regulation for Clean vs. Dirty energy
   Litigation
       Roundup


                                                       15
Montana‟s Constitution -- 1972
Art. II, Section 3:
  “All persons are born free and have
  certain inalienable rights. They include
  the right to a clean and healthful
  environment . . .”




                                        16
Montana‟s Constitution -- 1972
Art. IX, Section 1:
  “(1) The state and each person shall
  maintain and improve a clean and
  healthful environment in Montana for
  present and future generations.”




                                         17
Montana Supreme Court --
1999 MEIC vs. DEQ
   Clean & Healthful Environment is a
    fundamental right
   The strict scrutiny test applies --
    this right cannot be violated unless:
       compelling state interest
       the exception is “narrowly tailored,” to
        accomplish the goal with the least impact



                                                18
The Toolbox . . .
   Universal System Benefits Charge      1997
   Net Metering Law                      1999
   Clean Energy Tax Incentives / Loans   2001
   Green Power Program for NWE           2003
   Energy Building Codes Updated         2004
   Renewable Energy Standard             2005
   First Commercial Scale Wind Project   2005




                                                 19
SB 415 - MT‟s new RES Law
   Investor-Owned Utilities
      5% by 2008

      10% by 2010

      15% by 2015

   15 Small, Community-Owned Projects
   Co-ops with more than 5000 customers must develop
    their own standards
   Preference for Montana Workers, and Prevailing
    Wage provisions
   Requested by Governor Schweitzer, Sponsored by
    President Tester, and Endorsed by 40+ organizations
                                                   20
21
Judith Gap Wind Project




                          22
  Brian Schweitzer
      on coal development:
“When we‟re sitting on 120 billion tons of coal,
  we ought to be saying „Giddyup, let‟s figure
  out how we can get this out of here.‟”
                       -- Billings Gazette
                          August 9, 2005




                                                   23
  Brian Schweitzer
      on strip-mining:
“Basically you peel off the top forty feet of
  overburden and remove about 40 feet of
  coal. When you‟re done mining you put the
  material back in,” Schweitzer says. “This
  process is basically deep farming.‟”
                         -- Missoula Independent
                                  June 22, 2006



                                                   24
IGCC: “Clean Coal”?
   uses heat, pressure, steam and limited oxygen to
    convert coal into “syngas” which is mostly carbon
    monoxide & hydrogen
   mercury, sulfur and particulates are separated out
   the syngas is then burned in a combustion turbine,
    creating electricity
   the exhaust gases are nearly pure CO2 & H2O
   “combined cycle” means that the waste heat in the
    hot exhaust gases is used to produce additional
    electricity in a steam turbine
   the efficiency approaches 45% (vs. 38% PC)
                                                   25
IGCC Plant Diagram




                     26
Coal to Liquid Fuels
   First step is the same -- create syngas
   You can then direct that gas to a Fischer-Tropsch
    chemical plant, instead of an IGCC power block
   Fischer-Tropsch process:
    carbon monoxide + hydrogen → liquid fuels + CO2
   Can be used in combination with IGCC and wind




                                                    27
Coal to Liquids (Sci. Am. 7/05)
   "In response to the growing demand for
    imported oil to fuel vehicles, some
    nations, such as China, are turning to
    coal to serve as a feedstock for
    synthetic fuels that substitute for
    gasoline and diesel fuel. From a
    climate change perspective, this is a
    step backward . . .

                                       28
Coal to Liquids (continued)
“Burning a coal-based synthetic fuel
  rather than gasoline to drive a set
  distance releases approximately double
  the carbon dioxide, when one takes into
  account both tailpipe and synfuels plant
  emissions. In synthetic fuels production
  from coal, only about half the carbon in
  the coal ends up in the fuel, and the
  other half is emitted at the plant."
                                       29
Sample FT Reactions
Octane: 16CO + 9H2 ---> C8H18 + 8CO2

Diesel: 24CO +13H2 ----> C12H26 + 12CO2

Note that there is as much carbon in the
 exhaust, as in the liquid fuel product!


                                       30
Sasol Plant -- South Africa




                              31
Carbon Capture and
Sequestration
   IGCC produces 20% less CO2 than PC, but
    20% more than natural gas-fired CC turbines
   carbon capture wipes out the efficiency gains,
    increases costs, and reduces the water savings
   Enhanced Oil Recovery <> Sequestration
   practicality and cost of “permanent” storage
    remains uncertain




                                                     32
Dakota Gasification Company




                              33
Map of CO2 Pipeline




                      34
The Case “FOR” IGCC / CTL
   “Energy Independence”
   “Value-Added Eco. Development for Rural
    Montana”
   “Coal is abundant and cheap”
   IGCC has lower emissions than other coal projects
   Less water, fuel, & waste than other coal projects
   FT Fuel has fewer impurities than petro-diesel
   Pollutants can be captured and potentially
    marketed (including the CO2)
   May assist with other clean projects - wind & H2

                                                    35
The Case “AGAINST”
   High initial startup costs
   Large-scale centralized industrial operation
   Depletion of natural resources -- coal, water
   Fuel-Cycle Costs -- Mining & Transport
   Significant Production of Global Warming
    Pollution, especially with liquefaction
   Sequestration Unproven
   Opportunity Costs

                                              36
37
“Clean Coal?”
 “Coal is dirty when you mine it, dirty
  when you transport it, dirty when you
  burn it and dirty when you dispose of
  the ash . . . And it sure dirties up
  politics.”
    -- Vivian Stockman
               Ohio Valley
               Environmental Coalition

                                    38
MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL
 INFORMATION CENTER
        Founded in 1974,
“To Protect and Restore Montana‟s
      Natural Environment”

                                    39

								
To top