Coal-based fuel plant proposed for Butte; Schweitzer says many hurdles remain

The article covered a Florida entrepreneur’s angle of coal production in Montana. William Bruce, president of EcoSphere Energy of New Smyrna Beach, apparently sees coal extraction as an inevitable endeavor, so he has proposed a 160- to 170-megawatt plant in Butte that would be "the most environmentally friendly coal plant that has ever been built." His plans include the creation of a 130-acre algae farm that would turn coal into electricity, ethanol and biodiesel. According to the article, “microscopic organisms would consume the greenhouse gas as they grow. The algae then would be harvested, and the oils extracted and used to produce biodiesel.” Montana’s governor and secretary of state each met, along with their aides, to discuss this opportunity with Bruce on Friday December 30.

First of all, the article commended the work of Governor Schweitzer and the Montana Secretary of State for their initial steps to sidestep partisanship. Their efforts to think outside the oil-box are equally commendable in my mind. Breaking our dependency on foreign oil is no simple task. But I don’t think they’re distancing our dependency for the right reasons. I’ve listened to climatologist Steve Running describe Global Warming as the trial of my generation- this country, and indeed the world, must part with 80 percent of our carbon emissions in 43 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested policies that factor in the current science and this simple fact. An elected official like Schweitzer has to decide what is in the public’s interest. For example- is it in the interest of my neighbors and I to hand out state subsidies to King Coal in order to develop carbon fighting substances like this algae? Or is it more sensical to employ that creative focus (and public funding) to develop sustainably?

My opinion on this matter is established. It’s foundation- we have one Earth, and one Montana, state and national governments have a responsibility to promote the general welfare, and I take this to include the public’s environment. Environmentalists do not base their opposition to coal and oil on political grounds- meaning they don’t play with the environment for political reasons. And this issue is no different. Government has the right to regulate industry’s illicit spewing of toxins into the public atmosphere. For me it’s that simple.

The other issue that Montanans who are pro out-of-state industries (including Governor Schweitzer) point out consistently is that Montana will be unable to recover from a coal-less world. In Montana, coal-fired power plants generate two-thirds of the total electricity produced in the state but the Energy Information Adminstration reports that "Just over one-fourth of Montana's coal production is used for state electricity generation; Montana delivers the remainder to more than 15 states." Doesn’t this make the argument that we won’t be able to turn on our own light-switches in Montana irreverent? With this in mind, does it make any sense for our state government to claim eminent domain of our coal? Why do officials list reasons for sustaining our dependency on such a fossil fuel when there's no need to produce the amount we're producing for other communities in other states?

The question of short term vs. long term prosperity arises. Short term economic gains based on resource extraction and electricity generation vs. long term “bright green” technologies that help us develop sustainably, where we distance ourselves from the thought that “oh, we’re going to face the same struggle of developing tech 20 years down the line.” The struggle between Montana’s environmental community and national corporations is historical. Since the establishment of the Coal Severance Trust, we have defended our resources from raping by external interests. We need the green thoughts of other states, but we should not sacrifice our environment for their short-term. I see the encroachment of

I attack this article’s bias on the basis that it failed to research this Florida Company that is attempting to sway our politicians. This article was published online in the Great Falls Tribune where readers are able to comment. One reader, Florida Treefrog, had some of the same concerns about the lack of research that went into this article. This person said, Hi, I'm a Florida energy activist - just checked and there IS a registered corporation in Florida called EcoSphere Energy Solutions, based in Stuart, FL, but very little info on the company is available through the Dept of State, corporations. Have found no info on "William Bruce". I've checked with other energy activist friends, and no one down here has ever heard of Bruce or the corporation. The coal industry wants to make liquid fuels out of coal, but their claims of “clean” don’t add up. Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative fuel could nearly double global warming pollution for every gallon of transportation fuel produced and used.
Coal to liquids is snake oil.