Air
Force Eyes Montana Site for Coal-to-Liquids Plant
February
5, 2008
The
U.S. Air Force announced in late January that it was eyeing a retired runway on
its base near Great Falls, Mont., for a coal-to-liquid fuels plant, in response
to President Bush's challenge to wean the nation off foreign oil.
But
locals would prefer another air wing be stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base
and are concerned over the proposal's greenhouse-gas emissions.
The
Air Force contends that Malmstrom Air Force Base would be an ideal location for
the project because of its existing infrastructure, easy access to coal and to
water from the Missouri River.
The
project is being proposed as part of the Air Force's Enhanced Use Lease
program, which "builds partnerships between the military and private
industry by leasing underutilized military assets to private entities for
development," according to a press release.
According
to preliminary reports, the CTL project would produce 22,000 barrels of liquid
fuels per day, though at this point the Air Force is non-committal on exactly
what type of fuel -- be it aviation fuel or diesel for cars and trucks -- the
plant might produce.
Under
the current proposal, the gasification system would produce a gross 300 MW of
power, with 100 MW to spare for the grid. At this point, the Air Force proposal
names the Fischer-Tropsch refining process as its technology of choice, though
project details could change, since a private-sector developer has yet to be
chosen.
The
target date for commencement of operations is 2011, four years before the Air
Force hopes to obtain half the fuel for its in-country flights from domestic
sources.
All
three members of Montana's congressional delegation and Gov. Brian Schweitzer
have expressed support of the project, estimated to cost $1.3 billion.
But
on Jan. 30, the day the Air Force held a public meeting in Great Falls to
unveil its proposal, the House Oversight Committee issued a memo citing Section
526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits
federal agencies from procuring alternative transportation fuels that don't
have an emissions profile as good as or better than conventional fuels.
The
memo, addressed to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, requested information on
how the Defense Department is working to comply with the recently adopted law,
to "ensure that federal agencies are not spending taxpayer dollars on new
fuel sources that will exacerbate global warming."
The
memo, signed by Oversight Committee Chair Henry Waxman, states that Section 526
was included in the legislation specifically in response to such proposals by
the Air Force. It also stated that "coal-to-liquid fuels are estimated to
produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable
conventional fuel."
"I
don't believe it was a coincidence that the House Oversight Committee issued
that memo on the same day the Air Force was having a hearing on the
coal-to-liquids proposal," said Anne Hedges, director of the Montana
Environmental Information Center. "I think the Air Force was caught off guard."
Hedges
added that at the public meeting in Great Falls, residents expressed concerns
about the project's use of water and its greenhouse-gas emissions. Also at odds
with the Air Force proposal, she added, was the community's desire that the
runway proposed for the site would be reopened instead for another flying unit.
"The
community had been trying to get a flying mission operating at that base for 10
years," Hedges said.
Joe
Briggs, a Cascade County commissioner, told Energy Prospects Westthat while coal supplies are
adequate to support the Air Force proposal and the Highwood Generating Station
pitched for a site near Great Falls (see "Rezoning
Approved for Controversial Montana Coal-Plant Site," this issue),
he thought the rail system between southeast Montana and Great Falls might need
to be beefed up to accommodate the CTL facility, which would need an estimated
160 rail cars a day of coal.
"The
other likely problem, depending on the ultimate size of the plant, is the
availability of water rights," Briggs wrote in a Jan. 31 email. "The
city of Great Falls is supplying water for the [Highwood plant], but if the
volume requirements for the CTL plant are too high, the city will not have an
adequate allocation and other rights will need to be purchased. Such water
rights are available, so I do not view this as a deal breaker."
Chuck
Magraw of the Natural Resources Defense Council attended the meeting and
observed to Prospects that "the Air Force was kinda trying to have it both
ways" by saying it was interested in the project to diversify its fuel
supply on one hand, and on the other saying it didn't know what would
ultimately come out of the project.
He
added that none of the public who commented after the Air Force presentations
was wholeheartedly supportive of the project, though most listened and several
asked for more details on the rail spurs and potential land-use impacts.
Magraw
added that he asked one of the military presenters about the provision cited in
the Waxman memo, and the official said, "We welcome that provision of the
law," and said the project would comply with it.
"But
the reality is, they may not be able to accomplish that, given CTL's greenhouse-gas
emissions from liquid fuel derived from coal, and that's even with carbon
capture and sequestration of CO2
from the plant," Magraw said.