Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, I think Big Stone II is a HORRIBLE decision.

If I were you, I'd be concerned as to why Otter Tail Power made the decision to locate a huge, polluting, coal burning facility in your state of South Dakota as opposed to right here in Minnesota. The answer: much more relaxed environmental standards. Does this not concern you? It should!

In this day and age when we're talking about green energy it seems very out of date to be building more coal fired generators when we should be focused on wind and solar energy. I find this especially ironic considering South Dakota and Western MN are some of the windiest places in North America.

Big Stone II is a joke and the decision makers at Otter Tail Power should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Adding Big Stone II onto the existing Big Stone plant will double the power generated there while cutting the emissions in half. Let me say that again. Double the power with half the emissions. It's a no-brainer.

But if you don't want the current emissions cut in half, and you want everyone to pay more for their electricity when there's a shortage, and you don't want the transmission lines built to carry more wind power along with the power from the plants, then you better volunteer to be the first one cut off when the wind isn't blowing. Because wind is a good supplement, but it can't be counted on 24/7.

Posted by notadrone (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with thinkB4Uspeak: Hey pilsnerurquel, you be sure to be the first one to power down your computer (and everything else) when energy shortages occur, ok?

Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here people go again bending facts to support their own initiatives. Sure adding big stone II may double the generating power while reducing emissions, but you are missing the big picture. The TRUTH is they are going to be forced to add the emissions controls to Big Stone I whether the new plant is built or not so building Big Stone II does not reduce emissions, IT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES EMISSIONS!!!

It is really dumb to build something that is going to create substantial pollution when their are much cleaner and cheaper alternatives! Frankly Ottertail Power is making a HUGE GAMBLE that their LOBBYISTS are going to be able to persude congress to not CHARGE them for the POLLUTION they produce. Why do you think the power plant was built in south dakota? Because they have fewer enviornmental laws! Otherwise it would have been built where over 50% of the power is used! Ottertail Power has mastered the art of deception, but eventually it is going to backfire and cost them and their CUSTOMERS DEARLY!

Visit http://www.nanosolar.com/ they have solar panels that only cost $1.00 per Kilowatt which is LESS than the cost of COAL!!! Not to mention the most efficient PEAK electrical generator is Natural Gas fired. It is more expensive to operate, but there is virtually no pollution and it is easier to start and stop than a COAL system which is what you want for the periods when renewables are not operating.

Do you think it's a coincidence that a significant portion of new COAL power plants that were being designed to be built have now been abandoned in favor of other technologies? Most now feel it is not worth the risk to build a high polluting plant when it is ENEVITABLE that they will have to pay for the POLLUTION. Especially when other technologies are comming down in price. Just look at Big Stone II, multiple partners have dropped out of the partnership because they realized it wasn't worth the risk!!! What will it take for Ottertail Power to WAKE UP???

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"solar panels that only cost $1.00 per Kilowatt" - byteme, you make me laugh - go to http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell7...
and educate yourself - "an installed PV system will cost somewhere around $9 per peak Watt" - that is $9,000 per kilowatt. So you are only off by $8,999 dollars, no big deal. And Natural Gas-fueled peaking plants are the most expensive generation around, because of the high fuel price - that is what would cost "CUSTOMERS DEARLY". If would be nice if you would do at least a LITTLE research before posting your drivel.

Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how stuff works would know more than the company that produces the panels huh? Sorry I was off it should have been $1.00 per watt which is still less than a COAL plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar I suggest you do some homework into how much money POLLUTION CREDITS are expected to cost COAL power plants! There is a reason so may are being canceled in favor of cleaner technology!!! LET ME GUESS YOUR JUST PISSED BECAUSE YOU OWN OTTR STOCK AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE YOUR DARLING COULD EVER NOT MAKE YOU MONEY!!! WELL LET ME TELL YOU THIS ITS WAY OVER PRICED AND THAT IS BEFORE THE POLLUTION COSTS!!!

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Please do your research - Nanosolar's website does not claim that they are currently selling solar cells for $1/watt. They reference "the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt." Notice the future tense, "will." And people who type in all CAPS generally do so because they can't put together a cohesive argument. You certainly fit the bill.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It amazes me that so many people can't believe in alternative energies as a solution to our energy needs. In one hour the sunlight that falls on the earth is more than enough energy to satisfy the needs of every person on the planet for a whole year. What needs to be understood is that, in this capitalist system, the people making the big bucks will do anything, and say anything they can to keep themselves raking in the profits with their antiquated, expensive, unsustainable and environmentally rapacious systems.

We should be taking advantage of all the alternative and sustainable sources possible (wind, solar, wave action, etc.) Who knows what the future holds. A disaster of gigantic porportions could befall this planet and those unsustainable energy sources may become the the only way to survive in that emergency scenario. Yet, we race to deplete it - the hallmark of the republican's way of thinking. The laws they lobby for are evidence enough.

All these "alternative energy" solutions should have been pushed through in the 70's, but resistance campaigns by the big corporations shut that down. When I tell people my phone bill is $20 per year, complete with unlimited LD and many free features that they pay through the nose for, they can't believe it and generally ignore me - as if I subscribe to some sort of voo-doo or something. It's the same with alternative energy . . .they just can't wrap their heads around the concept that they don't have to spend so much on their energy and utility needs with new tehcnologies.

BTW, there is a huge difference in the manufacturing process of thin-film vs. silicon crystals used in photovoltaics. The growing of silicon xtals is hugely expensive. I can't understand why some companies are still trying to go that route. I suppose those who've invested so much into it can't just 'give in' to the reality that they're fighting a losing battle.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ed - what amazes me is that some people think that alternative energy is THE solution to our energy needs. I believe that alternative energy is a big part of the generating mix that will solve those needs, but the wind is not blowing 24/7, and the sun is not shining at night. So until we solve the storage problem, we will continue to have a need for baseload generating plants if we want to have reliable and reasonably-priced electric power.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you ever stood at the ocean shore and watched the waves come in? Can you fathom the enormity of power that goes unharnessed in those waves . . . one after the other, day in and day out, forever and ever? If we built channels to create venturis the water pressure could be used to run compressors that fill compressed air tanks. This air, in turn, could be used to power much industry. There is a French company that has created a concept car already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0Y...

Imagine, one tank gives a top speed of 68 mph and a range of nearly 2800 miles. That's just one technology that needs to be developed "NOW".

The waves could also be used to power electric plants, just as dams do - technology as old as the hills. But there's no great profit in that . . . not when compared to coal or other unsustainable commodities.

GM built an electric concept car, the EV-1, in the 70's, that was well received by those lucky enough to obtain one of a very limited number of leases to drive it. You should view the film, 'Who killed the Electric Car?' to see what happens when Corporate America decides how to play the profit game. Here's a link to a summary of the film:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/events_de...

It's always a win/lose situation. The technology was proven by GM, but that would have been an end to their aftermarket parts selling empire and would have changed the whole face of the auto industry and their profit machine, so they just canned it. They win - we all lose!

I recently showed a website (pacwind.com) in one of the comments sections of the FFDJ for a residential, vertical-access, wind turbine. It was quiet, unobtrusive and had the potential to supply possibly all the power needs of a regular household using battery storage technology augmented with solar. But if you check out their website you might be surprised they are not going full guns at this time. I have to wonder if the energy giants are going to buy them out with an offer too good to resist and then mothball the company and their patents. Many other patent rights to technology dissappear the same way. I recall one utility patent (among others) on a tire that would never go flat, but it never made it to the marketplace. It was bought out by big business and never saw the light of day. These are examples of how Corporate America's needs are taking precedence over 'We The People's' best interests in government. Something needs to change.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2,800 mile range on one tank of compressed air?? I don't think so Ed. The sources I looked up say the range is more like 124 miles between fills. Even Wikipedia lists "limited range" as one of the issues with the cars powered by compressed air. And the YouTube video you referenced is no longer there.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's there. I accessed it yesterday before I posted it and I just checked it again. That video is from Beyond Tomorrow. They claim it will have a range of 4,500 km on one tankfull of compressed air.

Here's a link to CNN's more recent segment on that Air Car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4w6aJMNX...

And there are plenty more references for the "Air Car" at YouTube, also.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, the video is there now, but you need to listen to it a little more closely. The range of the cars that they have now is about 200 km per tank of compressed air. They hope to "someday" be able to go 4,500 km on a tank of petroleum (in a hybrid car) that would continually create more compressed air from the petrol. I think these cars, even with a range of only 140 miles or so, are great in some applications. And as we get more and more of them on the road, there will be an even greater need for electric power, including coal plants like BSPII.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At approx. 1 minute and 20 seconds into the link below they say 4,500 km with one tankfull of fuel (compressed air) in the future. There's no mention of hybrids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0Y...

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ed - at 1:20 it says "... the first commercial air-driven car ... that could one day go non-stop for an incredible 4,500 kilometers on just one tank of fuel" (that does not imply a tank of compressed air at all). At 3:55 it says that the air tank(s) give the vehicle a top speed of 110 km/hr and a range of 200 km. And at 4:27 it explains the hybrid concept and specifically refers to a tank of "petrol" when it talks about the cross-country range.

You were the one that posted the video link - maybe you should have watched the whole thing before making it look like don't know what you are talking about.

Most intelligent people use critical listening and thinking skills, rather than believing everything that they hear or read that just happens to align with their preconceived ideas. Try it.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand corrected, 4500km with one tank of 'petrol' at 4:27. In any case, that was Beyond Tomorrow from 2005 - well before our present gas crises. Tomorrow, the better hybrid choice might be a cross with electric and air, both can be extremely sustainable with zero carbon footprints.