Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 12 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
S.D. county board supports Big Stone II
Published Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Grant County, S.D., board of commissioners fully supports the proposed Big Stone II power plant and transmission line project. The Coteau Hills, located 20 miles west of the proposed power plant have the potential to generate in excess of 1000 MW of steady wind power, due to the high velocity and contant nature of the winds on the ridge.
The dilemma that will occur if the power plant is not built is wind power development will be set back or will not be built in this area until a power line is in place to carry the power to the demand in Minnesota.
The proposed Big Stone II power plant is to be built next to an existing, very clean, coal-fired plant. the proposed plans indicate the two combined plants would be cleaner than the existing plant standing alone. Is this not a good improvement for all people?
To move ahead with generating alternative sources of energy, such as wind power, a state-of-the-art coal-fired power plant such as Big Stone II is needed.
Our experience as residents of the Milbank Community, as a public servant, the Big Stone Power Plant has been a good neighbor and a conscientious power producer.
Grant County, S.D.
Board of commissioners
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 11:25 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 thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
byteme, you are incorrect.
1 - OTP will not be forced to add emissions controls to the existing plant because it has always been in total compliance with all regulations.
2 - The power plant is being built in SD because when they built the original big stone plant they were looking ahead to the future and they made sure the site has good rail access for coal deliveries; they can use the coal handling facilities for both plants; the location is strategic for regional transmission stability; and they have a plentiful water supply and pumping capacity for both plants. (Those facts can be found at www.bigstone2.com)
3 - OTP uses wind power and is adding wind farms big time, but it's only good as a supplement. It doesn't provide electric power 24/7 like coal plants do.
Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
thinkB4USpeak you are incorrect, OTP WILL be forced to add emissions controls to their existing plant. It may be in compliance with the current regulations, but those regulations will change and they will be forced to either clean it up, shut it down, or pay MILLIONS of dollars a year to purchase credits to POLLUTE from those that don't!!!
The truth is OTP doesn't have hardly any wind power, the vast majority of wind power it does have it purchases from other companies or individuals, even though it owns a company that produces wind towers!
What good is having wind power if you have to have another COAL plant running at the same time 24/7 POLLUTING while most of the power it produces is going unused? The purpose of having a backup plant for your renewables is to have one that doesn't run 24/7, only when needed!!!
Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh and by the way the only reason the those emissions standards are not in place yet is because companies like OTP are spending MILLIONS each year to LOBBY the legislature against it!!! OTP is very worried about these regulations, why else would they tell all their employees to tell their families to contact their legislators and urge them not to pass the laws!!!
Posted by thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
byteme, IF emissions regulations change in the future I'm sure OTP will comply as they always have. But even if regulations don't change, the power output would be double what it is now and the emissions would be half what they are now. Double the current power -- with half the current emissions.
OTP has plenty of wind power. Currently, it's about 13 percent of their generation mix. I also saw in the FF Journal that on May 1 OTP announced that they want to own 48 megawatts of North Dakota’s largest wind farm in eastern North Dakota. They plan to invest $121 million in the Ashtabula Wind Center. It's supposed to be up and running by the end of the year. But we all know you can't control the wind. It's a good supplement but can't be counted on for reliability 24/7.
The good thing about having wind power AND coal and hydro and natural gas and fuel oil and biomass and purchasing power off the grid is that the mix of generating resources back each other up and they have more options to provide the lowest cost and most reliable power for their customers possible.
You don't understand how the coal plants work. Their output can be adjusted up and down, but they can't be shut down and started up again quickly and easily. Power companies try to only shut them down for scheduled maintenance to keep them running efficiently during the times of the year when demand is lower.
As far as a power company producing power that goes unused . . . what sense would that make and where would it go? LOL
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like byteme should do a little RESEARCH before going on such YELLING tirades.
Posted by byteme (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds to me like you are not to BRIGHT yourself. If they didn't produce some power that goes unused we would have rolling brownouts 24/7, power usage is not 100% constant. Therefore they allways produce some power that goes unused, the question is how much.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You CLEARLY don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by byteme (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bucksteel, so I suppose you think the generator slows down and speeds up instantaniously to meet the instantaniously variable energy ussage.
Also thought you guys might get a kick out of the fact that both presidential candidates are planning on cutting greenhous emissions. Where better to cut emissions than COAL power plants. CAN YOU SAY OTP IS SOL!!!
Below is a quote from a news article:
"If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a president with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party," McCain says. "I have that record. Senator Obama does not."
Both Obama and McCain have put forward plans that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and create an emissions trading system for factories and other big polluters. Obama has said his plan would be more effective than McCain's."
Posted by thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pay attention. As I said previously:
IF emissions regulations change in the future I'm sure OTP will comply as they always have. But even if regulations don't change, the power output would be double what it is now and the emissions would be half what they are now. Double the current power -- with half the current emissions.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
byteme - Your ignorance is showing up again, as is your lack of grammar skills - yes, generators are ramped up or down to meet demand. That is what power companies do. Take a look at wikipedia - "Since electrical energy cannot easily be stored in quantities large enough to meet demands on a national scale, at all times exactly as much must be produced as is required". Why do you continue making strongly-worded comments on a subject that you clearly cannot comprehend?
Posted by deerslayer (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
byteme, you really should do some research before you start spouting off on how to produce electricity. for one thing their are these things they call governers on coal plants that do increase or decrease the output of the plant when needed according to the system frequency and load.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)