When you see your power bill going up, thank an environmentalist.
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader is reporting this morning that another utility is pulling out of Big Stone II – leaving the future of the electrical plant touted a few years back in doubt:
Depending on whom you ask, this week’s events were either a minor setback or a major blow to the future of coal-fired electricity in South Dakota.
Great River Energy, a power cooperative serving Minnesota and Wisconsin, said Monday it is withdrawing from the Big Stone II power plant project near Milbank. A smaller utility in Minnesota also withdrew because of pending litigation.
The five utilities remaining in the Big Stone II partnership still plan to build the plant, though a significant reduction in size is probable. But clean-energy activists say it soon could become part of a string of failed coal plant proposals across the country.
Underlying that disagreement is a difference of opinion about such fundamental issues as cost, risk and how the industry should address global warming.
“The message from the marketplace is that this plant is too risky, and the key risk is that it’s not affordable,” said Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy in St. Paul. “It’s a business decision, not a political one.”
Are these clean-energy activists going to realize that we have to build energy plants somewhere? And that new ones (while possibly flawed) are still better than the ones built decades ago that are eventually going to go out of service.
For gosh’s sakes – aren’t they going to be happy until we’re all back living in caves? Except we’ll be running around in the buff, because we won’t even have animal skins to wear (PETA, you know).
We have energy needs. That’s a basic fact. And as we develop all the “green methods” in the world, it’s a fact that those won’t meet anywhere close to a majority of our needs for decades (if ever).
I’m all for green methods and bio-fuels. BUT in the meantime while we develop their viability and expand their use, we’re still going to have to drive our cars, heat our homes and run our factories. So we need the support of basic oil, coal and gas sources.
It’s the simple law of supply and demand. The more energy supply available, the cheaper the price. Coming into winter, this fact should hit home for families everywhere as the price of heating your home goes up.
And in light of the clean-energy activists doing what they can to kill coal energy plants, when you see that higher bill, thank an environmentalist for it.
If you can refrain from kicking them, that is.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
We should hold the proposed power plants to the highest protection of the environment, and known to science, Yes it will cost more, to them and us in the long run, isnt clean air and lower Mercurey levels in our water worth it?
We need to clean the way we are currently living or we will not be able to enjoy our quality of life we do now.
#4,
Would you be willing to pay double for your power because that is how much wind is higher than coal on top of the fact that the wind isn’t always blowing. Maybe someday it will become cheaper but we need power now and like the article stated, older coal plants will be outdated and if the economics work out, they can be retired for more environmentally friendly power. Ya, we could wait for carbon sequestration or hell, let’s just wait for hydrogen because that has been right around the corner for oh about 50 years. They stated that carbon sequestration could be 5 years away and they don’t want to invest in old technology. Well you don’t build a power plant overnight and there is no guarantee that we will see these so called great advances within 5 years.
The People’s Republic of Minnesota won’t care until they get blackouts like California, then you will see some real movement.
5. The coal guys have to figure out what to do with the carbon dioxide they produce. They know that. They aren’t fighting the fact. Why are you? You sound like the kind of person who would insist on smoking in your house, and putting your 7 kids at risk because you’re too cheap to build yourself an outside smoking area and too lazy just to take it outside. In short, would you pay double to save your grandkids and their kids’ lives? (Don’t be too quick to answer, hozer.)
And when we have multi-decade draughts, rising sea levels, and smoggy skies, make sure to thank Pat Powers. If you can keep from kicking him, that is.
5. I just re-read 5’s post and can see that I may have accused him/her unjustly. If you were indeed arguing against the status quo, I apologize (#6).
You better stark thanking environmentalists, because without them, we would have no environment left worth saving.
Jerry Apa won’t be happy until every hill around Lead is barren and stark.
Oh…wait. He should be happy.
I kid, Jerry, because I love.
Commenter from #4
For the record, I think wind power is a great opportunity for SD and we should capitalize as much as possible. Unfortunately, coal has become stigmatized as this horrible polluter that must be stopped. New technology has dramatically cleaned up this process and it will only get better. My point is that we shouldn’t sit around and wait for the day when it becomes clean enough for the most avid environmentalist.
Also for the record, I don’t buy for one second that man has contributed to climate change one bit. Are we experiencing climate change? Possibly. Has the climate changed dramatically long before man was able to pollute it? Absolutely!
#9~ I will give you some credit on your post. I think there is a huge difference between climate change and our environment (that can be affected by man) and I think that our air and water is much cleaner because of environmentalists.
#6~ Are you in the 6th grade because I haven’t been called a “hozer” since.
Let’s face it the environmentalists will only be happy when we are all freezing to death in the dark. That would be all of us but not them.