Comments on: ‘Death knell’? Obama’s EPA decides against Big Stone II power plant

By: James Ketola

James Ketola — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:14:23 +0000

This is a good thing, coal fired power plants a environmental nightmares emitting tons of nasty substances like oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, these can be taken care of with scrubber and venturi emissions control systems but Mercury isn’t water soluble and is a poison that builds up in the food chain eventually ending up in our food sources. The EPA already posts guidelines about how much and what kinds of fish should be eaten do to the dangers of ingesting Mercury. On the issue of carbon emissions, how many gallons of diesel fuel are burned per ton of mined coal. Yes coal is abundant and a cheap source of energy unless one looks at the downstream costs, already acid rain is killing forests in New England and Mercury is contaminating Minnesota’s water ways and fish.

By: L P Bursten

L P Bursten — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:49:16 +0000

Coal needs to be replaced with modern clean energy. In the long run solar will be cheaper.

When Sweden and Iceland turned to clean energy each econemy soared. Aside from the horrific challenge of global warming coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.

Mercury eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into water. Once deposited, microorganisms change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish and eventually is consumed by our families. Fish and shellfish are the main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. One in 150 births is now an autistic child. In the summer of 2004, researchers at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health reported symptoms similar to autism in thimerosal (which is 49.6% Mercury)-exposed mice. The mouse strain with a predisposition to autoimmunity was affected by thimerosal exposure. These mice had significant growth delay, reduced locomotion, exaggerated response to novelty, and changes in the brain and nervous system that were suggestive of autism.

Coal needs to go!

By: Windlass

Windlass — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:17:16 +0000

Somehow there can be 500MW of power pumped outa SoDak on the “grid” but no way can
wind power get from the same area to the grid because of a lack of power lines.

Thats what I get out of the story.

By: EM

EM — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:33:07 +0000

As much “progress” as everyone thinks we’re making by swatting down projects like this…I simply can’t wait until the opponents begin to feel the results of this and other decisions. Solar, wind, rainbows and unicorns. Once you realize your electric bills will SKYROCKET as we begin to depend on more alternative energy sources you all wont be as hyped about it. The rest of the world (India, China) will continue to build coal plants b/c its CHEAP. All youre doing is making the US UNCOMPETITIVE with the rest of the world. China will be paying $40 bucks a ton for coal b/c we’ve stopped using it and we’ll be paying thru the nose for wind power, unable to compete with China on anything b/c so much of our GDP will be going towards energy. Think electric cars are the solution? Where are we going to get the electricty to charge those cars if we’re not building cheap, reliable baseload generation from coal, or – god forbid – nuclear? Environmentalists ride unicorns in their fantasy worlds.

By: Paul Schmelzer

Paul Schmelzer — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:20:57 +0000

That’s what the story says.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:13:21 +0000

OK – Repeat after me: The MINNESOTA PUC does not approve power plants in South Dakota. They approved a powerline of approx. 12 miles that connects BS2 to the grid. If this line was not built, the power from the plant would find its way onto the “grid” by other routes.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:35:48 +0000

The coal and electrical industries are damaging themselves by using the phrase “clean coal” when it isn’t there yet. They term will cause such reflexive skepticism that it will be more difficult to actually development. “Clean coal” in terms of preventing the release of carbon dioxide isn’t a lie, it’s just theoretical in the common usage of the term. Maybe it’s even developmental. Hopefully soon it will reach a pilot project. However, anything anyone says to lead a listener to believe it been put into effect is misleading and maybe a lie.

My concern is that coal plants will continue to get built all over the world because coal is relatively cheap and abundant, and those attributes will override concerns about global warming. It’s a classic case of externalized costs — that is, the pollution has real costs, but the polluter doesn’t pay them and so doesn’t count them. If coal is going to get burned anyway, then rather than blowing off clean coal technology as impossible, it would be better to try to develop it. If it can be made to work, whoever develops it can sell it all over the world.

I’d rather the electrical and coal industries develop this technology but if they won’t, then the government should do it as part of developing alternative energy. If it works, then the government should make industry pay through the nose for it, and make it mandatory, thereby collecting revenue to not only recover development costs, but the costs to taxpayers of coping with the pollution that’s been spewed so far.

By: michael noble

michael noble — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:06:33 +0000

Big Stone partners have clipped every corner, and hustled every regulator. Their case has been half-baked from the start, and the only amazement is that this dead man is still walking. BS II will never be built.

By: Harvey Douthit

Harvey Douthit — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:51:11 +0000

We can land a man on the moon, and do more miraculous things than I can list, but we can’t learn how to us the most abundant energy resource in America, COAL., in a safe manner. Come on someone or agency has got rocks for brains. In 1903 gasoline was going to destroy America because service stations in our cities were to dangerous. It was said a cup of gasoline was equal to two sticks of dynamite.

By: Lazercat

Lazercat — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:53:50 +0000

We stopped these people right before they really destroyed our environment. There never was any “clean coal” the whole thing was dream’t up by the same people who brought you What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas. Millions of tax dollars were spent on sex orgys and big payoffs to lobbyists and Republicans.