Big Stone II Power Plant

This is the thread where the Big Stone II power plant can be discussed. As of May 9, 2008 The proposed Big Stone II power plant suffered a major setback.

Two administrative law judges in Minnesota are recommending against a transmission line project for the plant.

Big Stone II officials in the past have said that without the power line project through western Minnesota, they can't build the plant.

Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy, a non-profit organization that works for clean and renewable energy, said he reads the opinion as saying the case was not only about environmental issues, but also economic issues.

"It would be almost impossible now for the state public utilities commission to approve this new coal plant," Noble said. "There's been years and years of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence, and all of it gets summed up by saying that energy efficiency and renewable energy are better for consumers."

Noble says he expects the PUC will follow the judges' recommendation.

The administrative law judges recommendation goes now to the state Public Utilities Commission, which will make the final decision on the power line project.

This is an edited version of a radio announcement written by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio.

Do you think the Judges decisions were justified or not? What are your opinions and concerns concerning the Big Stone II?

Did Minnesota make the righty decision? Minnesota receives the pollution from the plant, the negative effects from the transmission lines and Otter Tail has been less than supportive of Ortonville.

Have we traded our children's future for electricity? Clearly coal has environmental issues and there are safer ways to create electricity. Why do we always take the easy route and trade our children's future?

We do need the plant. While I am a huge supporter of wind, the technology currently does not support it as a baseload source. I want to know that I will have reliable and economical electricity. Why not go after the old plants that will continue to cause more environmental impact instead of the new ones? For those who don't support the plant, what is your alternative?

The only other alternative -today- is natural gas and the price is far to volatile not to mention climbing higher and higher.

The real problem is the transmission process in Minnesota. It is ridiculous that it takes years for transmission requests to be met, even when the applicant is using wind. This is where public outcry should be heard.

I most certainly am not an East Coast crusader nor am I from the Twin Cities. What benefit does Minnesota receive from allowing the placement of the transmission lines through the state? If we are not trading our children's future for cheap electricity then why don't we build the power plant near Chicago.

Otter Tail for years has not removed the transmission stations at the foot of the lake. We should trust them to be environmentally sound? Otter Tail needs to put there money were there mouth is and clean up the foot of the lake.

If Ortonville is attempting to lure tourism and fishing to our lake why is mercury poisoning to our lakes and streams more prevalent after the existing power plant was built.

Again are we trading our children's future for cheap electricity? Do we need the electricity or do the metropolitan areas need the electricity? Are we narcisstic and only looking to our selfish pocket book?

You made two comments in your last post I find interesting. First you said "Ortonville is attempting to lure tourism and fishing to our lake" and then later when referring to electricity "are we narcisstic and only looking to our selfish pocket book". Why is Ortonville attempting to lure tourism and fishing to our lake? Do you think the reason is to share the beauty of the lake or is it to increase grocery sales, gas sales, property values, etc. The ultimate reason is the "pocket book".

The East Coasters and Twin Citians I previously mentioned are the legal team and voices of the Environmentalists.

The power plant is not being built by Chicago because none of the companies building it have service areas near Chicago.

There are 5 companies building the plant, not just Otter Tail. Those 5 companies have 2 million customers in Minnesota that will use the power.

I read what the Big Stone II plant says and I read what the Environmentalists say. You really need to do both and know the truth is likely somewhere in between. If you choose to only read your CURE newsletter, you will not be fully informed. Environmentalists serve a very useful purpose in policing our countries industries. Yet, they use scare tactics and take their message to impressionable people like college students. That's where they start to lose my respect. They take valuable information and push it as far as they can to make it seem even worse than it really is.

Environmentalists don't distinguish between methylmercury and elemental mercury. The health issues Environmentalists relate to mercury from Big Stone Plant actually are caused by organic methylmercury accumulating in the fatty tissue of fish. In general, the majority of mercury released from power plants is in the elemental form. Elemental mercury isn't very water soluble and when it's released into the global mercury cycle it isn't easily converted to methylmercury.

Mercury is a naturally occurring element. About 55 percent of all mercury emissions in the world are released into the environment through natural processes, such as natural leeching from runoff, forest fires, and volcanic activity.
Electric power plants in the United States account for only about 1 percent of total global mercury emissions.

Is your information coming from studies done by independent groups or from coal powered industries standing to make millions of dollars. Actually the best studies relative to the harm created by transmission lines were not done in this country because of political and lobbying interests.

I do agree with you that the answer is somewhere between the middle.

Why doesn't Otter Tail clean up the foot of the lake? Is it about transferring the costs to the taxpayers so the shareholders have greater profits?

Is this really fair? Shouldn't we be a little skeptical about their motives? I am!