Wind utilities push line upgrade

Wow and the cost will be free to all of us. Yippee, lets go green and enjoy the wind the rain the sun the lack of power. Gees you think we could just build a few more nuke plants and be done with it? How about just using our fossil fuels while we actually develop something that will work? Watch your utility bills go sky high with this and cap and trade by the dems. You ain't see nothin yet.

Here are links to the plan: http://nocapx2020.info/...
So where in this plan is there anything about shutting down one megawatt of fossil fuel? If we shut down the fossil, we'd be just fine, thank you. Build all the wind you want around the ND coal plants, inject it there with a little natural gas for back up so it's dispatchable. Build all the wind you want around SW MN and don't build Big Stone coal, instead build gas backup. And they're now admitting the obvious Wisconsin extension. Take a look at the WRAO report and you'll see that this is nothing more than more of the buildout of what was proposed then, in 1998. This is what I got on the record in the SW MN 345kV "It's for Wind NOT" line, when they went from SFalls to Lakefield Jct, and now they're proposing the rest of WRAO line 9, connecting Lakefield Jct with Adams, LaCrosse and Madison. Let it be known that NY and New England do NOT want midwest renewables or midwest coal. They said (http://legalectric.org/weblog/2926/ ) in withdrawing from publication of JCSP (the plan announce yesterday and MORE) that "we have our own," there are renewables planned in NY and NE, thank you very much, and we don't think it would make economic sense to ship it all the way from midwest to coast, AND we've noticed that your transmission plans include a lot of NEW COAL! Yes, they spoke the truth there! Is anyone listening? There is coal in queue and this facilitates getting it out, to nearly anywhere, meaning that they can then sell that coal, even with CO2 costs tacked on, cheaper than natural gas peaking power, and can, as planned by MISO, displace natural gas with coal. Great... isn't that just what we need and want? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRr...

DFL Kool Aid wrote:

Wow and the cost will be free to all of us. Yippee, lets go green and enjoy the wind the rain the sun the lack of power. Gees you think we could just build a few more nuke plants and be done with it? How about just using our fossil fuels while we actually develop something that will work? Watch your utility bills go sky high with this and cap and trade by the dems. You ain't see nothin yet.

A poster the other day wrote a fair and balanced post about nuclear (not anti-nuclear) regarding the costs of building a nuke plant.

Even this pro-nuclear power article mentions the very high capital costs:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

I wish this next article also had solar and wind, but eh, it's a good start:

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.ht...

I'm for ANY type of energy as long as the WHOLE picture is taken into consideration, including costs, risks to animals and people, ability to harness the energy and get it to the grid, etc.

Earth Day 2008: Predictions of Environmental Disaster Were Wrong
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pressroom/pre...
“By 1985...air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight
reaching the earth by one half”– Life magazine, January 1970
•“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995,“...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
•“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
•“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
•“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.
•“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
•“...air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970. By being skeptical about routine portents of doom, we can stay focused on the real threats that face our planet, and on the reasonable and achievable actions we as a society can take to meet them.

Nuke has proven economical. Wind power has not.
Wind power is only a money-maker because it receives $23.37 per MWhr in subsidies; nuclear receives $1.59, predominantly as insurance guarantees.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsid...
Most states have laws REQUIRING the purchase of all the green power that is generated. So not only do you get $23.37 per MWhr generated, but the Government will guarantee the purchase of everything you can generate.
It’s even worse in some places - in California, power from "green sources" must be purchased at the highest rate available. Meaning not only a good subsidy, and a guaranteed market, but a market that guarantees a price equal to the highest charged by any other source.
Must be nice to be paid to generate power, and guaranteed to sell everything at top dollar, and all under Government mandate...

Nuke...economical?$6,500/kW capital cost, at least, and probably more? Right...

We need to invade the Netherlands to get our hands on all those windmills.

I've heard about power lines made out of lighter weight composite materials that minimize power loss over long distances. I imagine they would last longer than 60 years, which would help justify their initial higher material costs.

What about it, Xcel and Great River Energy?

That Granite Falls line is to get to the SoDak
proposed coal power plant and export that electricity.

The wind power would be cheaper to place closer to the
cities being served to cut the large line costs and the
loss of power from transmission. Even if some of the
closer sites are less efficient, the costs of transmission and line loss are much much less.

This is not a wind project but a dirty coal plan.

Senator Feinstein was told that solar panels would be put in one of the large California deserts. She exclaimed, "not in my backyard there are too many environmental concerns". Gov Terminator said "if you can't put them in a desert where do the hell can you put them". Bobby Kennedy Jr. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry all objected to the wind turbine farms off Martha's Vineyard as well. So in a nutshell, it is alright to go ahead with this green energy thing as long as it is in someone else's backyard and certainly not in the democrat's view. Hypocrisy to the max.

Just another huge waiste of money that wont do anything to help Minnesota

After World War II we electrified rural Minnesota - and by doing so changed Minnesota.

Part of the electrification sixty years ago were power lines - but I guess so of those commenting here don't want to leave a better state for the great grandchildren of those that electrified the state.

Let's move forward not backward.

In my opinion, the 'wind power' aspect of this story is a red herring.

The lines they have now are just not keeping up with demand and they are looking for pubic funds and public rights-of-way to maximize their profit at taxpayer expense. If it costs more to bring me electricity, then I will gladly pay appropriate increased electric rates THRU MY UTILITY BILL, but NOT with my tax dollars.

Pioneer Press why not tell us the whole story? The costs noted in this article deal only with the transmission line infrastructure. How about the billions to build and maintain the wind farm? How about the land costs because the wind farm has a footprint 100 times that of a coal fire or nuclear power plant for the same enery output? How about the cost per kilowatt hour to generate the power (about 4x's that of coal/nuclear plant and that's with govt. subsidies)? Can you say boondoggle, red herring, smoke and mirrors?

Why don't you produce compressed air instead of electricity and run a compressed air line to the cities or where ever elctricity is needed and then run compressed air geneators to produce electricity. No line voltage loss, air in reserve when the wind is not blowing, no ugly transmision lines, if the line ruptures you are only losing air.

DFL Kool Aid wrote:

Wow and the cost will be free to all of us. Yippee, lets go green and enjoy the wind the rain the sun the lack of power. Gees you think we could just build a few more nuke plants and be done with it? How about just using our fossil fuels while we actually develop something that will work? Watch your utility bills go sky high with this and cap and trade by the dems. You ain't see nothin yet.

"Going green" was a feel -good thing. A luxury for liberal envirowackos. Companies started "green initiatives" to make their employees feel like they were being good people. Now those employees just want to stay employed.

In a recession/depression you don't do luxuries. The cheapest solution to the problem is the only option. Coal, nuclear and even gas (which is hardly a paragon of efficiency) are all cheaper ways to get electrical power than solar and wind.

Owl Gore wrote:

<quoted text>
"Going green" was a feel -good thing. A luxury for liberal envirowackos. Companies started "green initiatives" to make their employees feel like they were being good people. Now those employees just want to stay employed.
In a recession/depression you don't do luxuries. The cheapest solution to the problem is the only option. Coal, nuclear and even gas (which is hardly a paragon of efficiency) are all cheaper ways to get electrical power than solar and wind.

Conservation is one of the most efficient and effective forms of "going green." And because you don't give a rat's @$$ about the environment, just think that green =$.

Maybe the "anti-enviro-wackos" will start caring when they realize how much money they can save. But maybe posters in Nebraska don't care about saving money?

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
Conservation is one of the most efficient and effective forms of "going green." And because you don't give a rat's @$$ about the environment, just think that green =$.
Maybe the "anti-enviro-wackos" will start caring when they realize how much money they can save. But maybe posters in Nebraska don't care about saving money?

Saving money? I planted trees last year what did you plant in your apt? Hemp? AL GORE YUP he cares all the way to the bank.

Hello wrote:

<quoted text>Saving money? I planted trees last year what did you plant in your apt? Hemp? AL GORE YUP he cares all the way to the bank.

I sold my car last year. And you only planted a tree? Well, I guess you gotta start somewhere.

Owl Gore wrote:

<quoted text>
"Going green" was a feel -good thing. A luxury for liberal envirowackos. Companies started "green initiatives" to make their employees feel like they were being good people. Now those employees just want to stay employed.
In a recession/depression you don't do luxuries. The cheapest solution to the problem is the only option. Coal, nuclear and even gas (which is hardly a paragon of efficiency) are all cheaper ways to get electrical power than solar and wind.

How can a generating station that consumes a power source, gas, coal, nuclear fuel, be more efficient, cheaper to run, than a generating station that uses "free" fuel such as wind, solar, or running water????

Show Your Math wrote:

<quoted text> How can a generating station that consumes a power source, gas, coal, nuclear fuel, be more efficient, cheaper to run, than a generating station that uses "free" fuel such as wind, solar, or running water????

I think a lot of it is the infrastructure and the system itself. I fully admit that renewable energy sources cost more per kilowatt hour than "traditional" energy sources. That won't last. Using fuel to create energy won't be the way forever (either the fuels will be scarce causing the costs to go up or it'll be cheaper to harness wind, solar, water, or BOTH happening simultaneously).

Necessity breeds invention.