A reversal for coal plant

Here is a dollop of information for you...

Minnesota wholesale power prices through the Midwest ISO are at least 20% higher than the rest of the midwest. In fact, you have to go all the way to New Jersey and New York to find higher prices. Why is this? Lack of transmission.

Don't believe me? Here is a link.
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-elec...

A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated costs for power production: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10 per MWh and natural gas at $52.50. A 2005 study by two Stanford University scientists estimated the total wind energy available in the atmosphere over land on the Earth at much more than current total energy consumption of all kinds. Another study estimated that North Dakota has enough wind potential to supply half of the electrical power needed by the entire United States.

CyBear wrote:

Here is a dollop of information for you...
Minnesota wholesale power prices through the Midwest ISO are at least 20% higher than the rest of the midwest. In fact, you have to go all the way to New Jersey and New York to find higher prices. Why is this? Lack of transmission.
Don't believe me? Here is a link.
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-elec...

I don't see where it says that lack of transmission capacity caused those higher prices.

Hang onto your wallets, the price just went up on living in Taxasota again, all hail the Socialist Republic of Minnesota!!

Phil wrote:

A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated costs for power production: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10 per MWh and natural gas at $52.50.

I can assure you that none of those numbers are even close to accurate.

Phil wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see where it says that lack of transmission capacity caused those higher prices.

Because if there had been adequate transmission, the price disparity would have been alleviated. Duh.

The cost of burning coal is going to rise faster than mercury in a thermometer posted near the Equator in June…up, up, up. Check out what the experts have to say when they asked,“Can Coal Deliver?” 2006 Global Energy Decisions White Paper (Industry reviewed)

Can the US coal chain infrastructure and reserve base deliver and support more coal plants? What will be the effects of such an expansion on the cost of supplying coal? As the report found,“the coal supply chain is poorly positioned to adequately handle strong, sustained demand growth.”“…Unless there is additional capital investment made in the US coal supply chain, satisfying forecasted demand for coal over the next five years will be difficult…billions will be needed for rail infrastructure, rolling stock, port and waterways expansion, barges and other facilities.”

Can Coal Deliver? "The answer is no," said Gary Hunt, president of Global Energy Advisors, a Sacramento-based unit of Global Energy Decisions -- not without "billions and billions" spent on improvements for mining capacity, railroads and shipping.”
http://www.globalmc2.com/pdf/can_coal_deliver...

“Expanding supply capacity from current level of less than 1.4 bn annual tons to 2.5 or 2.6 bn annual tons adds billions to investment needs.”
http://www.globalenergy.com/webinar-downloads...

Los Angeles Times: "Coal is no longer on front burner" (Jan 18 2008)
by jsefick on Sun 27 Jan 2008
http://www.desert-rock-blog.com/blog/_archive...

First things first, 1) Energy efficiency - 2) Demand Side Management - 3) Renewable Energy(local) preference. Time to build the Green Jobs Economy, protect our health and environment for the next generations.

Phil wrote:

A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated costs for power production: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10 per MWh and natural gas at $52.50. A 2005 study by two Stanford University scientists estimated the total wind energy available in the atmosphere over land on the Earth at much more than current total energy consumption of all kinds. Another study estimated that North Dakota has enough wind potential to supply half of the electrical power needed by the entire United States.

If your numbers were anything close to the truth you would have provided a link. You are just a propaganda spewing Fascist.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would rather have electricity generated by the most polluting method, namely coal, when there are other better ways. The pollution from coal that doesn't end up in the atmosphere ends up in a landfill where it can also wreak havoc.

And why are we supposed to believe that coal is the only sensible answer to increased power needs? It couldn't have anything to do with the lobbyists for the coal companies, mining companies, and railroads, could it? Maybe these ALJ's are among the few that aren't in the lobbyists pockets.

Might not be the best, but it's time for more gas refineries and nuclear power plants.

The same fools that advocate more ethanol production are fighting to keep new refineries from being built and oil wells drilled. The insanity never ends!

hey DFL I have three kids to raise, stop pandering to the environmentalist wackos

Turn off the lights - don't get this via the web, "Environmental Advocates".

It's raining and the wind isn't blowing - no electricity is on the grid.

Wait - we can always drill for more oil .. never mind - we turned that down.

Oh yeah - we can create more nuclear power .. that's right - we can't.

Build more natuiral gas - yeah - and double gas prices again like we just did. Boy - was that a tax on those who could least afford it.

Hey - "Environmental Advocates", can you try providing some actual solutions that won't double our energy bills again like you have the past 7 years?

Grace West wrote:

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would rather have electricity generated by the most polluting method, namely coal, when there are other better ways. The pollution from coal that doesn't end up in the atmosphere ends up in a landfill where it can also wreak havoc.
And why are we supposed to believe that coal is the only sensible answer to increased power needs? It couldn't have anything to do with the lobbyists for the coal companies, mining companies, and railroads, could it? Maybe these ALJ's are among the few that aren't in the lobbyists pockets.

Your solution for 536 Mw of reliable $0.03 kW power?

Great news from Minnesota, but reading these posts has me a bit concerned. Here in Michigan we know that a new coal plant will be more expsensive than wind power. For the Wolverine plant proposal we have reported a near tripling of electric costs and the utility was mute. Coal is not cheap anymore folks, start by switching off Fox News and doing some real homework. Good Luck in slamming the door on Big Stone II

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
Because if there had been adequate transmission, the price disparity would have been alleviated. Duh.

There are other costs for energy production besides transmission. Duh.

Fascist DFLers wrote:

<quoted text>
If your numbers were anything close to the truth you would have provided a link. You are just a propaganda spewing Fascist.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484 (2006).pdf

Look on page 76, moron.

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
Because if there had been adequate transmission, the price disparity would have been alleviated. Duh.

Post some numbers from a reliable source.

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
I can assure you that none of those numbers are even close to accurate.

Prove it.

Nanny State DFL Nazis wrote:

<quoted text>
MN cannot build any new nuclear power plants, it's against MN state law. Bahahaha, those Dirty F'en Liars (DFL) you idiots put in to office are sure raising the cost of living in your liberal tard state. Haw-haw

I think the moratorium should be lifted. But no new nuclear plants would have been built in Minnesota even if there wasn't a moratorium. They simply weren't economical. But that is changing, and I think it's time to lift the moratorium so they can be built. Here's an article that explains why no new nuclear plants have been built. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/
It is economics, not politics, that has stopped them.