Deal ‘opens the door’ to wind power
DEFINITELY A WIN-WIN-WIN for South Dakota’s Economy!
One of the biggest hinderances to the development of more wind power in South Dakota has been a lack of enough transmission line capacity to get the electricity to where it’s needed.
There is a positive logic to the addition of a new coal-burning plant also. The US has an abundance of coal, and large deposits of high quality low-sulfur coal are just to the west in Wyoming. There is a synergy that comes into play here with a three-way synergistic development of South Dakota’s utility and transportation infrastructure which is catalyzed by the planned construction of a new coal-burning power plant at Big Stone.
The first element of this synergy is the expansion of the DM&E Railroad, which, in spite of the usual opposition from envirowacko activist groups and assorted other NIMBY (Non-In-My-Backyard types pushed through approval of extending it’s lines into the Wyoming coal fields, and upgrade of its existing mainlines to handle the greatly increased traffic that results from this. (See note 1 in extended entry) This increases the availability of coal for new plants.
With the abundance of coal, and modern abatement technology, it is possible to burn low-sulfur coal with a minimum amount of air pollution, plus it helps to increase the electric power capacity, which is an essential positive factor for continued economic growth in the area. (See Note 2)
Finally, this proposed coal plant will bring in a significantly serious excess in electrical power transmission capacity, above and beyound the needs of the new plant. This excess capacity is available for the development of large(r) scale wind turbine developments, which (a) provides yet more electricity, (b) is a clean, renewable energy source, and (c) provides yet another boost to the local economic structure.
So, what’s the “win-win-win”? More needed electrical power, use of domestic coal instead of imported oil, and the enabled development of even cleaner wind power capacity. Three birds with one “Big Stone”. Not too bad.
Extended Entry
Note 1:
When the DM&E extension was being proposed, a hyper-active bunch of activists in Brookings, more or less aligned with the “Dakota Rural Action” (DRA)actively lobbied, sued, petitioned, bawled, and kicked their feet while rolling on the floor to stop the DM&E “evil corporation” from having the nerve to expand their operations. Fortunately for the state, they failed, and the rail plan is proceeding.
Many people express regrets that there are insufficient high-quality job opportunities in South Dakota. Many of these folks opposed the rail expansion. Anyone with a realistic understanding of economics knows that a necessary vital component to economic development and the job opportunity that comes with it is a healthy and well-developed transportation infrastructure – good roads, and even more importantly: a good rail system.
The DM&E expansion certainly is a step in that direction, and one that has a minimal negative impact. At the time of the big tantrum in Brookings about the rail development, the Chief and Mrs. Chief had the opportunity to visit a town down in Iowa on a Union Pacific main line. The Chief inquired, and learned that the traffic through the middle of town, a county seat of around 20,000 people, (about like Brookings, eh?) was 50-60 trains per 24-hour day. I asked a number of folks down there, including the B&B hosts where we stayed (right along the rail line) if they felt the trains were a disruption to the life of the town. Most reactions were to wonder why anyone would ask about it, since the rail traffic was something that was not ever noticed as being a problem, even at night, when sleeping.
The Chief was glad that the DM&E is able to proceed – and they got in an additional last word to Brookings for hindering their efforts to build up the SD (and Brookings) economic infrastructure, by moving their corporate HQ out of Brookings to Sioux Falls. Paybacks are a bitch!
NOTE 2:
Yes, coal makes CO2, but the link of CO2 to global warming is extremely doubtful, with little correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures over geologic time:
graph from JunkScience.com