Area wind development depends on reliable coal plants
December 17, 2007
Editor, Detroit Lakes Tribune –
I’m responding to a guest column authored by Winona LaDuke that appeared in the Tribune’s December 12, 2007, on-line edition. Ms. LaDuke’s column takes issue with the use of coal as a continued source fuel for electricity generation. She is particularly critical of the Big Stone II Project.
The thrust of Ms. LaDuke’s column is that coal is dirty, wind is clean — so let’s build more wind farms in lieu of coal plants. She supports her argument with economic and job creation data that I cannot verify.
The reality of the matter is that, if this region is to fully develop its wind energy resource, it has to be done in tandem with additional baseload generation. Baseload refers to power sources that are available around the clock and can be dispatched nearly at once to respond to changes in customer demand. Wind energy — because it is both variable and intermittent — does not qualify as baseload generation.
Wind energy developers (who know best what is needed to place additional wind energy on-line) have testified before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) that Big Stone II and its associated transmission are needed to enable more wind energy development. As a case in point, a letter supporting Big Stone II and authored by Noel Rahn, a Minneapolis-based wind energy developer, appeared in the December 9, 2007, issue of the Grand Forks Herald.
The study behind the 2007 Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard, which mandates that 25 percent of the state’s electricity will be generated by renewable energy by 2025 and legislation that Ms. LaDuke praises in her column, assumes Big Stone II and its associated transmission will be built.
The regional electric reliability organization has testified before the MPUC that Big Stone II is needed to help maintain the region’s reserve generation capacity, which is forecast to vanish in 2011. Reserve capacity is the cushion of electric generation that is needed in times of high demand or operating problems. Furthermore, the regional transmission operator has labeled the situation “critical.”
In contrast to Ms. LaDuke’s negative comments about Big Stone II, the project will be among the nation’s cleanest coal plants. By siting the new plant adjacent to the existing Big Stone Plant, we will reduce the emission of all controlled pollutants (mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) below the levels of the current plant — that is, two plants will be cleaner than one. The boiler technology we have selected will emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide than comparable coal-fired plants, which will provide an excellent “bridge” to the “new energy economy” Ms. LaDuke envisions.
Daniel Sharp
Communication Manager
Big Stone II Project
| << Return to viewpoints page |  |
Download pdf |
