- Big Stone II is "very important" for "reliable, base load power."
- Big Stone II would be "wonderful" for more tax revenue and jobs and even wind power (a big coal plant would draw transmission lines, which wind farms could also use—a reasonable argument).
- It will be "very disappointing" if the project doesn't go forward.
- Big Stone Lake already has levels of mercury contamination warranting consumption advisories. Coal plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions. Wind turbines don't pollute lakes.
- Investing in a new coal plant now commits our children to more polluting, nonsustainable energy. Investing in wind is a better investment in the future.
- Coal plants may create jobs, but their pollution also generates costs in health care, missed work and school days, and environmental clean-up. Wind turbines create economic benefits without those environmental costs.
KELO's Big Stone II and student loan stories show that the objectivity, if not the superiority, of South Dakota's professional corporate media is a myth. We bloggers can be full of bull, but we also bring balance to the news. Take a cross-section of the South Dakota blogosphere—read, for instance, the Madville Times and Dakota War College on energy policy—and you'll get a better view of the big picture than if you just tune in to the professional media.
Read more on Otter Tail and Big Stone II:
- Maybe Otter Tail is backing out because its financier, Bill Gates (yes, that one) didn't like being associated with coal power.
- Maybe Gates listened to his pal Warren Buffet, who pulled out of six coal plants in 2007, before the economy really went to heck, and before the eco-Marxist revolution. (Are you telling me Gary Hanson knows something Warren Buffet doesn't?)
- Some Minnesotans were torqued in part because Big Stone II is a ploy to produce power for Minnesota without having to obey Minnesota's stricter environmental regulations.