Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:58 PM Mar 2012

Coal producing N.Dakota trying to block Minnesota's move to renewables

Jack Dalrymple, North Dakota Governor, Joins Protest Against Plan To Reduce Coal-Fired Power
Posted: 03/ 8/2012 7:55 pm


BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Top North Dakota officials renewed their protests against a plan to discourage Minnesota utilities from meeting new energy demands by using electric power generated by burning coal.

North Dakota's Industrial Commission on Thursday approved a letter to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, arguing utilities should not incur any extra cost for using coal-fired power. At present, the cost is $9 to $34 per ton of carbon dioxide that is given off when coal is burned to provide electricity.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple is the North Dakota commission's chairman. It oversees a state coal research fund, which is financed by a share of North Dakota's tax on lignite mining. The commission's other members are Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring.

If Minnesota regulators make it more expensive for utilities to use coal power, it will throttle the prospects of western North Dakota's lignite industry, Dalrymple said. Coal-fueled power plants in western North Dakota already provide a major share of Minnesota's electric supply.

"It has long-term implications ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/jack-dalrymple-north-dakota-coal_n_1333572.html?ref=energy
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Coal producing N.Dakota trying to block Minnesota's move to renewables (Original Post) kristopher Mar 2012 OP
The cost of carbon dioxide as well as the other associated costs should be paid at the source. You Vincardog Mar 2012 #1
What? kristopher Mar 2012 #2
Your edit makes your point clear, thanks. kristopher Mar 2012 #3

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
1. The cost of carbon dioxide as well as the other associated costs should be paid at the source. You
Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:24 PM
Mar 2012

do know that the reason gas costs so much in europe is that they have
universal healthcare and a reliable social safety net don't you?

What a shame it would be if the coal producers had to pay for the asthma and other chronic conditions they caused.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
2. What?
Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:28 PM
Mar 2012

I don't have the ability to read your mind. If there is a point to the comment about Europe, healthcare and a reliable safety net, I don't get it; it seems totally unrelated to the article.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Coal producing N.Dakota t...