A few days ago my husband came home and this is what he mentioned to me. "In a few years I may not have a job anymore..."
I was eating crackers at the table and mumbled "na uh", figuring he was joking.
"No seriously," he said. "The Obama administration and EPA wants to shut down coal burning power plants."
If you live in our area, you would know that over half, way over half, of the population works at power plants/coal mines. Shut the plants down? There go all the jobs...
Aaron recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Bismarck tribune, so I thought I would share. It's kind of lengthy, but I think it does a good job of summarizing what, I'd say, a lot of us in the area are thinking.
I try not to get political, but this hits too close to home to stay quiet. When is Obama's term up, again? Can't be soon enough...
"I
will be the first to admit that I don’t know all the facts and figures of coal
power versus wind power or natural gas. But what I do know is that there is
nothing that will replace our current coal burning assets while providing the
benefits that we receive from using the existing infrastructure.
The
sun doesn’t always shine and even in North Dakota, the wind doesn’t always
blow. That being said, there is no way that solar and wind power will provide
constant power to the grid like the baseload coal fired units in this state
provide. There would have to be a source of power to provide additional power
during times of peak loads; natural gas.
The
way I see it, consumers will see rates and taxes increase, for three reasons.
For the rate increase, the obvious additional cost of burning natural gas over
coal and constructing new facilities to replace existing would result in
increased cost per kWH that the consumer will see. Not only will that effect be
felt by homeowners paying their own bills, but also factories will be paying
more for utility bills and that money once again comes from the consumers.
I
would certainly think there would also be tax increases in order to cover the
additional subsidies for construction of wind farms or other renewable sources.
I also see another tax increase; welfare. If you eliminate thousands of jobs
across the Midwest by shutting down a few coal fired plants, inevitably there
will be a good portion of these former employees that will now depend on
welfare to feed their families. I suppose that you could make the argument that
the people who lost their jobs could find work elsewhere. But take a look at
the unemployment rate in states other than those in the Midwest. I can’t
imagine it will be an easy task finding stable jobs for thousands of employees.
So not only are there more people going on welfare, but you would have less
people paying taxes which help support these government programs.
One
of the things I remember from learning about US history was that it was much
more efficient to produce goods in a large factory rather than producing goods
on a small scale setting. One of the reasons we have large manufacturing
facilities in the US is because it’s much more efficient to produce a
particular product on a large scale than having a local blacksmith shop which
would produce a variety of items at a much greater cost per item. Do you think
that maybe it just might be the same scenario for energy? That it might be quite
a bit more efficient to produce electricity at a large coal fired plant rather
than hundreds of wind turbines and several gas fired plants? I sure do.
The
Obama administration and the EPA have targeted the Midwest states pretty harshly
with the Clean Power Plan. We produce reliable electricity very efficiently
here in North Dakota. Our electricity rates are very reasonable. We have a good
thing going here, so obviously the EPA will do everything in their power to
make sure that doesn’t continue.
I
would encourage any and all that might read this to do your own research on the
effects that this plan would have on energy costs and taxes. Don’t just depend
on what you hear from the EPA or the politicians supporting this plan.
Bottom
line is that I can’t really see any scenario if the Clean Power Plan goes into
effect, in its current form, where it doesn’t pencil out to the consumer and
taxpayer paying more.
I also find it a bit
comical that there are so many arguments that wind energy is so “clean.” Don’t
get me wrong, I am not saying the power produced by coal plants is perfectly
clean. I am just stating that wind power isn’t perfectly clean. The resources
that would go into replacing the energy produced by coal is immense. For
example, look at the money spent to build access roads for wind farm sites.
Then there’s concrete for the wind tower base. This isn’t just a slab the same
thickness as a sidewalk. I have heard as much as 500 cubic yards of concrete is
needed for a wind tower base. At 10 cubic yards per truckload, that would be 50
loads hauled by concrete trucks, fueled by diesel. One of the byproducts of
burning diesel fuel is CO2. Then there’s the manufacturing of the wind
turbines. You can’t tell me that there is no environmental pollution involved
in the production of wind turbine components, or the construction of a wind
turbine site. Unfortunately, wind power is a harder target for
environmentalists than coal power because the negative environmental impact is
virtually unseen at the site of energy production."
