Clean Energy - If not now, When?

HAPPY PLACES: BUILDING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES IN A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY

WHY COAL?: QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF COAL POWER IN THE CHIPPEWA VALLEY…
By Nik Novak
niknovak@gmail.com

In 1972 Northern States Power Company proposed construction of a nuclear power plant at Tyrone on the Lower Chippewa River. The plant was to bring clean energy and jobs to an area lacking both. It seemed like a good idea, at first. America was growing by leaps and bounds. The need for new energy supplies plagued politicians everywhere. Domestic oil production had just recently peaked. Natural gas prices were churning industry stomachs. Coal was dirty and tended to result in labor disputes. And solar and wind technology would undoubtedly cause the Russians to giggle. By contrast, clean-burning nuclear energy looked like an acceptable option.

To others, however, the question of nuclear waste storage proved more worrisome than the promise of high-paying jobs. A coalition of farmers, hunters, conservationists, and concerned citizens began to doubt the necessity of it all. Couldn’t they do with less energy? What if the worst-case scenario came true and Wisconsin ended up a haven for nuclear pollution?

Though the proposal was soon dropped, NSP still owned a couple thousand acres along the river. Charitably, they opened the land for recreational purposes and thousands of outdoor enthusiasts have since been able to enjoy any manner of natural splendor. Nineteen miles downstream from Eau Claire amblers amble, hunters hunt, skiers glide, fishers cast from slow, graceful canoes, birders sit quietly, peering through binoculars, and bicyclists move swiftly over well-kept trails passing by wetlands, sloughs, forests, and plentiful inland waters.

The Lower Chippewa is a lovely little region. But in the thirty-four years since NSP (now Xcel Energy) backed away from its proposal to bring nuclear power to the Upper Midwest, civilization plodded on, manifesting itself in the usual ways, sprawling up and over the valley walls, paving farms, building malls, offering alms to the automobile.

Perhaps it won’t even surprise you when I say that Xcel Energy is considering a new facility at precisely the same location as was designated decades ago. The difference is: This time the proposal is for a 750 megawatt coal-fired power plant.

So far I haven’t been able to make contact with Xcel Energy.

I’d like to, of course. I have a lot of questions for them. For instance, what exactly does “clean coal” mean? Does a promise of “no emissions” contain loopholes? If so, which sort of emissions are currently legal? Sulfur dioxide? Nitrogen oxide? Do such emissions also respect ecological laws? What about acid rain, mercury poisoning, or global climate change? Will we be contributing?

I’m not an expert. I want to know.

Moreover, where would “our” coal come from? West Virginia? (The state where miners keep dying in spuriously-constructed underground shafts.) Or Wyoming? (The state where house-sized earth-movers eviscerate acres of soil and rock before poisoning the local water supply.)

And what would happen to the coal residue after it is scrubbed from the smokestack walls? How do you make that stuff less toxic? Would it be transferred to a decontamination lab or would it just sit out in the open, waiting for rain and gravity to wash it away?

What would happen when the winds picked up? Would prevailing southerlies find their way to Eau Claire in the summer? Would the people of Durand notice darker-colored snow in the winter? Am I a ninny to fritter about the consequences felt by asthmatics?

How much water would the plant use on a seasonal basis? Would it come from the Chippewa? From the ground? Where would the water go afterwards?

And who would pay for the plant? The debt-ridden federal government? State tax-payers? Rate-payers?

Communities love to hear about local jobs coming their way. But is energy from coal the only means of attracting employment? Is Xcel Energy also investing in alternatives such as solar or wind technology?

And what does Xcel believe will happen, years from now, when coal (just like other fossil fuels) becomes too difficult and expensive to extract from an already over-burdened Earth? Wouldn’t it be better to transition to renewable energy now?

If these questions pique your curiosities, maybe you could enclose well-written letters and queries with each of your monthly remittance payments.

I am convinced that people will do the right thing given enough encouragement.

Živeli.

 

If you have content to contribute to this site, please email content@tyronecoal.com