U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Dakota
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2007, 03:34 PM
 
Location: England
16 posts, read 93,646 times
Reputation: 12

Advertisements

UFFDA - I do miss it sometimes, esp. miss the whiteouts!

 
Old 09-25-2007, 07:29 PM
 
103 posts, read 661,398 times
Reputation: 47
I guess I've lived in ND all of my life, and have not seen, heard or read all of these documentations and stories about all of the health issues Plains10 is talking about. I know many people who live in and around these plants, and they have never complained about health issues. I would think the pollution from cars, factories, pets and humans in a metro area such as Kansas City, Chicago or even Mpls would surpass multiple times the amounts of harmful pollution generated and disuprsed amongst the populations of these metro areas...far more harmful than the 4 plants operating in ONE county in west central ND where fewer than 12,000 people live. Even a quiet country side in rural Kansas is probably just as harmful with farm chemicals and dust from the agricultural environment Kansas (not unlike ND) supports.

What I'm saying, is there are far more dangerous places to live (health wise) than North Dakota. Even the mountain ranges surrounding Denver has more pollutants than Mercer county, ND. That is why Denver has broadcasts quality air levels on their daily newscasts for Denver and surrounding metro areas.

Last edited by Jammie; 09-25-2007 at 07:34 PM.. Reason: merged
 
Old 09-27-2007, 12:56 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,480,827 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by chester View Post
I guess I've lived in ND all of my life, and have not seen, heard or read all of these documentations and stories about all of the health issues Plains10 is talking about. I know many people who live in and around these plants, and they have never complained about health issues. I would think the pollution from cars, factories, pets and humans in a metro area such as Kansas City, Chicago or even Mpls would surpass multiple times the amounts of harmful pollution generated and disuprsed amongst the populations of these metro areas...far more harmful than the 4 plants operating in ONE county in west central ND where fewer than 12,000 people live. Even a quiet country side in rural Kansas is probably just as harmful with farm chemicals and dust from the agricultural environment Kansas (not unlike ND) supports.

What I'm saying, is there are far more dangerous places to live (health wise) than North Dakota. Even the mountain ranges surrounding Denver has more pollutants than Mercer county, ND. That is why Denver has broadcasts quality air levels on their daily newscasts for Denver and surrounding metro areas.
The point is that North Dakota should invest in their wind energy resources considering they have some of the highest wind speeds in the US. Lignite coal is not as clean as other types of coal, and is commonly used in power plants in North Dakota. Their is a reason why they relegate those plants to rural areas. It is because they would NEVER allow that many power plants to operate in a larger city. Like I have already said it is ridiculous that their are 4 plants in one county when their are several states that do not have one coal power plant. ND needs to invest in wind energy because it will help those who live in rural counties to suplement their income.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 01:48 PM
 
82 posts, read 236,859 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
The point is that North Dakota should invest in their wind energy resources considering they have some of the highest wind speeds in the US. Lignite coal is not as clean as other types of coal, and is commonly used in power plants in North Dakota. Their is a reason why they relegate those plants to rural areas. It is because they would NEVER allow that many power plants to operate in a larger city. Like I have already said it is ridiculous that their are 4 plants in one county when their are several states that do not have one coal power plant. ND needs to invest in wind energy because it will help those who live in rural counties to suplement their income.
Oddly enough - the reason that the coal plants are located where they are in ND has nothing to do with the proximity of a city. They're located there because that's where the coal is! If you put your plant right near the mine, you don't have to spend nearly as much on fuel to transport it to a faraway plant.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 02:08 PM
 
82 posts, read 236,859 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
Like I have already said it is ridiculous that their are 4 plants in one county when their are several states that do not have one coal power plant.
Several states?



If the concern about having 4 plants in one county is what's driving your posts, I'm assuming that I can find a similar post in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Illinois, and Wyoming forums? Or is North Dakota the only axe you're grinding?

Also - I found a graphical representation of where the coal actually is:



Do you see any similarities between the map with the locations of the plants and the map with the locations of the coal?
 
Old 09-27-2007, 02:53 PM
 
1,016 posts, read 2,702,531 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
I know a few people who live in North Dakota but I do not live there. I use to know someone from Beulah because that name does sound familiar. He had a few health issues, and I believe some of those had to do with the fact that their are four power plants alone in Mercer County. Some people forget that their are residents who live in those rural counties, and they do not all work at the power plants. In fact, most of the electric power generated at those coal plants does go to other states because North Dakota does not need much electric power because of its low population.
American Lung Association:*Air Pollution Facts & Air Quality Info - Best & Worst Cities - ALA State of the Air 2007 (http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_cities.html - broken link)

If you search for Mercer county, you find it 19th on a list of the top 25 cleanest-air counties in the USA (above most other North Dakota counties nowhere near coal mining or burning). While I don't doubt that somebody from Beulah had health issues, I tend to doubt that it's because of dirty air.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 03:32 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,480,827 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyreb View Post
Several states?



If the concern about having 4 plants in one county is what's driving your posts, I'm assuming that I can find a similar post in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Illinois, and Wyoming forums? Or is North Dakota the only axe you're grinding?

Also - I found a graphical representation of where the coal actually is:



Do you see any similarities between the map with the locations of the plants and the map with the locations of the coal?
Yes, there are some similarities but not all of the comparisons are true. The states of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri are not big coal mining areas at all, and do not produce very much high grade coal. The coal has to be transported long distances from the intermountain West states like Montana and Wyoming. I know that this is true for Kansas. It is true that some states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, etc have a higher concentration of coal plants, but the population density and demand in those areas is much higher. The reason I mentioned the ND example was that it had a high concentration in a very rural area compared with the eastern states.
SO2 regulations should also be more strict, especially in the eastern states. Their are no excuses for that.
Also, you still have not explained to me why North Dakota has not developed its wind energy potential when it has some of the highest wind speeds in North America. North Dakota could easily be an exporter of CLEAN renewable electricity generated from wind farms.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 03:37 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,480,827 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyreb View Post
Oddly enough - the reason that the coal plants are located where they are in ND has nothing to do with the proximity of a city. They're located there because that's where the coal is! If you put your plant right near the mine, you don't have to spend nearly as much on fuel to transport it to a faraway plant.
The state could focus on developing wind energy along with other states in the Great Plains. Focusing on dirty lignite coal is a joke when wind energy is a clean renewable source of electricity. The federal government should invest money to develop the necessary transmission line infrastructure to encourage wind energy development.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 04:15 PM
 
82 posts, read 236,859 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
The state could focus on developing wind energy along with other states in the Great Plains. Focusing on dirty lignite coal is a joke when wind energy is a clean renewable source of electricity. The federal government should invest money to develop the necessary transmission line infrastructure to encourage wind energy development.
If you're promoting wind energy - just come out and say it. Don't make baseless accusaions about the coal industry in ND to justify it.

As for your claim that North Dakota isn't developing it's wind energy capabilities - just because you type something (like the ND air quality "problems"), it doesn't make it true. Do a little research before you throw accusations around. For example, a simple google search for "north dakota wind power" results in this page: North Dakota Wind Energy Projects (broken link)

Nope - ND's not developing wind energy at all.
 
Old 09-27-2007, 08:41 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,480,827 times
Reputation: 12507
Kansas has set a goal to have 20% of the total electricity generated to come from renewable sources by 2020. Has North Dakota made any goals regarding renewable energy. Texas is the current leader in wind energy with other states in the Great Plains struggling to catch up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Dakota
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top