Our Monday editorial praised Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ announced intention in her second term to more boldly promote renewable energy, especially wind power.
Kansas remains one of the top-rated states for wind potential — and one of the slowest to seize the economic opportunity.
A new electric transmission authority approved last year for western Kansas could help, but Kansas really needs a state Renewable Portfolio Standard, which commits utilities to using a certain percentage of renewables by a certain date.
“That’s the missing piece,” noted Craig Volland of the Kansas Sierra Club.
Moreover, the debate is growing — including on this blog — over the proposed coal-fired power plants near Holcomb.
As we argued in the piece, Sebelius needs to address questions about the global-warming gases these plants will spew and whether the complex will reduce demand for renewables and put pressure on the Ogallala Aquifer.
Is Kansas going to be a leader in the fight against global warming, or one of the worst offenders?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
55 Comments
I’ve been pressing some politicians to pass a net metering law in Kansas where the utilities would pay for the electricity a residential consumer produces. Forty other states have this program, but Kansas doesn’t. Hopefully Sebelius will throw it in her renewable energy program.
Doug, keep pressuring.
Wind (and other renewable) energy sources need to be approached with some caution. While these seem, facially, to be great ideas, each form of renewable energy brings with it “costs”, which may be apparent or hidden.
As ksfg has posted, wind energy sounds great; however, what is the effect upon the landowners who lease their lands to the generating companies, i.e., how many acres are removed from ag production? What is the effect of the generators upon the property tax base of the counties in which these are located? What about the need for construction of additional transmission lines in Western Kansas (where most of the proposals for wind energy generators proopose for siting)? Assuming, e.g., that areas of the state are better suited than Western Kansas for prevailing winds, both in quality and quantity, but there are objections to siting such generation there (such as the Flint Hills, for example), how are these to be resolved?
Ethanol production; looks like a good way to reduce dependency on “foreign oil”; however, if relying upon corn as feedstock, is a net energy user (cultivation of the corn) and a water user (irrigation, water used in production) here in Kansas.
I acknowledge the incomplete nature of the above, just posting that which easily comes to mind.
These are issues which must be included in any discussion of development of alternative energy sources, whether here in Kansas or elsewhere.
“Is Kansas going to be a leader in the fight against global warming, or one of the worst offenders?”
Randy, you have already answer your own question in your article.
The answer is:”Kansas remains one of the top-rated states for wind potential — and one of the slowest to seize the economic opportunity.”
So you posters and the Eagle editorial board is in favor of our electricity bills increasing?
Will the Eagle subsidize those poor folks who can barely afford their current electricity?
IF wind energy was so great, they wouldn’t need direct cash subsidies.
Right now, it just doesn’t work.
I agree that we need to be pushing to help wind development. Wind does not get the subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear have long received. Lets help level the playing field.
This is especially true if you consider the environmentsl damage done by fossil fuels, the cost of which is ‘externalized’, that is borne by society rather than by the companies.
Let me see if I have this right. People on this blog rant against oil energy due to the location of most of it, the pollution, global warming, etc.
People also complain about the problems with coal energy due to pollution concerns. There are also complaints about wind energy.
Anyone have any POSITIVE things to contribute? Or is it in vogue to criticise everything and solve nothing?
raptor – I think there are a number of us who ARE saying positive things about wind energy. Doug and wiseman above for example. I think KsFG is a bit negative because she fears that landowners will be exploited; I believe that issue can be addressed. VT simply noted her concern but I think is positive.
Sierra Club has lobbied in favor of wind in Kansas. They have expressed some concerne about locations, notable in “viewsheds” such as parts of the Flint Hills. Nationally Sierra Club is actively pushing wind along with solar.
I tend to agree with Sierra on this; however I part company with them in that I also advocate nuclear. (nukular?)
Well…
All through history, we have simply jumped in and used any energy source or technology that was discovered and was efficient and affordable. There was never any real thought given to possible ramifications.
SOMETIMES this is a good thing.
The discovery of kerosene and electricity may well have saved the whales from being humted to extinction. Their oil being THE fuel for lamps at one time.
But if we could have seen the future? Would we still have gone with fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine? Probably so. But no consideration was given to where that would lead us.
SO I call it healthy and wise to ask questions about wind or any new energy source.
Would large numbers of wind turbines be detrimental to birds? Would large scale wind farms slow surface winds and cause climate change in their own way? These are questions worth asking
Ben Huie: You can put me on your list as highly favoring more wind farms in Kansas.
I’m still studying the pluses and minuses and factors such as power outputs of the turbines. Apparently power output ranges from 0.6 mega-watt to 1.5 mega-watts per turbine/tower.
I think we currently have three operating wind farms in Kansas. These are located as follows:
** Near Montezuma: 170 towers/turbines, for total of 110 MW’s.
** Near Spearville: 67 tower/turbines, for total of 100.5 MW’s.
** Elk River site, between Beaumont and Latham: 100 tower/turbines for total 150 MW’s.
Lots of information is available about these wind farms. One point often mentioned is necessity to site them near existing power transmission lines because of the tremendous expense of acquiring right of way and building new large transmission lines.
Of course, there is the “not in my back yard” mentality out there.
And I have a lot of questions such as interference with radio/TV signals, damage to birds, potential health problems in vicinity of the transmission lines, who gets paid, payments in lieu of taxes, etc., etc.
But I do see wind farms having an important potential in Kansas but the sites should be carefully controlled by some sort of citizens’ power authority.
And, if my figures are correct, the three existing wind farms I listed above have the potential WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING! to produce 360 MW’s of electricity. This according to my calculation is 6% of the power output of Wolf Creek Nuclear plant.
So I will leave it to you to compute how many more wind farms we need to exceed Wolf Creek — presuming the Kansas winds keep blowing. Perhaps one should be placed near the capitol building in Topeka.
I mentioned a few months ago a major rethinking in alternative energy: small windmills on individual homeowners’ lots. You’d still need a conventional energy grid for windless periods. But your electricity production would be made more efficient with short transmission distances. Birds will figure out how to avoid collision.
And, Ben Huie, put me down as opposing the three new proposed coal fired power plants proposed to be built in a cluster with an existing power plant out near Holcomb, Kansas. These are very dangerous to Kansas in a number of ways including adding pollution to our atmosphere and massive water usage from the Ogallala underground water aquifer.
We have a lot of agreement here. heartlander – I will add to the mix something called “community wind” – a cooperative approach. Take a local community, Farm Bureau district, etc. Put up a relatively small operation to provide the needs of the group. Set it up as a Sub-chapter K LLC or a sub-chapter S-corporation.
The wind ALWAYS is blowing – somewhere. That is why a number of turbines are needed. I have also observed that it tends to be both windy and sunny when it is hot. When it is hot we have our peak demand. So, wind and solar tend to line up with demand.
There is no ONE solution to our energy needs. We need a multiplicity of things – particularly wind, solar, and nuclear. Gas should be reserved for direct use – it is unique for that. Oil-powered plants (quick on/off) for peaking purposes as needed. then begin to phase out the old plants.
Northeast Kansans may ultimately decide whether Holcomb builds a coal-fired electrical plant. Reportedly, most of the electricity will be exported to other states. Northeast Kansans will get no benefits, but breath the toxic byproducts.As for the 1900 jobs produced, that will be a static figure. JoCo alone produces more new jobs than this ANNUALLY for Kansas.
Wichitans will be affected too, but they’re not attuned to environmental disease issues. Cuz their local media doesn’t discuss the matter.
As the Ogalalla Aquifer is drawn down, what about loss of farmland irrigation and farmland jobs? Those aren’t in the jobs-creation projections.
Ben and Heartlander: I visited the Kansas Geological Survey a couple days ago to purchase their new booklet, for $15, describing the Ogallala in Kansas. I just mentioned it and how to get a copy at the bottom (#69) of the “Open Thread on Water Policy.” JWink
Wichita West high recently erected a small wind turbine. It powers lights for some of their atletic events.
JWink – Mike Dealey at the Survey is a wealth on information on water, particularly the equus Beds. He will be giving a talk (I think this week) on the topic at the Geology Society meeting (I’ll have to check the paper for that)
Please post the time and place if you could, Ben.Water doesn’t get near the publicity it should, and hearing from an area expert would be well worth the time.
Ed Smiley whines about wind energy needing subsidies. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone else gets subsidies that alternative energy doesn’t. That would be coal, oil and nuclear. Nuclear energy has never been profitable that’s why they constantly need billions of dollars in subsidies and need to government to spend more to find a place to safely store the waste.
Unlike oil and coal we don’t need to import wind into Kansas.
dusty – et.al. – probably on an open thread over the weekend. I’ll have to find the notice.
As long as Nebraska sucks and Oklahome blows … and they periodically switch … we will always have wind!
Ben: Hope you will let us know what time and where the meeting w be held. Mike Dealy is the fellow I bought the booklet from. JWink
Doug,
Please list the subsidies fossil fuel receives.
Wind energy gets cash.
I struck out looking in my old newspapers. I am sure if you call Mike at the Survey he will be happy to tell you. Although the talk is probably a bit on the technical side I’m sure a layman will also benefit.
(Of course, I might have really screwed up and it was last week. Don’t think so though.)
I’ll probably give Mike a call Monday; I have a County survey I need to return anyway.
Ed – depletion allowances on their taxes. Public assistence in building roads etc to their remore sites. Public subsidies in handling waste products. The public gets burdened with their effluents.
Ed are you completely clueless? Do you think the last energy bill signed by Bush didn’t have any subsidies?
The 2005 Energy bill gave $8.1 billion in tax breaks (primarily to oil, coal and nuclear), and $80.8 billion in spending (again, primarily to oil, coal and nuclear). Of that renewable energy received $2 billion dollars.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/22/MNG45CDDBS1.DTL
It’s a shame that you had to work this hard to avoid knowing about this. The issue has only been going on since 2000.
Doug – it goes way back before 2000. Both parties.
That’s why DNC Democrats like James Carville are so upset with Populists like Howard Dean. They aren’t bought by the energy companies, nor do they bow down to the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia where it is punishable by lashing to be gang raped. Yes, Saudis punish women for being raped and don’t even have a problem with slavery.
One of the big issues of the election was environmental issues. Americans are a bit wiser and spoke out saying they don’t want a government that serves rich energy companies that give billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia to finance terrorists. No, Americans voted that they want to reduce the deficit, increase national security, clean the air, water and land, and want lower energy bills. All of this is possible with renewable energy, it is impossible with fossil fuels.
If the alternatives are so cheap and easy then why are you asking for our taxes to be raised to provide subsidies?
sowhat,Your argument is specious at best. Alternative energy is not cheap. The wind may be free; harnessing it is expensive. Ocean wave action may be predictable, but using it as an energy source is very expensive. Any materials used will have to be pretty much immune to the corrosive effects of sea water. Geothermal energy also has to take into account the corrosive gasses released, as well as reactive metals present. Again, not cheap.
I don’t know what you are implying, but energy will never be cheap again, nor will it be able to continue in its fossil fuel, polluting ways. You maght as well get used to it; it’s going to happen, and the sooner the better.
sotheysaid, since when have taxes been raised or proposed to be raised? Simply divert the subsidies going to oil, gas, coal and nuclear. Our nation would save billions if we got off of oil, then we’d no longer need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the military to protect oil interests.
Please list the subsidies.
I am waiting.
Wind energy gets cash.
Markets work. The market is telling us we don’t want wind energy.
Ed – subsidies have been listed. STS – wind has to compete with subsidized nuclear and fossil.
Ed Smiley,
“The market is telling us we don’t want wind energy.”
You need to do some research. Wind costs are dropping, fossil fuel is rising, and people are becoming more climate-conscious.
‘WIND ENERGY DEMAND BOOMING:Cost Dropping Below Conventional Sources Marks Key Milestone in U.S. Shift to Renewable Energyhttp://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52.htm ‘
http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html
Facts about U.S. energy subsidies, and a graph of fiscal year 2006.
http://www.ifnotwind.org/pdf/Subsidy_10-6-06.pdf
There’s an interesting investment group, specializing in clean tech companies only. Some surprising stats there: http://www.cleantech.com/
I don’t understand people like Ed… “Let’s keep burning pollution producing fossil fuels willy-nilly with no forethought regarding it running out, while giving billions in subsidies to the already hugely profitable fossil fuel industry. But wind energy in Western Kansas, why, that’s just downright communist. I LIKE BREATHING PARTICULATE MATTER, AND I DON’T CARE WHAT THE FACTS SAY, RENEWABLE ENERGY IS JUST NOT VIABLE. SUBSIDIES FOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES = GOOD. SUBSIDIES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANIES AND DEVELOPMENT = BAD.”
IDIOT.
If wind is so great, then get rid of the subsidies.
Wind energy is fine, but it is fantasy land to think renewables will be any significant portion of our total energy portfolio in the next 50 years.
Fossil fuels work because they are packed with so much energy.
This isn’t complicated folks.
Tax breaks, like mortgage interest deductions, are not like direct cash subsidies (or tax credits) that wind gets.
We don’t have more nuclear b/c it is so expensive. Again, the market is making this decision. Not me or you.
I don’t understand folks like Dusty Chaps who think they know more than the collective wisdom of the market place.
Ed – absolving me of paying taxes would be the same as writing me a check. It is money both ways. Add to that paying my expenses for me and that too is like writing me a check. The fossil fuel industry is given tax breaks; also many of their cleanup bills are paid by the taxpayers.
If you want to parse words and pretend that indirect doesn’t count go right ahead. It is false anyway.
Ed,
It’s fantasy land to think fossil fuels will be a significant portion of our total energy portfolio in the future — unless cheap ways are found to trap the carbon.
Climate change, and higher fossil fuel costs will force the changes.
Higher energy efficiency is the key solution.http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid306.php
Large central power plants will be replaced by distibuted generation.http://www.smallisprofitable.org/ExecutiveSummary.html
The fossil fuel “market place” is horribly flawed. In addition to subsidies, it ignores the external costs to the environment, health, foreign policy, etc.
Hey EdHow can you say that the market is telling us that we don’t want it when it has not been given a chance to grow here in the U.S.?Maybe you meant to say that “I have not figure out how to not to lose my profits on oil and my seat of power over the people.”The rest of the world is speeding on by passing us on alternative energy; just do some research on Europe and stop trying to hinder progress with your fears.
Having worked in the fossil fuel industry many years ago I saw firsthand the kind of subsidies my employer enjoyed. Now that I have been following wind for a few years I see much less in the way of help there.
Nuclear, which I support, has also received generous subsidies.
What hasn’t been given a chance?
Who hasn’t given that chance?
The market? Exactly.
The “market” does not and should not run everything. Haven’t you repugs learned that yet?
Ed thinks that if we allow one industry to avoid taxes and have many of its bills paid by the taxpayers that is a free market. Typical Republican.
So when Ed is spending $3 a gallon on gas and gets a 50% increase in his natural gas rates is he overjoyed with how much money he is saving? Renewable energy is at a constant cost because the energy is always there.
I think he is being intentionally ignorant since he still doesn’t accept the repeated fact that fossil fuel companies get subsidies.
To paraphrase Ed “If fossil fuels are so great, then get rid of the subsidies.”
As for “but it is fantasy land to think renewables will be any significant portion of our total energy portfolio in the next 50 years” ask some professionals in the energy fields. They said home computers would never go anywhere too.
“The “market” does not and should not run everything.”
Not being a “repug” I can’t answer for them. That said, you are as about as wrong as one could be. Even limiting the definition of “market”, you’re wrong. The market should drive everything. Anything else is doomed to failure. That’s not a republican, democrat, communist, socialist thing; it’s driven by the same thing it’s always been driven by: profit. Be it political, monetary or power, it’s always market driven.
When alternate energy sources can compete, price wise, with fossil fuels, AND becomes readily available, then we will see it surpass fossil based energy. Forcing it is not going to work as well.
NOTHING gets more subsidies than the corn industry and ethanol.
Tell me again how great they are?
Raptor, everything has a cost and a downside as well as an upside. People in Kansas are living in a fantasy land if they dont consider BOTH sides of every coin.
You can call it negative. I call it prudent and forward thinking.
There is no magic bullet for energy. Not wind, not coal, not ethanol, not fossil, not nukes. We would do well to consider not only their good points, but their potential harms as well.
But please feel free to jump on the first passing bandwagon while ignoring the facts of any downside.
In kansas, you have lots of company on that denial bandwagon.
I got 2 words for all you worshippers at the altar of the “free market”.
Betamax
Apple
I got I got 2 more for ya.
Outsourcing
Illegal immigration
Alternative energy developers are working against those with a vested interest in the status quo. THAT “quo” being energy sources that are over a hundred years old.
Got stocks in the petro industry Ed?
The lobby power of this entrenched industry is vast and powerful. New energies MUST have subsidies in order to get off the ground.
Yes, Ben, generally I am for exploitation of the potential for electricity generated from wind power; I agree with you on nuclear power, too. However, as ksfg points out, there are two sides to every coin, and blindly jumping on the alternative energy bandwagon du jour is foolish.
So we just continue to do the same thing with fossil fuels? That sounds worse than jumping on the bandwagon to me.
dave s, I’m not suggesting that we, as a country, continue the same strategy with fossil fuels; I was trying to point out that blindly jumping on a bandwagon without consideration of possible consequences, and how the same might be ameliorated, is foolish in its own right.
I agree that we don’t jump on a ‘bandwagon’; that is why I favor multiple approaches. Wind is a proven energy source; solar is also. They are both undergoing a great deal of further development; amorphous materials are especially promising for solar.
I would add (of course) energy efficiency and conservation. And, as is known here, I add nuclear. My twist on nuclear is to use recycled warheads as they are decommissioned. For example, Ukraine’s warheads are in the US and can be back-mixed with depleted uranium to make fuel.