A new Energy Department report concludes that it’s feasible for the United States to get 20 percent of its electricity needs from wind power by 2030 — about the same share now provided by nuclear power — without the need for any major technological breakthroughs.
Wind power currently provides only about 1 percent of the nation’s electricity.
The report bolsters claims that wind power has arrived and is poised to move from a niche market to the mainstream.
Is Kansas poised to capture this opportunity?
The report does identify some major challenges, such as the need for more transmission lines in remote areas — that’s been a key obstacle in western Kansas. But the study says it’s doable and affordable.
It’s further confirmation that a thriving wind power industry for Kansas isn’t a pipe dream — it’s waiting to be built.
50 Comments
It’s waiting to be built but the problem is, nobody wants it in ‘their’ backyard.
I’m originally from Illinois and they have already started building wind farms. If Kansas doesn’t start soon, we will miss the boat.
Kansas would be the perfect state for harnessing the wind - both naturally and from the politicians and their rabid supporters who are full of hot air.
In my opinion, a good location for wind farm would be from Greensburg north to the Arkansas River near Kinsley. Not many people there. Mostly large tracts of wheat and other grain crops. Don’t know how the land owners there would react.
I like the concept of harnessing that aggravating wind! Make lemonade from lemons. First we have to squeeze the pits out of our State Legislature before we can start to move forward.
As they say not in my back yard. The windmills and tranmission lines are ugly. Enviros don’t necessary like them, they kill birds. Rod and Kathy may not permit this if they stir up emissions and fan it someplace else.
George–
“Enviros” love them. Millions of birds die from slamming into plate glass windows.
Does it hurt to be that ignorant?
We should be pushing this as fast as we can push it . . .
Hey . . . maybe that’s George’s problem–he slammed into too many sliding glass doors . . .
george - you obviously have not been paying attention. Sierra Club has actively lobbied both for wind farms and for tranmission lines.
Rod and Kathy may not permit this if they stir up emissions and fan it someplace else.
George must not live in Kansas or have been here on a normal day. The way the North wind blows it is evidence that Oklahoma must really suck!
To be feasible, the wind farms should be located as close to populated areas as possible. Every mile farther away is another mile of paying for high power transmission lines.
If you think about it - what’s the windiest place around here? Did anyone say Cheney Lake? I’ve never been out there when the wind was not cranking at gale force.
It could power the lake facilities and cover all the adjacent ground.
Here is a prediction. So-called environmentalists will herald the change to ‘wind energy’. Then five years after that will declare that mankind has reduced the wind by 0.005% and is causing a global catastrophe. Computer models will show the jetstream disappearing and life on Earth ending 29 minutes later.
Should be fun to watch.
The flinthills. Fill up the flinthills with them.
It’s further confirmation that a thriving wind power industry for Kansas isn’t a pipe dream — it’s waiting to be built.
and waiting…
and waiting…
and waiting…
We better hurry and get them built before GW changes our climate, …and the winds don’t blow…
Just wait until Big Oil sees a few wind farms making some bucks. Guess who’ll be in the wind farm business then.
Turbines on top of the dam at Cheney, or perhaps the towers just behind the dam is a superb idea.
Let’s install them as useful decoration around the nuclear power plants that we need to get busy building to really make a difference by producing the bulk of the energy we need to become energy independent.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Innovation
Peel & Stick and Tile Solar Panels More Pleasing To The Eye
We have peel-and-stick floor tiles, so why not solar panels?
Lumeta, a unit of DRI, the Irvine, California-based commercial and residential construction and roofing company, is gearing up to unveil lightweight solar panels that can be installed on a flat commercial roof simply by peeling and sticking. The company will also launch solar panel tiles for the residential market that will meld with tile roofs made of concrete and clay, which Lumeta said makes them more aesthetically pleasing.
cont’d at
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/innovation/peel–stick-solar-panels-protect-integrity-roof/
regular - I think solar panels on roofs will be a VERY important development. Consider the implications during peak-use times (air conditioning) in the summer. Gee - it seems that when it is hot and sunny there is a lot of sunlight!
“Just wait until Big Oil sees a few wind farms making some bucks. Guess who’ll be in the wind farm business then.”
You are too late on that prediction, Phantom. Big oil is already on top of wind power. Since Big oil sells a commodity that consumers demand (ie energy), the politically favored wind power technology is making leaps and bounds that even Big Oil is taking advantagl of.
Pickens is high on low carbon natural gas as well.
“Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is getting greener all the time
Pickens, the world’s 368th richest man , hopes to make Pampa “the wind capital of the world.”
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/16/pickens-ge-energy-face-markets-cx_mlm_0515autofacescan03.html?partner=yahootix
“On the residential front, Lumeta plans what the company calls Solar S Tiles. These tiles, which will cost on average between $25,000 and $35,000 for a total system, are made to look like tiles found on concrete and clay roofs. ”
And the financial payoff takes how many years?
The market for such products will continue to be small until such time it is financially worth the consumers money. Such is the way of all technology. It has to be affordable, with a definite financial payoff, or people will continue to shop at Wal-Mart. (they will do what they consider in their financial best interest –shopping at wal-mart besides the union sticker on the bumper.
Why put the wind farms out here where there are not enough transmission lines?
Put the wind farms in eastern kansas where the population is.
And the Flint Hills are a LOT closer to population and transmission lines than the land out here.
Or.. do you just want them if they are in someone else’s backyard?
Maybe some of you scientific types can say how much energy is lost in long distance transmission?
“And the financial payoff takes how many years?”
Of course, LJ, I dont have the answer for that, but I wonder how much the “payoff” would have been shortened if those “stimulus” checks had been earmarked for roof top solar rebates instead of for votes in November.
Figure out a way to put the wind farms up on this blog!
Wow, they’d spin their turbine blades clear off.
Just joking!
ksfarmgrrl
“Posted May 19, 2008 at 11:15 am | Permalink
Why put the wind farms out here where there are not enough transmission lines?
Or.. do you just want them if they are in someone else’s backyard?”
KaCHING! OF course that’s the answer. Why Ted Kennedy didn;t want them off the cost of Mass.,
Why Sedgwick county carries it’s trash to Harper County, Why we would rather them pollute Saudi Arabia and the whole middle east than ANWAR and on and on and on.
I WANT IT BUT NOT IN MY DAMNED BACKYARD!
ksfg - I’m not sure what the loss rate is. I do know that they routinely transmit power thousands of miles as it is. For example, hydro-power from the Pacific northwest to California.
Wind power is a wonderful opportunity to develop a dispersed power grid where generating capacity is close to users. In rural areas especially Community Wind can make communities virtually self-sufficient in power. K-State is working extensively in this area.
ksfarmgrrl–
Probably not much, considering it’s small sum. However, it should never have happened. Just another “Hey I feel your pain” excercise from the politicians on both sides who care nothing about you and me, only about getting reelected. Of course, I guess if they do what the people want, then they “deserve” to be reelected. Far easier course than educating the public that they don;t really want what they think they want.
“Why Sedgwick county carries it’s trash to Harper County,”
Actually that was a Corporate (BFI and Waste Management) decision. There were at least some of us here who wanted a different approach.
Actually, it wasn;t. The initial solution to the clolsing of Brooks of the purchase of acreage for a far higher than market price near Furley. THe purpose of the purchase was for a landfill. However, after a hue and cry from those in Sedgwick country, an alternative was found. Harper country. Above the Chickaskia River. The county commision also found that a burn and reuse facility was not cost effective. Far better to dump it’s trash on someone else.
To bad home owners couldn’t buy smaller versions and run most of our needs for our homes. but the city and state will not let us do that.
oh, and what happens if the wind stops blowing in Kansas?
lj - agreed. I had a number of run-ins with the County Commission about that whole mess.
Hell GBT, Kansas wont even allow reverse metering! Much less encourage power not produced by the big guys with the big campaign checkbooks.
And dont even mention co-generation in Kansas.
Psssst. Steve Miller may be listening!
I know in TX, the distance between numerous wind farms, and transmission lines, is less than transmission line distance from the big Coal Fired plant not far from here…
Those huge wind turbines, when running, produce much power — I firmly believe that wind farms and wind power, is the best way to go…
And hey, if one of the generators goes down, it wont pollute the entire area for a thousand years like would happen if a nuke plant went down!!
They really need to get on the ball for advancing home personal energy from wind power the way they did with solar power.
So Political mama-
Do you have solar power cells, panels, or passive heating devices for your home already installed?
I spoke to a Westar official, and he lead me to believe they will buy back home-generated electrons… Who knows the real deal on this? Is this really not allowed by state and local government? Can you provide references for it?
David - Siera Club has lobbied for reverse metering. Westar has effectively blocked it in the Legislature.
Go to wiki and look under “net metering”. It give a state by state analysis.
Kansas
“Kansas does not have a consumer Net Metering incentive, but does have a renewable metering incentive on the wholesale level that provides the wholesale commerce of renewable energy at 150% of the avoided cost. Thus, the incentive one receives in this case is dependent not upon the price of retail electricity per kWh, but upon the price of wholesale electricity.
The Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives [K-SEC] was founded January 2005 by Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. VITAE as a non-profit and non-competitive renewable electricity cooperative. K-SEC Phase I Demonstration is structured around Kansas House Bill 2018 passed in 2003 by Kansas Representative Tom Sloan. See Kansas Statutes Annotated Chapter 17-4661 and 17-4655
The K-SEC program has the goal of installing 1,000 MWp building-integrated photo voltaic [BI-PV] solar electricity by 2018. This translates to approximately one hundred million SF of BI-PV solar roofing or one million SF BI-PV roofing in 100 of the 105 counties of Kansas. This will require 70,000 to 100,000 SF BI-PV per county per year for ten years. K-SEC will not sell the solar systems, but they are going to lease consumer rooftops in exchange for a high-tech battery back-up system for fifty years. K-SEC will manufacture, install, monitor, maintain and sell the electricity wholesale. K-SEC will provide numerous job opportunities to rural and urban Kansas communities from manufacturing to solar system design, installation, maintenance, monitoring and electricity sells.
The foundational structure for the K-SEC Program is the Kansas Solar Electric Buildings Registry and GIS Database. A list is being compiled of Kansas homes and buildings that have unshaded roofing surface that could accommodate 100 SF to 50,000 SF of BI-PV solar materials. The rooftops must have south to southwest facing or flat rooftops.
The K-SEC Program is important for Kansas where 72.5% of the electricity Kansas presently consumes is generated by coal-fired power plants. In 2004 and 2005 projects totaling a 55% increase in coal-fired power plants were proposed in Kansas.”
ksfarmgrrl
Posted May 19, 2008 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Maybe some of you scientific types can say how much energy is lost in long distance transmission?
==================================================
Look at transmission lines. When there is lower current demands, the lines will be at their normal height. During peak demands, the lines will start sagging. That is heat, due to the wire resistance, causing that. The more sag, the more loss.
We pay for that with higher bills, but that is what we’re stuck with. More transmission lines would mean less loss, as the demand could be spread over more lines. Trust me: the power grid in this country is in dire need of upgrade, regardless of energy producer (wind, gas, coal, etc.
I’m all for buried lines as much as possible, but that may not be practical over long distances. One of the most interesting ideas I’ve read is using superconductors (zero resistance=zero energy loss) when they get both superconductor crossover point much higher (like normal earth temp swings) temp, and cost effective. Plus, since energy loss is minimized, the off peak energy could be used for hydrogen production.
Now, manufacture the superconducting transmission lines with the capacity to carry the hydrogen produced, and you got a super modern energy grid supplying both electricity and non-carbon producing fuel. What a concept. Too bad it ain’t mine;-)
Wanna know how much energy would be saved using superconducting transmission lines? It could shut down around 1/2 of the energy producing plants in this country. Now that’s a savings!
ksfarmgrrl,
Try this sometime: Look at the transmission lines around you. Basically pick out one. Check it on a day when temps are supposed to be around 100. Check it early morning, then check it around 5 or 6 pm. Bet its probably got a 2 to 3 foot sag in the evening. Thats alot of heat loss.
From Sep. 2006, so a little out of date.
‘Fact Sheet on Wind Power in Kansas’
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/WindPower-FactSheet.htm
Transmission losses are also part of the importance of increasing end-use efficiency.
You reduce the energy used by the user, and also reduce the energy lost all the way back to the generator.
Another example, house wiring is sized by code to prevent a fire hazard. Less energy is wasted if larger wiring is used — it costs a little more during construction, but saves for the life of the house.
Thanks Cosmos and Walker. A friend of mine works for Midwest Energy and he told me one time what the loss was per mile of transmission, but that was twenty years ago and I dont remember.
“Wanna know how much energy would be saved using superconducting transmission lines?”
That is a TON of energy. Perhaps if we hadnt squandered our national treasury on Iraq, we could afford such an upgrade.
Sigh. But I bet the power companies wouldnt like it!
ksfarmgrrl,
Unfortunately, the technology isn’t here yet to so the superconductor thing. Probably 20 to 30 years down the road at least.
I think the electric companies would like it reduced loss: more energy to sell.
Wise electric companies have figured out that it’s more profitable to encourage higher energy efficiency than build (very expensive) new power plants.
They offer their customers rebates, low (or zero) interest loans, free CFL’s, etc.
Also, one of the many advantages of “distributed generation” is the local sources don’t have the energy loss over long-distance transmission lines.
http://www.smallisprofitable.org/ExecutiveSummary.html
“This book describes 207 ways in which the size of “electrical resources” — devices that make, save, or store electricity — affects their economic value.
It finds that properly considering the economic benefits of “distributed” (decentralized) electrical resources typically raises their value by a large factor, often approximately tenfold, by improving system planning, utility construction and operation (especially of the grid), and service quality, and by avoiding societal costs.”
Windmills look ugly.
Just turn out the lights and pull the plug on America.
Thanks again Walker and Cosmos.
“Also, one of the many advantages of “distributed generation” is the local sources don’t have the energy loss over long-distance transmission lines.”
That’s EXACTLY what I was fumbling to say!
The most potentially lucrative site for windmills would be cirling and facing our state capitol building while the Sunflower issue is being lobbied. All that money would be blowin’ in the wind!
I know, just design the part of the generator behind the propeller to look like a plane and build them around Wichita! I think Joe might like that idea. Where are you Joe?
Actually phantom, I have said that for a number of reasons we should build them here.
2 Trackbacks
[...] needs from wind power by 2030 ?? about the same share now provided by nuclear power ?? withouthttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/dramatic-growth-for-wind/Uganda Passes Atomic Energy Bill - Lawmaker NasdaqKAMPALA, Uganda -Dow Jones- Uganda’s parliament [...]
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Dramatic growth for wind? [...]