At a recent western Kansas meeting to promote wind energy, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., remarked that he’s considering installing a small wind generator at his Topeka home.
“I want to do it,” he said. “But I don’t want to do it stupid.”
If Brownback wants a smart way to do home wind in Kansas, then he should support a net metering law, which allows residential wind users to sell their excess energy back to the utility and makes residential wind much more economically feasible.
Kansas is one of only six states without some kind of residential net metering for wind. And we’re supposed to be a leader in wind power?
69 Comments
Wind Jammers
Once again, there’s no such thing as a happy Greemie. They are just enemies of anything that is rational
In this year’s great energy debate, Democrats describe a future when the U.S. finally embraces the anything-but-carbon avant-garde. It turns out, however, that when wind and solar power do start to come on line, they face a familiar obstacle: environmentalists and many Democrats.
To wit, the greens are blocking the very transmission network needed for renewable electricity to move throughout the economy. The best sites for wind and solar energy happen to be in the sticks — in the desert Southwest where sunlight is most intense for longest, or the plains where the wind blows most often. To exploit this energy, utilities need to build transmission lines to connect their electricity to the places where consumers actually live. In addition to other technical problems, the transmission gap is a big reason wind only provides two-thirds of 1% of electricity generated in the U.S., and solar one-tenth of 1%.
Only last week, Duke Energy and American Electric Power announced a $1 billion joint venture to build a mere 240 miles of transmission line in Indiana necessary to accommodate new wind farms. Yet the utilities don’t expect to be able to complete the lines for six long years — until 2014, at the earliest, because of the time necessary to obtain regulatory approval and rights-of-way, plus the obligatory lawsuits.
In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. “It’s kind of schizophrenic behavior,” Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”
California has a law mandating that utilities generate 20% of their electricity from “clean-tech” by 2010. Some 24 states have adopted a “renewable portfolio standard,” while Barack Obama wants to impose a national renewable mandate. But the states, with the exception of Texas, didn’t make transmission lines easier to build, though it won’t prevent them from penalizing the power companies that fail to meet an impossible goal.
Texas is now the wind capital of America (though wind still generates only 3% of state electricity) because it streamlined the regulatory and legal snarls that block transmission in other states. By contrast, though Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor Ed Rendell adopted wind power as a main political plank, he and Senator Bob Casey are leading a charge to repeal a 2005 law that makes transmission lines slightly easier to build.
Wind power has also become contentious in oh-so-green Oregon, once people realized that transmission lines would cut through forests. Transmissions lines from a wind project on the Nevada-Idaho border are clogged because of possible effects on the greater sage grouse. Similar melodramas are playing out in Arizona, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, West Virginia, northern Maine, upstate New York, and elsewhere.
In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.
This is Kansas, Hank, not “some other state.” But it’s not just the “Greenies.” It’s also people living la vida loca who don’t want them in their back yard. The NIMBY crowd consists of both parties.
The question is about net metering, and I’m all for it. I expect, though, that KG&E and the rest will fight it tooth and nail as it could cut into profits. If the state could keep coal plants out of western Kansas, they could pass a net metering bill. Question is, will they have the huevos.
Net metering is a farce. It’s a real pain in the ass to utility companies and marginally useful for consumers.
There was a big surge in domestic wind powered generators a while back and they are too costly to be much use. Where are they?
Home wind powered generators are really not economically feasible at all. A net metering bill can’t make them ‘more economically feasible’.
Hank, that’s bs at best. It’s working in other states and can work here. The more wind generators installed, the cheaper they become. Simple economics. A wind generator can produce most of the typical homes use, and if they can sell the excess back, it becomes even more feasible.
Energy companies don’t like it because it lowers earnings . . . competition. Simple as that.
“Drill here? Drill now?”
We’re already doing it.
And selling there.
Oil exports from the U.S. are currently running at 1.8 million barrels a day – exports that enrich Big Oil but don’t do a thing to reduce prices at the pumps. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is asking Bush to “keep our oil”.
” …at the current export rate, by the time the first barrel of oil could be produced from increased offshore drilling, America would have already exported the equivalent of nearly 40 percent of the oil that is projected to lie beneath protected areas offshore.”
And that’s the Big Oil Shuffle, as brought to you by George WMD Bush, John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) and oil company campaign donations.
Republic Party shit; you’re soaking in it.
Good morning Mr Walker!
How much money ya got?
Here’s a little drill for you to determine if wind generation of your electricity is the way to go.
How much electricity do you use in your house every month?
How big of a wind generator would you need to supply your average needs?
How much would the initial cost be?
How long would it take to break even by selling power back to the utility company?
Here’s a little clue, with the tower and a 10KW wind generator you’re looking at a $40-50,000 initial investment. You will need one of this modest size if you plan to sell any significant amount of power back to the utility company.
So. . .let’s say you’re average electric bill is $200. With a 10KW system you’ld just about break even on your bill each month selling excess back.
With no maintenance costs figured in you’d just about break even in twenty years. Truth is, you never will break even.
Gee, Hank, people said the automobile would never replace the horse. Bad bet. Buying a wind generator to sell excess is not practical, but selling any excess produced should be a no-brainer. But, if as you say, it’s too expensive, then what’s the problem with putting a net metering law on the books, if, again as you say, it will never be used anyway?
Actually, both wind and solar are getting more practical all the time. I can see, ten or twenty years down the road, when they both are just another part of life. Kinda like the automobile.
Seems like a reasonable option, JM. However, to make your analogy work you’d have to replace your horse with a sled dog. It would be cheaper, not quite as powerful, noisier and you’d depend on the weather somewhat.
I’ve got nothing against a net metering law, it’s just not much help in the long run.
Want a wind generator for electricity at your house? Next time you’re visiting with your neighbor, slip in the news that you’re planning to put a 120 foot tower up in your back yard.
As it happens, I’m looking at wind cogeneration now. A 65 meter tall 750 kw wind turbine runs 1.2-1.8 million dollars (depending on bells and whistles). Add in the cost of maintenance.
In Kansas, we have some of the cheapest electricity in the country. It’s going to be very difficult to justify the ROI for wind generation. The projected life span for an industrial wind turbine is about 20 years. My electrical costs would have to double to make this kind of investment work.
There is a company putting out roof top generators, mostly for commercial use, but I assume can be sized for home use. No 120′ tower necessary.
XXX you might check this out for the plant: http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/rooftop-wind-turbines-ready-for-commercial-use.html
“There was a big surge in domestic wind powered generators a while back and they are too costly to be much use. Where are they?”
The majority are not functioning any longer. They break, require expensive maintenance, and are simply shutdown, not used, and an eyesore on the property.
I travel the state for business and I see them frequently but very rarely are they turning any longer even when the wind is blowing strong.
Actually, Hank, my analogy was right on target, as it was used when the automobile first came out. There are wind systems costing under 6 grand out there now. Perfect for the family dwelling. http://www.amazon.com/Skystream-Wind-Turbine-Model-44470/dp/B000OZ37RE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=hi&qid=1219587467&sr=1-1
Good morning, Boxlock!
The good news is that with the cost of copper these days you cand get people to remove them pretty cheap! A bonus if you have an aluminum tower!
Hell, if you’re lucky some one will come by and steal the whole thing!
Hey JM,
I went to that link earlier, never found out what the output was. Even at 6 grand your still looking at around twice that once you get it installed.
Let’s say that it actually puts out as much as 2KW (highly unlikely) it will barely power your coffee pot and TV a the same time.
Walker, I’ll check it out.
Um, oh Toothless Wise Ones…wish somebody pro or con would have mentioned that all your benefit-cost projections assume a constant real cost per kwh, which is silly.
If any of you are old enough to remember the projections of Kansas electrical demand on which Wolf Creek was budgeted, I salute you. Everybody else, back to school.
More energy moves, flows or shines on this planet than man could ever DREAM of drilling,or burning. WHY don’t we use it?
Follow the money. There is deep investment and monied interest in holding to the status quo.
“Let’s say that it actually puts out as much as 2KW (highly unlikely) it will barely power your coffee pot and TV a the same time.”
But HLP….darn it you still don’t get it!!!
The point is not if they are economically practical, but whether they make you FEEL GOOD and SELF-RIGHETOUS.
slow down a minute eagle and other greens:
NET metering does mean “net” doesn’t it?
How many people expect that the will have “excess” power to sell back to the utility?
Also, any electricity that YOU produce is electricity that YOU do not have to buy.
In other words, net metering may wall be a good idea, but — you would think it was a marginal improvement, at best, in the economic viability of wind.
Monkey
Every drop of oil produced helps meet world demand, which helps keep world prices lower.
As far as price is concerned, it does not make much difference where it is produced or where it is sold.
However, DRILL HERE DRILL NOW! Will produce more American jobs, more tax revenue, AND lower prices at the pump.
The status quo works.
Dreams don’t.
At least not yet.
XXX — In Texas, I have seen numerous farm houses, and rural homes, that have wind turbine alternates on the tops of their houses… Those surely arent as expensive as your above quote??
I for one have been looking into Solar Panels. Right now in Kansas they are not practical because of the lack of net metering laws. Also there needs to be some help in subsidies like in CA or Iowa. Iowa is the model to follow, Look it up. If 25% of the houses in Kansas generated 25% of their power from Solar we would not need to build power plants and would not have to worry about rolling blackouts for a long time.
#
Boxlock
Posted August 24, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
The point is not if they are economically practical, but whether they make you FEEL GOOD and SELF-RIGHETOUS.
________________________________________________
Box, you’d be surprised how many companies look at it just that way.
“Um, oh Toothless Wise Ones…wish somebody pro or con would have mentioned that all your benefit-cost projections assume a constant real cost per kwh, which is silly.”
Good point, pub17.
Problem is, as the price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up. You could reasonably expect the life of your little windmill to be twenty years. The price per KWH would have to triple in twenty years to break even.
Now, here’s a ttboi for you to ponder, instead of buying a windmill invest in energy stocks and watch your money grow. How does that effect the overall picture?
#
Chas
Posted August 24, 2008 at 10:32 am | Permalink
XXX — In Texas, I have seen numerous farm houses, and rural homes, that have wind turbine alternates on the tops of their houses… Those surely arent as expensive as your above quote??
_________________________________________________
Chas, I’m talking about an industrial application to power a large complex. The wind turbines I’m looking at are 750 kw output.
Well, TX is full of huge wind turbines!! They are all connected to the “network” The town I lived in there, got 75% of its electric power from wind… And they got some rebates for the town from the utility company…. It was really pretty neat… They talk in terms of MW production, not KWH production….
I am guessing that a business or farm could probably take the capital cost of the wind turbine, and either expense that cost or capitalize that cost, and recapture their investment a bit faster than the person who does not run a farm, ranch or business.
Some of you really need to check on the cost of a residential wind turbine system and do some serious number crunching.
And crunch ALL the numbers. Complete system cost not just the turbine, taxes, transportation, permits, and installation.
I did. Then I took my highest typical monthly bill and found that even if the system could constantly provide enough power to run my home it would take 15 years to pay for itself. If it didnt break. That just doesnt make economic sense to me.
If you can do better then show me the link and show me your numbers.
………….I see it’s all about making the almighty dollar at the expense of the common man to old man price.
#
HLP
Posted August 24, 2008 at 9:29 am | Permalink
Hey JM,
I went to that link earlier, never found out what the output was. Even at 6 grand your still looking at around twice that once you get it installed.
Let’s say that it actually puts out as much as 2KW (highly unlikely) it will barely power your coffee pot and TV a the same time.
====================================================
That’s funny, Hank, because both links state very clearly to output in KW. Can it be the reason cons are so against any form of renewable energy is they can’t read?:-)
2KW will power your fridge. 2000W/110VAC = 18.18 amps. If you can’t run both your coffee pot and TV off that, at the same time, your running an SUV sized coffee pot. Now, I know you like your coffee, but that’s enough caffeine to supercharge a couple hundred zombies, or two Republican politicians:-)
Heckler — Dont forget to subtract your tax initiative from your cost…. Many states have such tax incentives for business, as well as for private owners…
Puff
Grow up, would you?
If something does not make economic sense, it should not be done, unless their is a higher purpose involved.
Law enforcement and national security are not at issue here.
There is NO over riding national interest that justifies a wasteful expense such as this.
Especially when we are sitting on more coal, oil, natural gas and shale oil than we could possibly use in the next 50 years.
Chas
Even with the tax incentives, is this good public policy?
I am willing to allow the wind craze, or even to encourage it.
Simply put, we won’t be able to prove you “anti-carbon” greens wrong, unless we give you enough rope to hang yourselves.
However, tax write offs or tax credits aside, what is the cost, to SOCIETY, at large, for these ideas?
What is the “cost benefit” analysis?
Whould these tax breaks be better spent encouraging “clean coal” and fuel efficiency?
Doesent get much cleaner qand efficient than using wind power…. :-D
Chas
I understand that there may be a tax incentive. But It would have to be a hell of an incentive.
I’ll wait for some numbers. Anyone? Show me how it is anywhere near cost effective.
Dont forget… even the cleanest coal leaves mountains of slag, that needs to be disposed of… which costs more fuel, and more carbon emissions to get rid of it… Justd a thought….
Chas
The slag might be useful in road construction and other places.
We can solve that problem.
Wind power is expensive.
Transmission lines are expensive.
Wind power is unpredictable.
Still, lets try it.
Just don’t get your hopes up, and don’t stop trying alternatives to wind!
#
Apophis
Posted August 24, 2008 at 10:59 am | Permalink
………….I see it’s all about making the almighty dollar at the expense of the common man to old man price.
____________________________________________
Is that you, Randy?
hehehehe
#
Apophis
Posted August 24, 2008 at 10:59 am | Permalink
………….I see it’s all about making the almighty dollar at the expense of the common man to old man price.
_________________________________________________
Randy, is that you?
hehehehehe
Sorry for the double post, Randy.
I didnt see any sings of problems with transmission lines in Texas… The wind farms ran through siome sort of transformer, and then the power lines ran directly into the already existing power lines…. I think it has something to do with the location of the wind farms….
I fail to understand why you think the wind power is unpredictable….
Chas
The wind does not always blow.
Franklin, it takes very low speeds of wind to run the generators… Where I lived, there was hardly a day without at least some minimal amount of wind… even a light breeze turns those things…
Besides, if the wind isnt blowing at Windfarm X, it would be at Windfarm Y, or Z… Most locations of wind generators are not in “calm” wind areas to start with…. That would not be efficient!!
Chas
First you say that there is no transmission line problem, even though it has been documented that this is a problem, upthread.
Then you say that wind is not unpredictable.
Then you say that we can overcome the unpridictable nature of wind by having multiple generation sites —
Which would require multiple transmission lines!
Frnklin, have you ever SEEN the numbers of wind farms in the TX Panhandle area?? There are already power lines from the “grid” all over the place…. I m not talking about MILES of transmission lines… more like yards of line….
If you dont believe it, go take a look at them… they are truly an awesome thing to see….
Basically, Franklin, I am calling BS on your objections, since I dont believe your objections are realistic… based on what I have seen, and lived with….
Yes, of course, wind farms make more sense along the routes of existing power lines.
Just like gas wells make the most sense along the routes of existing gas pipelines.
However, some of the BEST areas for wind generation have NO existing power lines, at this time.
That, I think, is the point some of us are trying to make.
And, the greens are blocking power line construction, in many areas.
Check this one:
http://www.awea.org
Then this one:
http://www.siemens.com/answers
Siemens is one of the biggest manufacturers of wind generators that I observed in Texas…
Wind generators alone is not all we will need. It would be better to use photo-voltaics in combination with wind. On sunny days when the wind is not blowing, we can still harvest energy from the sun’s light.
That would work good, rsmueller
Pelosi says the Drill hereers, will have to justify economically and pragmatically what it will accomplish. Bush says ‘it’s destined to fail’. Well sure, all you have is an empty slogan for justification, let’s shine a light on it.
Drill Here Drill Now
WILL generate American jobs.
Drill Here Drill Now
Will gererate tax revenue.
Drill Here Drill Now
Will increase the supply of oil, which will help bring down the price.
On the other hand?
Wind can not, really, be used for transportation, directly.
On the other hand?
Wind requires MASSIVE taxpayer subsidies to survive.
Wind farms DO create jobs… lots of jobs… That means increased revenue… which means increased taxes… And the tax incentives encourage more production, and more development… which also creates more revenue… AND, it is clean…. AND, it can replace a LOT of OIL being used to fire coal plants, which means more for transportation…. not to mention natural gas saved for heating costs…. which also can be used for transportation… ALL of which lead to American Independence from foreign OIL!!
Chas
Wind farms are a net tax LOSS, not a gain.
The subsidy to wind is never recovered.
Oil generated tax revenue is a huge contributor to Federal, State and local budgets.
Chas
“oil being used to fire coal plants”????
HUH???
A friend in southern Illinois was telling me about a woman in her area who has gone completely green. Whether it’s solar or wind or a mixture, I’m not sure. Her initial expenses were high for getting it set up, but she had it at the time. (I believe she was widowed and used the life insurance money from that to set it all up.) She is already seeing a return after a short period of time. I’m assusming that means there’s “net metering”? Within the next 5-7 years, she’ll actually be making money, it’s working that well for her.
Should read Oil being used foer Electric Plants… sorry — typo!!
Not subsidies, Franklin… incentives…. The production, and new jobs, and sales, and construction will provide new tax revenue, in the form of jobs…. Wind power cant replace Oil fired plants, and coal plants… but even if it saves 20 – 40%, thats a huge savings!!
I fail to understand the reluctance to use such a renewable, and expandable source…. It cant do anything but HELP the economy…
Texas doesn’t have an issue with the transmission lines because when I lived there they OWNED the wires themselves.
So they do what they want.
That is what more states should do. Then let some providers bid for the privilege of serving electricity and running the plants for your customers.
We should extend that to both cable and telephone wires. If we owned the wires we could get bids for all kinds of phone and cable and new not invented yet services coming into out homes. And not be at the mercy of the content providers.
The content providers should NOT be allowed to own the ACCESS also.
I would not want GM owning the street to my home. They might charge more for FORDS of not let them on it at all….. Which is what we have with phone and cable now.
Brownback would discover, quickly, that without massive subsidies, such an investment would make no economic sense whatsoever.
In demanding massive subsidies, of course, those who advocate same simply wish to pass on the costs of their smug self-satisfaction to others. How nice of them.
Chas
You have made a claim with no evidence.
As GMC notes, above, taxpayers MUST subsidize wind, or wind will never work for the individual.
Mr Bill
That is nuts.
The largest property tax payer, in every taxing district in the state of Kansas, are the utility companies doing business in that taxing district.
Why make taxpayers pay for the upkeep of transmission lines?
Why not have the utilities pay tax on those properties?
By the way, Utilities pay the HIGHEST property tax rates in the State of Kansas.
Franklin you got no evidence either… Same as what I have… Doesnt make you right, and me wrong… I would however, direct you to the T. Boone Pickens Plan… and keep in mind, I am NOT a Pickens fan at all… but this plan of his looks very good, and answers most of the objections you raised… I posted two links to answer your objectiions… I have seen no such thing from you as of yet…
Brownback just loves tilting at windmills!
Didn’t Love Box Company use a wind Generator 20 years ago?
Good night; Good luck; God bless —-
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
So mote it be!!
The UTILITIES pay TAX.?? ..Nonsense. YOU pay the tax. They just collect it in your bill.
No business of ANY TYPE pays tax. YOU pay it when you buy the product. Businesses do not have a printing press to get money. First YOU give it to them.
Then they buy things and pay these TAXES you speak of.
Why do you think the politicians like to tax them? Because they can get you to believe they are taxing these EVIL corporations etc. That way they can raise YOUR taxes by raising the Businesses taxes.
Remember that evil EXXON..they made 40 billion last year. Well they paid FOUR times that in taxes. Where did they get that tax money…any guesses where they got it…from your hot little hands through the gas purchase.
Many economist have proposed that NO BUSINESSES be taxed at all.
THis would force the politicians to stand up and tax you directly for the goodies you have and force them to tell you what its for. Otherwise its just generic funds to be farted off.
I’m certainly for utilizing windpower, but I’m also a bit suspicious of T. Boone Pickens alleged altruism. Let’s just be sure he doesn’t end up owning the air and sunlight in the state.