Skip to comments.Coal plant ruling deflates wind projects
Posted on 11/13/2007 6:22:37 AM PST by Dust in the Wind
As many as 13 potential wind-farm projects in western Kansas could be in danger because of the state's decision to reject two coal-fired generating plants near Holcomb, proponents of the wind farms said.
New transmission lines were to be part of the $3.6 billion Sunflower Electric Power Corp. project, which was rejected by Rod Bremby, the state's secretary of health and environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at hsn.live.mediaspanonline.com ...
“I’d say this decision pretty much halts wind development in western Kansas,” said David Snyder, economic development director in Ness County. “We need transmission lines, and we need the coal plants to get them.”
Snyder said it’s not economically practical for transmission lines to be erected for wind alone because of the erratic nature of that power source and the expense of the lines.
Another idiot on parade... And to think in Kansas of all places...
This project was going to bring in a lot of money to the state of Kansas. It was expected that we were to sell about 75% of the generated electricity to Colorado.
You can forget about New Mexico or Arizona picking up on the opportunity here. The only state in the region that might have a great chance...is Utah. I’m thinking they won’t argue about chances or opportunities there.
“Snyder said its not economically practical for transmission lines to be erected for wind alone because of the erratic nature of that power source and the expense of the lines”
In other words, like pretty much every “green” technology with few exceptions, it is not viable when it must stand on its own.
I think I read that California doesn't care one whit if a wind project suitable. Some corporation is making money from a wind farm that's out in the boonies, with only a portion of the turbines out of the shipping containers, producing power, because the transmission lines aren't up to snuff.
Of course, all the "profit" in the form of tax credits and subsidies eventually gets extracted from the consumer, even though the project couldn't be economically feasible otherwise.
One of Art Bell's more rational guests was a real energy expert. When asked about wind power, he said it's okay when they put the wind farms in places that have wind, and went on to cite a Congressional earmark that put up wind farm in PA, that wasn't all that windy.
There goes the Colorado governor’s (Tax Ritter) plans. I am sure that he was counting on this wind power to meet his Utopian vision of 20% power from renewable power. The dirty secret about wind power is the cost of the transmission capacity. Backers of wind power never factor the additional transmission capacity. In Texas, no firm cost estimate has been calculated for the additional transmission capacity. The additional transmission capacity will certainly be added to electricity rates, especially industrial electricity rates.
Not to mention the -I can't do it unless someone else provides what I need- mentality.
LOL! Those unintended consequences are biatch.
"You have to trust the congressionals and people that look at all aspects of it and understand it has more upsides then downsides," he said.
If there was money in the projects, there are trillions of investing dollars looking for a home right now. I would love for solar panels to come on big, but seeing as how it costs about $1000 to warm your coffee, we aren't quite their yet.
It's the same principle as stem cell research. If there was the promise of curing serious disease with FETAL cell research, the private money would flow like water. The only problem is the promise is from ADULT stem cells, so they need gubmint money to experiment on dead babies.
We can wish "green" tech will be in the near future, but there is no money there unless you are the guy selling the tech. Right now, one coal fired plant makes more reliable electricity than many square miles of wind farms at a fraction of the cost.
That’s ok because the greenies will eventually cause a major breakdown of civilization tearing down what has taken centuries to accomplish and then we will all be living in caves and burning wood for heat and cooking. People will start killing anyone who remotely suggests that wood fires are causing polution and humans will begin the long, long journey back to what we have now, probably never making it and sliding down into extinction. Just some random thoughts on the subject of green.
I think of all the “green” power generating methods, only wind can be called “erratic”.
Solar is predictable, tidal is predictable, geothermal is predictable.
Now “intermittent” is another matter. That kind of leaves only geothermal as appropriate for baseload, since geothermal is 24/7.
As far as power transmission lines go, geothermal can work anywhere if you are willing to dig a deep enough hole. A set of 5 mile deep holes where there are already power lines has got to be cheaper than running hundreds of miles of new power lines to where the wind is good.
“A set of 5 mile deep holes where there are already power lines has got to be cheaper than running hundreds of miles of new power lines to where the wind is good.”
Drilling a 5-mile deep hole is no trivial task. Then there is the O&M on the geothermal apparatus. corrosion, mineral buildup, and other costs ramp up quickly.
Typically these won’t be accounted for in “green” projects....the “green” mostly comes from taxpayers.
As for solar being predictable.....maybe in some spots, but not where I live. The cost and energy required for making solar panels is not trivial either.
“What’s The Matter With Kansas?”
I’d say any problem with Kansas is when some renegades act like
they are living in California!
this opinion is based on the following:
Having grown up in north-central Oklahoma and spending about one
weekend a month for two decades visiting Grandma and Grandpa in
their home in the south end of Wichita...And having spent a decade in
It looks like these California-style “fruits and nuts” in Kansas
are determined to put Kansas on as secure an energy footing as their
soul-mates in California...a future of higher energy costs (maybe
some black- and brown-outs) and being at the mercy of the power resources
of neighboring states.
What’s the Matter with California?: Cultural Rumbles from
the Golden State and Why the Rest of Us Should Be Shaking
by Jack Cashill
What’s The Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won The
Heart Of America [BARGAIN PRICE]
by Thomas Frank
N.B.: I wonder if the “[BARGAIN PRICE]” for Frank’s book recognizes
that most potential readers live in left-wing enclaves and need a
subsidy (via reduced price) in order to get this little “manifesto”.
I didn’t say it was trivial, I said it was cheaper than aquiring the rights-of-way and building towers to carry transmission lines hundreds of miles.
When you are drilling for geothermal, if you have planned to go deep from the beginning and not counted on picking the low hanging fruit, the cost is very predictable. Maintenance costs may be high but are also largely predictable in a binary cycle system utilizing hot rock rather than trying to take advantage of hydrothermal pockets. Corrosion is not such an issue.
Solar is also predictable in terms of averages over long periods in the places where solar makes sense at all. The number of sunny days in the Southwest don’t vary all that much from their historical averages. But solar has the same problem as wind in terms of location and probable need for new transmission lines. Solar has a large footprint compared to geothermal. That’s why I think geothermal is the only “green” option that can avoid the transmission line costs.
defies the imagination