King City, Mo. — In operation for less than a year, the Bluegrass Ridge Farm with its giant turbines has become the face of this struggling northwest Missouri community.
Missouri's first commercial wind farm has literally been a windfall for this town of about 1,000 residents 80 miles north of Kansas City.
Local officials are planning a new $250,000 visitors' center, the county is looking at some much-needed road and infrastructure work, and the school district is thinking about unfreezing teacher salaries and adding computer labs.
"We here in this small community are just hanging on," said Dexall Swan, a lifelong King City resident. "Any little bit helps."
The wind farm has 27 massive turbines - which peak at 262 feet and can be seen from miles away - spread across 6,000 acres of farmland. At times it can be a surreal sight as the giant blades spin steadily in the wind.
Since the first turbines started turning in March, tourists have been flocking to the community from St. Joseph, Kansas City and even Iowa to see them.
"It sure is a novelty, seeing those big ol' windmills out there turning," Mayor Jim Gillespie said. "We've embraced it."
Also embraced is the injection of revenue the wind farm has brought to the county. Next year, more than $300,000 in new property tax money will go into the Gentry County coffers. The school district, which suffered 9 percent budget and personnel cuts a few years ago, is expected to receive about $200,000 more.
"This will keep us from having to go back to the taxpayers in the next two to five years," said school district Superintendent Kendall Ebersold. "And it will allow us to become competitive in trying to find the best teachers in the area and retaining the ones we have."
Tom Carnahan, of St. Louis, is the son of late Gov. Mel Carnahan and president of Wind Capital Group, which developed the King City wind farm. He said construction could begin next year on another wind farm just south of town that would be at least twice as big as the first one.
"Wind energy is by far the most efficient and cost-effective renewable energy out there," Carnahan said. "Because of that, I think we can expect it to continue to grow."
Decisions like one made by Kansas' top regulator to reject two coal-powered electricity plants because of concerns about potential carbon emissions seem to support that contention.
Kansas has three wind farms up and running, and there could be 10 or more by the end of 2008.
At King City, farmers are paid $3,000 a year for each turbine on their property. That means more money will be circulating through town to go along with the influx of money from curious onlookers who come from other areas to see the gigantic turbines.
Still, for some residents there is a downside. Charlie Porter, who doesn't have any turbines on his property but several near his home, said the turbines have ruined the lives of his family.
"If you don't live underneath one of them and you drive down the highway, they look kind of neat," said Porter, who owns 20 acres in King City. "But for us, it's been a nightmare. They've ruined the equity in our home. The noise keeps us up at night. The shadows invade our home."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
lounger (anonymous) says…
This is what its all about!! Grand!! The nay sayers must read this. Wind is Pollution free and it CAN work.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
kind of intrusive if you're close , if the gov was serious they'd put together a coalition of scientists and manufacturers and figure out how to manufacture solar power systems that can be built for an affordable cost. currently its about 30-45 grand for a workable system , only the rich can afford to install. This should be an absolute priority and a federal non-profit formed to make this technology affordable.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"currently its about 30-45 grand for a workable system"
Depends on what you mean by workable-- under different definitions, a workable solar-power system can be built for less than half that amount. But I agree, that the tax laws should be revamped, and R&D should be increased to encourage more solar-power systems.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
""If you don't live underneath one of them and you drive down the highway, they look kind of neat," said Porter, who owns 20 acres in King City. "But for us, it's been a nightmare. They've ruined the equity in our home. The noise keeps us up at night. The shadows invade our home.""
If he is close enough to one of these turbines for this to be true, then there are big problems with how these were sited. Otherwise, it sounds like he's just pissed off that he doesn't get a $3000 check for one.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
If you intend to run a McMansion that is as energy-inefficient as most tend to be, then not even $30-45 thousand would buy an adequate solar-power system. So, yes, definition is everything.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Typical Marion-- pretending to know something while mostly just trying to draw attention to himself.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, bowhunter.
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Next time I am to receive major surgery or undertake a lawsuit, I am going to check in here first, because, wow, won't Bozo already know the ins-and-outs.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Hey, oldgood, we're all "expert" bozos on this bus, including you.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
Wasn't Garden City planning on building a visitor's center so people could come and see the new coal plant?
gr (anonymous) says…
The "expert" bozo says a solar-power system (as opposed to a wind-power system, though wind is driven by solar) wouldn't be adequate unless use is cut down. Are we talking about alternative sources our reduction in use? You can't compare a different source if you imply less use - two different issues.
As far as cost benefit goes, you mean if the government pays you, if tourists come to gawk and "spend", that makes it "efficient"? Has anyone presented a cost-benefit scenario? Let's see how "efficient" these alternative energy sources are. They may be "better" for whatever that means, but how come "green" usually costs more?
As far as shadows goes, shadows extend a long distance at sunrise and sunset.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The "expert" bozo says a solar-power system (as opposed to a wind-power system, though wind is driven by solar) wouldn't be adequate unless use is cut down."
I said nothing of the sort. If you don't want to be efficient in your power usage, you just need a bigger system, and even the $30-45 thousand range that cowboy mentioned will not be enough. It's not rocket science (although any logical thought process is "rocket science" to a large number of posters on this forum.)
All our current major power sources are heavily subsidized, which is one reason why alternatives have a difficult time "competing."
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Thanks Bowhunter for typing what we were all thinking!
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Has the "rocket science" thing got you down, shockchalk?
Andini (anonymous) says…
Maybe Charlie Porter's house is downwind from the wind farm?
It might be unpleasant.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Maybe Charlie Porter's house is downwind from the wind farm?"
Good point. It's too bad the reporter didn't give us more info, because wind farms are going to become commonplace over the next few years, and questions like this need to be answered if they are to be sited appropriately.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
There are quite a few new homebuilders on the Olympic Peninsula putting in solar powered homes , minimum cost is 35 -40 grand , this also puts you in a position to sell your excess back to the grid .
While I think this is grand and if you have the money to do it on a new home great , but the personal hard dollar payback isn't there at those costs. I don't know what the recovery is from the power company but I doubt it is enough to make these pay off over ten years compared to a solid energy efficient home on conventional power.
My main point being that this effort should not be left to the "for profit" industry. Its important enough for the future of our country to put it in an extreme incubator and hatch the damn thing .
Its not intrusive , requires no additional land , and can't be owned by a utility. we need to quit sucking on the big grid.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
Told you so. Kansas as slow as you get.
badger (anonymous) says…
No energy option is 'pollution-free.'
Wind and solar power stations may not create chemical pollution in their operation, but they still require raw materials to be turned into finished materials, and that does generate pollution. Additionally, wind turbines may mar the landscape and generate noise pollution, and solar power stations can increase the amount of impermeable ground cover. There really is no magic pollution-free power bullet. Iti's important to keep that perspective.
Why do I support wind and solar operations? Mostly, because the effect is primarily localized to the area benefiting from the location of the station. A coal plant not only produces chemical pollution that can be carried hundreds of miles away, but it also requires a mining operation to support it that may be half a country away from the power plant.
There's a coal plant that's slated to go in upwind from Austin. We had no opportunity to vote or comment on its placement, and Austinites who object to a power plant over a hundred miles away, from which we'll neither get power nor jobs, are being called 'selfish'. Why do we object? Because based on wind projections, the emissions from the plant will significantly affect our air quality, and our status as a 'green' city draws a lot of business here. If we lose the edge on air and water quality, then our ability to compete for white-collar high-tech businesses is impaired, and our economy suffers. We eat the consequences for an energy decision we had nothing to do with, made in a community a two-hour drive from downtown, which is benefiting at our expense from the placement of the plant. We're trying to block the plant, but being hurt by Austin's efforts to exceed federal air quality standards. We're being told, "Hey, hippies, thanks for your hard work! You made it a whole lot easier to find someplace to put this plant that won't send Dallas or Houston over air quality limits any more often than they already blow past them! Suck it up, granola-eating-freaks!"
That's why I prefer wind and solar. They're not without their problems, but when a community's deciding whether or not to put in wind turbines, they're not fiddling with the air quality of a city three counties away.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"no, actually, they'll thrive."
Are you referring to Santa Claus?
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
Until a few years ago, I lived in a HOUSE that cost about $ 40,000.
I replaced the natural gas furnace and central air for under $ 3,500.
Hard to sell me on solar.
To me, the future of Kansas energy is ....
Clean. Safe. Nuclear.
salad (anonymous) says…
There is still nothing other than natural gas, coal or nuclear to replace baseload generating capacity.
Wind and solar will be great if we, as a society, don't mind reverting to a colonial era society with better hygine. Maybe a better analogy would be a Bagdad style society, minus the violence. Minimal industry and electricity a couple hours a day.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
There are a lot of misconceptions about wind-generated electricity. Remember folks, that wind power even though it is renewable is NOT 'Green Energy'. At least not by today's definition. Wind energy is extremely inefficient, and will increase rather than reduce the need for additional, reliable, energy production in the vicinity
Furthermore, diesel engines are required to 'kick-start' turbines that have come to rest. A tower must be in operation for 7 years just to recover the carbon footprint of its installation. The lifetime of towers is still a matter for speculation, but abandoned windmills litter stretches of the California landscape, leaking toxic fluids and heavy metals.
Lack of Regulations Ensuring Corporate Responsibility is another problem. There is a complete lack of federal standards regulating the operation, maintenance, and environmental responsibilities of wind farms. So the rules are made up by the local towns who are wholly unqualified.
The real benefactors of wind farms on the corporations who build them and the corporations that maintain them. Local benefit is seen in some incremental tax dollars, and that's about it. There is not a single community that has ever hosted such a development that has not lived to regret it.
Wind sounds good, feels bad. Otherwise, why on earth wouldn't we be generating a huge amoun of the country's electrical needs with wind. There are good reasons for the death of all wind projects to date. Wait and see.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
" Remember folks, that wind power even though it is renewable is NOT 'Green Energy'"
In an economy and culture that is almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels and nuclear energy, it'll be a long time before anything is purely "green." That said, such alternatives as wind are considerably greener than just doing the old same thing.
"and will increase rather than reduce the need for additional, reliable, energy production in the vicinity"
That's utter nonsense.
"Furthermore, diesel engines are required to 'kick-start' turbines that have come to rest."
I hadn't heard that before, and for the very largest of turbines, that might very well be the case. Nevertheless, the overall amount of diesel fuel consumed would be very small, and it's a very appropriate use for that technology and fuel.
"A tower must be in operation for 7 years just to recover the carbon footprint of its installation."
I'd like to see your math on that, but I don't doubt that there is a carbon footprint for the manufacture and installation of a wind turbine. Even if your math (or did someone else figure it out, and you just didn't bother to give proper credit?) is correct, the construction of a coal-powered plant is likely even more carbon intensive per megawatt of electricity produced, and its operation will only add to the footprint.
"The lifetime of towers is still a matter for speculation, but abandoned windmills litter stretches of the California landscape, leaking toxic fluids and heavy metals"
Undoubtedly, there are examples of older technology that have outlived their usefulness. But this seems like another example of hysterical exaggeration that typifies your entire post.
"There is a complete lack of federal standards regulating the operation, maintenance, and environmental responsibilities of wind farms."
The situation is even worse with nuclear and fossil-fuel generation facilities, and they pose actual rather than imagined risks.
"The real benefactors of wind farms on the corporations who build them and the corporations that maintain them."
Can you name a single industry in which corporations don't benefit (or at least expect to benefit) from the businesses in which they engage?
"Local benefit is seen in some incremental tax dollars, and that's about it."
The local benefits to communities is quite real, and has been demonstrated numerous times.
"There is not a single community that has ever hosted such a development that has not lived to regret it."
Really? How do you know this? Are the residents of the city in this article lying?
"Otherwise, why on earth wouldn't we be generating a huge amoun of the country's electrical needs with wind. "
Perhaps because the old-line energy companies (and people like you who have invested in them) don't want the competition?
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Wind is free, how can one capture it and sell if for electricity?? Im not sure I follow this but I will just collect my own wind if I can make power out of it
none2 (anonymous) says…
I will never understand why so many people are naysayers when it comes to wind energy. So many of the common arguements are so petty:
1) Ruin the view:
Should we ask the Europeans to go bulldoze all the windmills in Holland? Where is the out rage for all the dilapidated, rusting windmills in the flint hills? Lets force people to go underground so that nothing blocks any view.
2) Dead birds:
I cannot speak for wind farms in other parts of the country or world, but I have yet to see dead birds out in western Kansas near the two wind farms that I have visited several times.
3) Noise:
This is nonsense. Until my dog complains on one of her outings to these farms (dogs have a wider hearing range than humans), I know it is a bunch of BS. I challenge anybody who believes this stupidity to go visit a wind farm for yourself. It is shocking just how quiet these farms are. When you first see the size of the turbines and the number of them (170 in Montezuma, KS), you would THINK they would put out some sound, but it is very quiet. The sound of the cars on the highway, trains in the distance, and even your furnace fan make more noise.
Another thing that gets me is some of the anti-wind people are pro-solar. Where is this mindset comming from that alternative energy is either this or that source -- never multiple solutions. Lets face it, there isn't going to be some savior energy source that will do all things for all people. I suppose some will hold out that nuclear fusion will solve it all. However, we are no where near that, so I I doubt we should hold our breath.
(continued)
none2 (anonymous) says…
(continued)
As I see it, what is most important in the goal towards energy solutions is to reduce our need for energy. I don't mean survivalist tactics where you have to pedal your bike to watch TV. Rather, the US could do much to require improvements in things like appliances and the amount of resources that they use. Sure we all know horror stories with government intervention -- such as the first generation of low-flush toilets where you had to flush multiple times -- thus voiding any savings. However, things did get better with time. I'm sure they could do a lot more to lower usage and do it in a way that consumers would not feel impoverished. Of course, not everything can be reduced. We spend a lot of time talking about our own personal use. However, probably many of us don't know what kind of energy is needed by industry. I'm not qualified to know if there is a lot of savings that can be done there. I'm sure none of us would want low quality products because they skimped on energy to make a good quality product.
The second area that I think is important is the grid. In my head, I see the electric grid like I see the internet. Currently, lots of people take from the internet, and many give to the internet. Unfortunately, on the electric grid, too many take, to few contribute. People willing to install solar on wind energy devices should be able to put back on the grid and get a FAIR price. (Sure I know there are complications. For instance, you don't want linemen dying because they weren't aware that a downed, broken wire had juice from both sides -- not just the side connected to the power plant.) Some see the grid as something bad. I see it as neither good nor bad, it is just a transportation mechanism for electrical energy.
Third, I think it is important to encourage scientific research into all sorts of alternative energy sources. Maybe the research may not help people in one part of the country, but it may help people in another part of the country.
Finally, I think it is important to see alternative energies as a positive move from several vantage points: national security, being a provider and not just a user, freedom from utility monopolies, sustainable sources of energy, and global warming. You are more likely to get more people interested and behind alternative energy if you see all of its possible advantages -- not just one or two.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Wind farms definitely spread the economic benefit to MANY rural counties in the plains and midwest. A coal plant, on the other hand, only spreads economic benefits to one county. In terms of economic development involving many counties large-scale wind farms make a lot more sense.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus and the rest of you sleepwalkers who think that (for some completely unknown reason you never seem to mention) wind energy will become viable needs only look at the history of wind energy.
It Don't Work.
And it never will.
It's too bad, but that's the truth in the past and it's the truth now.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus, just curious. Where on earth did you hear that there are fewer regulations for coal and nuclear than wind?
That's just stupid.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Possession......hmmmmm..... What I said about the BS of wind energy...forget it. I just found a use for the family farm.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
They had hair before they got too close to the wind propellers.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
Wait until pervasive wind farms start interfering with migratory bird patterns, and endangered species. The discussion will start all over again. "Save the planet for our children." Enviro socialists are far more apocalyptic than Fred Phelps could ever dream of.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
with all the busses running around filling the air with smoke, who has time to worry about coal plants?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Kornservativefool (Anonymous) swallows his own foot when he says:
"What say you believers of Climatology? Kill birds to generate electricity. Coal doesn't kill endangered species."
______________________________________________________________
No, coal doesn't kill birds, 'cept for the occasional canary 100 years ago.
Coal is much more effective at killing humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
roflmao!!!!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org