Archive for Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Proposed federal wind regulations would benefit Kansas
February 24, 2009
Advertisement
Topeka — A federal renewable energy standard would produce thousands of jobs in Kansas, environmentalists said Tuesday.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and 22 other governors have urged President Barack Obama and Congress to approve a requirement that utilities provide 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind, by 2030.
A federal renewable energy standard “would transform our Kansas economy,” said Nancy Jackson, executive director of the Climate and Energy Project of the Salina-based Land Institute.
According to a U.S. Department of Energy study, a renewable energy standard of 20 percent would produce 11,000 construction jobs in the western portion of the state, more than 1,800 long-term jobs, $20 million in payments to landowners, and $20 million to counties where the wind turbines would be located.
Emil Ramirez, of United Steelworkers, a member of the Kansas Blue Green Alliance, said the proposal would “put Kansans back to work.”
He added, “Every wind turbine requires hundreds of yards of concrete, miles of steel re-bar, copper wire and electrical connections, and skilled labor to install it all.”
The bipartisan Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition has urged Obama and Congress to enact the renewable energy standard as a way to create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil and help the environment.
In Kansas, Sebelius has called for a 20 percent renewable energy portfolio by 2020, but the proposal has been weakened and put in a bill that would allow the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants — a project that Sebelius has repeatedly vetoed.
State lawmakers are expected to debate the coal-burning plants later this week.
More like this
- Kansans willing to pay more for greener energy practices, poll finds 15 comments / May 13, 2009
- Governor, utilities promise to rely less on fossil fuels 8 comments / May 26, 2007
- Sebelius, Parkinson outline plan for solar, wind energy programs for Kansas 46 comments / January 9, 2009
- Legislators urged to require utilities to use more renewable energy sources 12 comments / January 21, 2009
- State reaches agreement to enable one coal plant to be built at Holcomb 136 comments / May 4, 2009
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009 · 16 comments
- GOP should give Palin some competition November 21, 2009 · 4 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 47 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 33 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 31 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 20 comments
- Blog: 3 Questions: Kansas At Texas November 21, 2009 · 4 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 71 comments
- Researcher: Writing proves Shroud of Turin is real November 21, 2009 · 15 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- On target November 21, 2009
- Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- Meier mature, classy November 21, 2009
- Center for East Asian Studies celebrates 50 years of accomplishments November 21, 2009
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
- 75-year-old Topeka area man dies from H1N1; LMH reports flu activity November 20, 2009
24 February 2009
at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…
Wow, that headline has me believing the new POTUS might really walk on water! This administration can regulate the wind!
24 February 2009
at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
walleye9898 (Anonymous) says…
What we really need in KS is a net metering law. Put that in place and quit letting the giant energy corps. and KCC run the State and shaft the consumer!
Without net metering I have no direct financial incentive to recoup my investment and I sure as heck don't want to give it away to Westar for free.
24 February 2009
at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Wind regulations blow.
24 February 2009
at 7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
FreeEnergy (Anonymous) says…
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trainsthe amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now.
24 February 2009
at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
FreeEnergy (Anonymous) says…
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent!”
Marion writes:
Ready to open your checkbook?
24 February 2009
at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyLawrenceRepublican (Anonymous) says…
I thought people in lawrence are opposed to exporting energy though.
24 February 2009
at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…
“Wow, that headline has me believing the new POTUS might really walk on water! This administration can regulate the wind!”
This administration is responsible for creating most of the wind. It is only prudent that they regulate their wind – especially in public venues.
24 February 2009
at 11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Danimal (Anonymous) says…
I could get excited about this. IF, note that it's a big if, Kansas changes their power laws this could be a good thing for our state. It would be really easy for every home to have their own little wind turbine and produce most of their energy if we would make the laws conducive to such a thing.
25 February 2009
at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mixolydian (Anonymous) says…
Every single time I've driven out west on I-70 by the Ellsworth exit those hundreds of windmills there are never moving. They look pretty all sitting still in a row for acre after acre, but not a kilowatt of juice to be had.
The oil pumps are churning up and down though.
25 February 2009
at 7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nut_case (Anonymous) says…
I'm all for clean energy and especially energy independence - and wind is as good as any, I suppose. But I think the last thing we need is a federal mandate - which can only result in a higher electric bill.
Sadly, it looks like we'll all be loosing in the future - coal is going to be slapped with a CO2 tax and alternative energy is still very expensive. Either way, the consumer pays higher electric rates and big corporations win either because their product is 'mandated' for use or they are running a 'cap and trade' scheme that we pay for.
I say develop the technology to the point where it is cost competitive with - or cheaper than- current electricity prices, then deploy it.
25 February 2009
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Every single time I've driven out west on I-70 by the Ellsworth exit those hundreds of windmills there are never moving”
I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and while many of them weren't turning, quite a few were turning at a pretty good clip. Since they were all getting about the same amount of wind, I suspect that there is some technical reason they are not operating.
25 February 2009
at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xbusguy (Anonymous) says…
I suspect that there is some technical reason they are not operating.
–––––––––––––-
Maybe they work for Westar..
25 February 2009
at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
katbasher (Anonymous) says…
20% renewable energy requirement = 400% increase in price for the consumer…
25 February 2009
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Wind turbines on every home in Kansas, particularly in urban areas, will most definitely not happen.
But it could make sense at nearly every farm home west of Topeka. Nearly every town, regardless of size, similarly situated could also install wind generators near town to supply much of their electricity needs. Even in urban areas, turbines could be installed on the tops of some tall buildings.
Solar panels could also be installed roofs throughout the state, on both residential and commercial structures.
25 February 2009
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…
Obama said last night that he wants clean coal generation. How does that effect the Holcomb expansion?
25 February 2009
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
“Every wind turbine requires hundreds of yards of concrete, miles of steel re-bar, copper wire…”
Agreed. So has anyone done a study to determine how much energy will be required to create the raw materials needed to build each wind turbine? Seems like it would take quite a bit of energy to mine and refine the concrete, steel, copper, etc. How many years will each turbine have to run before it reaches a break-even point with regards to recovering the energy that was needed to create it? Will the turbines even last that long?
25 February 2009
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“How many years will each turbine have to run before it reaches a break-even point with regards to recovering the energy that was needed to create it? Will the turbines even last that long?”
Yes, the calculations have been run, and yes, they do last that long.
25 February 2009
at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Power plants which generate through the use of hot air might be a good subject for study.
25 February 2009
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
Bozo - “Yes, the calculations have been run, and yes, they do last that long.”
Do you have a source to back that up? Not doubting you - but I would like to see the calculations. If they do last that long (or longer) I'm all for them.
26 February 2009
at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
“Bozo - “Yes, the calculations have been run, and yes, they do last that long.”
Do you have a source to back that up? ….”
Apparently not.
26 February 2009
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
Headline: Proposed federal wind regulations would benefit Kansas
Could the POTUS regulate the wind in such a way as to cause global cooling?
26 February 2009
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Wind turbines can be powered by unicorn toots.
26 February 2009
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“regulations”
You'll be seeing this word alot seein' as we have an administration who clearly plans on pandering to the extremist environmentalists who see global warming as their hammer and sickle.
Love this slanted wording too: “…but the proposal has been weakened…”
Weakened? In whose opinion.
I'm trying to point out slant and bias for you superstars any time I can.
I thought LJW has in their standards some wording about not mixing news with editorial. I must have read it wrong. If the bill calls for only 20% renewable by 2020, how is a couple coal plants weakening it?
26 February 2009
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
“Do you have a source to back that up? ….”
Apparently not.”
Took about 30 seconds of googling to find this— but for the willfully ignorant, that's apparently ample justification for remaining, well, willfully ignorant.
From the Danish Wind Industry Association—
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/…
“Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines— Two to Three Months Required.
Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved. This is one of the main results of a life cycle analysis of wind turbines done by the Danish Wind Industry Association. The study includes the energy content in all components of a wind turbine, and it includes the global energy content in all links of the production chain.”
26 February 2009
at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
Actually, bozo, you have misquoted me. I did not ask the original question. I quoted gphawk89, and was only responding to your failure to back up your statement. I am surprised, however, that you chose to first insult and then provide one source, an eleven year old report, for your statement. Moreover, it took closer to 24 hours for your response, not 30 seconds.
bozo, this is off subject, but what is the benefit of insulting someone that you are trying to win over to your viewpoint? I don’t really have a solid knowledge of wind generated energy and am open to the concept. However, if you are representative of those expounding the viewpoint I will be less likely to adopt that view based upon the fact that those who support it are more likely to insult than provide fact. In other words, the credibility of the view is made worthy, or tainted, by those who champion it.
26 February 2009
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
You're the one who first chose to insult, DIST. Don't get so snippy when someone responds in kind.
26 February 2009
at 5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
I am not at all surprised at bozo's opening insult, but am surprised at his slow response.
Interesting article nonetheless. The reason I asked stems from memories of a visit to the defunct South Point wind farm on Hawaii a couple of years back. That mess did not instill much confidence that turbines were all that reliable.
26 February 2009
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
The Tradewind project north of I-70 is in two phases. The first (east) phase is up and running and selling wind power to BPU, Midwest Energy, and Sunflower. The western phase is still under construction and will not be “turned on” until it is completed. I believe they may also be looking for one more buyer of some of the juice-but I am not absolutely sure on that. The South Point wind farm in Hawaii was an example of how not to run a wind farm. The interesting concept for an RPS as far as Kansas is concerned, is that the utilities in the state do not want a state RPS but do want a national RPS. Reason-they can market the energy to other states with a poorer wind regime. In Kansas there is not much new demand for electricity and they would have to back down some other power source that they have already invested in.
26 February 2009
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I was not responding to you, gphawk— you asked a reasonable question in a respectful way— sorry I didn't reply sooner. I really don't monitor all threads 24/7.
26 February 2009
at 6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
Bozo, how is noticing that you did not respond being snippy? If it is I apologize. However, your continued rudeness is not helping your argument.
26 February 2009
at 11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Bozo, how is noticing that you did not respond being snippy?”
You clearly have the same internet search tools available that I do. But you chose to do nothing but snipe. That, DIST, is being snippy.
27 February 2009
at 3:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
Again, Bozo, I did not ask the question, nor was the question asked of me: it was asked of you. But that does not seem to make a difference to you. Your failure to provide support for a statement that you made is not my responsibility. Plus you are wrong, I did do internet searches and only found cost studies – of course I was not looking at 11 year old studies such as your example. Most of those that I saw only argued against the turbines due to the fact that the windmill was only feasible if subsidized. Anyway, you have convinced me that I would not want to be on the same side of the equation as you.