A new report concludes that calling Kansas the Saudi Arabia of wind power is actually an understatement of its blustery wealth.
Last October, Kansas Lt. Gov. (and wind czar) Mark Parkinson asked the American Council on Renewable Energy, a non-profit group based in Washington, D.C., to put hard numbers on the state's renewable energy potential. The study released yesterday says the Sunflower State could produce so much juice from sustainable sources that electricity could become a multibillion-dollar export industry.
Despite its Middle-East-like energy assets, the report concludes, Kansas lags behind neighboring states, like Iowa and Texas, when it comes to wind development. Given that Kansas legislators seem more interested in arguing about "clean" coal than enacting a renewable energy standard, like, oh, just about every other state in the country, that conclusion wasn't all that surprising.
By ACORE's estimate, though, Kansas could churn out as much as 19,000 megawatts from wind -- nearly 20 times what's in operation right now and way more power than the entire state needs to keep the lights on. Getting to that goal, the study suggests, would add $23 billion in economic benefit to the state by 2030.
But there is one hitch. "In order to get to the point where we're not just talking about one or two thousand megawatts but talking about ten or twenty thousand megawatts, it's very clear we need to sell that energy outside the state," Mark Parkinson said in an online press conference yesterday.
In order for that to happen, he explained, we need two things.
Number one: Transmission lines to bring that wind power from the
western reaches of the state. Number two: A reason for utilities in New
Orleans and Chicago to buy our wind power once those transmission
connections are in place. For that, Parkinson suggested, we'll need a
little help from Congress.
"There are multiple ways to create that demand from other states to
buy our wind," he explained. "One is if the price of wind continues to
come down. But, the easier and quicker way is if Congress makes wind
cheaper by placing a price on carbon or forcing other states to
purchase Kansas wind through a national renewable energy standard. That
would be the single biggest economic boon Kansas has encountered in
many years."
Read the full report and analysis at the Land Institute's Climate and Energy blog.
Showing 1-5 of 5
Great facts I was browsing Bing for something and discovered this weblog of yours. By the way, where can I subscribe to new content?
No. Dotty B. You cannot place wind turbines on 1 acre plots. They have things called blades. You know... they spin round and round. As far as ground usage, yes, they only taek 1 acre, but you cannot PHYSICALLY place them that close. Especially the 1.5 to 3 MW sized turbines.
Actually - each turbine from 1.5 to 3 mw takes only 1 acre of land out of production. As technology advances, turbines are larger, therefore less are needed on the landscape.
when kansas is in such dire need of strong national renewable energy policies, the voting record of our congressional delegation will become even more important - especially on the senate side.
So far, we haven't seen much evidence of this support.
It's interesting you did not include the number of wind turbines that it would take to produce that amount of energy for baseline load consumption. Fact: A moderate sized turbine can produce about 1 MegaWatt. Fact: A one megawatt wind turbines "CONSUMES" about 80 acres each. Fact: The wind does not blow all the time. Fact: The turbines have a cut-in wind speed, and a cut-out wind speed. (They shut them down at about 35 mph wind.) Fact: Electricity is consumed at exactly the same time it is produced. (The wind does not blow on-demand.) Put all this actual physical data together.
19,000 Megawatts = The land area the size of Texas (located inside Kansas, by the way) dotted with wind turbines. Visual pollution. Wake up! It's not going to fly. Wind turbines only are profitable if you have government subsidy, and that is proven to be a bad idea, citing various historical efforts (ie. farm subsidies)
like
dislike
