Jackson Free Press

I've long lamented the fact that "the future" seems to be such an incremental affair. As we approach the year 2010, we have handheld communicators, swept and angular electric and hybrid automobiles, a world-wide electronic information network -- even books and newspapers can now be delivered over the airwaves to a flat panel electronic device you can carry on a train with you. And yet, it all seems somewhat pedestrian, because it just crept up on us.

So it's with great excitement that I personally experienced the sweeping wind farms of Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa this week. Driving along I-70 toward Denver and then I-80 from Colorado to Chicago, I was absoutely struck by these large, graceful, futuristic vistas. The best way I can describe them are to reference the wormhole-creating gadget in the movie Contact.

I even love the moniker -- wind farm -- as if nothing would be more logical to marry up with the soy beans, wheat and corn of these farm-heavy states. (I happen to know there's still a lot of farming going on in these states after about 20 hours of combined driving through them in the past week. If it weren't for wind farms, XM radio and the world's largest truck stop, I might not have made it.)

Depending on the wind farm and the date it went into service, each turbine seems to generate between 1-3 megawatts of power, enough to run 100-300 households per windmill. The devices themselves are big and tall -- each blade of the three-bladed turbine is hauled on its own flatbed truck, as we witnessed on the Interstate -- but the base doesn't seem to take up terribly more square footage on the ground than would a large inner city highway light post.

Of course, such windfarms aren't without their controversy -- one being that they require a great deal of investment and management in order to build the farms and pipe the electricity around -- which is exactly the sort of thing that keeps big utilities in business. The alternative -- tax credits and incentives for smaller, microgrid investments (solar and wind per household, with the ability to sell the excess back into the system) -- might ultimately make more sense.

(And, of course, the microgrid would be more of that incremental future-creep again.)

But, whatever the end result, the wind farms are quite a sight. I'm impressed!

Cross-posted at http://www.toddstauffer.com.

Previous Commentsshow

Seems like quite an exciting trip. What I'm interested in seeing is a cost analysis on how much wind-powered electricity benefits the average consumer vs. getting it the way we do now through the utility companies. Once the health care debates comes to pass, this should be one of the next big priorities Obama should address. Not only is this beneficial to the environment, but it will also help to lessen our dependence on foreign and domestic energy supplies and bring about new, high-paying, American-based jobs. BTW, did you get to chase any tornadoes?

golden eagle

Aug 16 2009

Nope, weather was great pretty much everywhere -- I can still remember those delicious 50 degree nights (OK, one night) in Estes Park. You know, it's just hotter everywhere -- 90s in Denver, 90s in Omaha, 90s (low 90s) in Chicago. Global warming apologists, 'splain me that. Like I say about the wind farms -- I don't know what the cost-benefit is, except that they clearly don't burn any fossil fuels and the energy is clearly extremely "renewable" since the wind keeps blowing. The argument against is that a smaller windmill on top of everyone's home (where the old aerial antenna used to be), along with some solar panels on the roof (or even newer roofing materials themselves that can generate solar power) would power each individual home, while a smart micro-grid would let us sell excess capacity to the utility company. The problem? Those utilities are big public corporations with their first loyalty to shareholders, not rate-payers. If they were still municipal utilities we'd have a better shot of encouraging them to subsidize panels and mills for individual homeowners if there was enough democratic will to make it happen.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

It seems to me allowing residential users to sell that power back to the utilities would only add more incentives, i.e. the tax credits that already exist, for people to install them on their houses, creating a demand for more wind mills, creating incentives to manufacture more of them in the US. It sounds like a win for everyone even the utilities as energy costs are rising again.

WMartin

Aug 17 2009

Wind Power alone won't work, because it's not constant enough.

Ironghost

Aug 17 2009

Indeed. One of the things I like about it is that the bulk of this could be a largely market-driven solution...what's ironic is how the larger publicly held corporations can get in the way of new innovation at the personal/individual level because they're protecting the "big way" that electricity has always been distributed. Imagine a world where generating electricity is done at the household level and the benefits are sort of Google-ized...small bits of revenue returned to households that are frugal or that invest in excess capacity...

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

The problem? Those utilities are big public corporations with their first loyalty to shareholders, not rate-payers. If they were still municipal utilities we'd have a better shot of encouraging them to subsidize panels and mills for individual homeowners if there was enough democratic will to make it happen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canton Municipal Utilities provide electrical service to that city? I believe it is city-owned. That could be a good place to start. I'd love the idea of a small windmill in my yard. My main concern at first was if I would have enough yard space to have a windmill, plus any noise factor. But one that can go where an old TV antenna would be would rock, though you'd also have to contend with the expense of owning one. I'm sure they'd be expensive, but look at what you'll save in the long run in electricity costs. Now that will be one heck of an economic stimulus.

golden eagle

Aug 17 2009

Also, windmill-generated power is pretty much immune to power outages, which would be another great benefit. Imagine having something like that during Katrina. Source.

golden eagle

Aug 17 2009

Great information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States As for this: Wind Power alone won't work, because it's not constant enough. Iron, I don't know if you're full taking into consideration this country's hot air resources: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly etc. There's got to be terrawatts of energy possible just from these blowhards! Marry that with solar and wind power generated with this newer technologies and I think we'll beat back that Saudi oil addiction yet!

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

From what I have been able to find out Miss. dosen't have the prevailing winds for windmills to work here.

BubbaT

Aug 17 2009

I'm sure they'd be expensive As with any kind of new technology, it would be more expensive at first as demand grew, but the price would fall as supply grew to meet the demand. Not that the technology is that new, but it would be a new demand for it.

WMartin

Aug 17 2009

Maybe we can do a story on this...I'll see...yes, there are certainly challenges in Mississippi (although this answer from Mississippi Power feels like a *bit* of a punt to me): http://www.mississippipower.com/topic_renewable/wind.asp Offshore wind farms are a definitely possibility -- always good winds off shore -- and it looks like the tech is improving to the point that a 5 MPH wind can move a turbine enough to generate electricity. In residential settings, you'd be looking at solar as the dominant in Jackson, I'd imagine, with wind secondary.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

From the naysayers side, this conversation reminds me of all the "it can't be done" studies and press about cell phones and laptop computers 20 and 30 years ago. Neither technology was deemed feasible until someone figured out how to make it work. Batteries—size and life—were a huge issue in both cases. Lack of wireless networks was a major issue for cell phones. The world had the same type of conversation about cars, flying machines and going to the moon. It's always impossible until someone makes it happen. Bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, either, based on their design ...

Ronni_Mott

Aug 17 2009

Yea, a little research and it looks like we don't have the wind for it, at least until newer technology makes it practical. There is some cool info here: http://www.awea.org/smallwind/states.html Mississppi wind potential map here: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-38m.html I also ran across an article about Siemens' and Vestas' plans to build factories to manufacture wind turbines and parts in the U.S. Where are our American capitalists? These companies will employ Americans but they will send their profits back to their respective countries. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124149612926186507.html

WMartin

Aug 17 2009

Batteries-size and life-were a huge issue in both cases. Lack of wireless networks was a major issue for cell phones. Amen. Batteries are still a big part of the equation. If you imagine our houses getting the battery technology to store of week of excess energy, then you'd start to see everything come together -- solar and wind generate power that's stored in the batteries and used at night or during low-wind; low-sun (whatever that means) situations. Then, worse case, you buy a little energy from the municipal utility when the batteries are depleted. If households were more self-sufficient power wise (just thanks to technology) then think of how well we could respond during an event like a hurricane or power outage. And then if we're plugging in our cars (even if one car is a commuter and one is a gas/electric hybrid) and powering them off personal solar and wind...it's quite the future. The cheaper and less damaging energy gets, the more interesting the technology becomes. Which, BTW, explains this: http://gas2.org/2009/08/05/obama-unveils-largest-ever-investment-in-advanced-batteries/

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

[quote] Iron, I don't know if you're full taking into consideration this country's hot air resources: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly etc. There's got to be terrawatts of energy possible just from these blowhards! [/quote] Har De Har. Geez, you're not funny. I'm also aware that with enough money and time we can cure most any mechanical engineering problem. I think, however, that Wind and Solar wise Mississippi isn't as productive as some other states. I'm not saying it's not worth the effort, but it's going to be a steeper hill than some places.

Ironghost

Aug 17 2009

I think, however, that Wind and Solar wise Mississippi isn't as productive as some other states. I'm not saying it's not worth the effort, but it's going to be a steeper hill than some places. Damn, if it takes sun to do solar, I'd say we're probably pretty productive here. ;-) I hear you on wind...but it seems the tech is getting better and better on that as well. I'm looking out my window right now at the American flag over on Duling and it's flapping dutifully in the breeze. If the get 5 mph turbines down to a reasonable cost I think we might be surprised at what the future might hold. And, as mentioned, off-shore wind power is a huge potential resource for a state like Mississippi.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

Till they develop smaller solar panels and better storage batteries it won't. Solar entergy won't be productive in Mississippi on a large scale, single homes yes but to replace a coal plant, not yet. It would take thousands of acres of solar panels. I like the idea of a water driven plant on the Mississippi River that has been talked about.

BubbaT

Aug 17 2009

If the get 5 mph turbines down to a reasonable cost I think we might be surprised at what the future might hold. Maybe a residential wind turbine here in Mississippi couldn't produce enough electricity to sell back to the utility or to power your house totally but imagine if it could provide the power to recharge your electric car. And what a difference it would make if they became as prevalent as the TV antennae used to be in the days before cable. Every MW we produce through these kinds of renewable sources is that much we are not relying on carbon based fuels for. In combination with solar and the next generation of high efficiency batteries the future can be what we make it to be and not be constantly hostage to fossil fuels.

WMartin

Aug 17 2009

Now, as long as your neighbors don't mind the visual clutter of your sky or shoreline, you'll be set once the tech catches up. :) I don't mean to be hard here, but there are obstacles to overcome.

Ironghost

Aug 17 2009

When you say visual clutter on the shoreline, do you mean like this? http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i248/kimkirk98/louisiana/100_2426.jpg or this? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/uploads/tx_naksciimages/OilRigs_Henry2.JPG or, perhaps, this? http://www.energyindustryphotos.com/barge%20rig%20blowout.jpg And, again, I'm not saying I'm necessarily a proponent for "big wind" as I think it ultimately offers some of the same monopoly concerns we've granted to the corporate energy giants.

Todd Stauffer

Aug 17 2009

One other big concern for me is distribution. That smart grid thing they're tossing around has the ability to shut off things in your house in an emergency. Which sucks if they decide your fridge has to get turned off. Or Grandma's breathing machine. I'm concerned about the ability for mischief with such a system. I do know you don't need a "smart" system to sell energry back to a utility.

Ironghost

Aug 17 2009