Wind Farms or Coal Mines

[Judy Harder]

I am looking at all the different kinds of energy that would help us and really favor the wind farms.
What do you think.
I kind of want to get away from politics for a bit and even the smoking issue....so will start this topic.

Let er rip!!!!

[flo]

Judy, personally I perfer the wind farms, because I like to watch them.  I find their precision soothing.  Coal plants have a lot of negative publicity, but don't really know a lot about them.  One thing that does bother me, tho, is Kansas produces all this energy and it goes to other states.  Why don't we keep it here?

[Diane Amberg]

I think it's going to have to be some of all of it, depending what any given area has available. Wind, water, tidal, solar, oil, oil shale, wood, coal, gasses, geothermal, steam, nuclear, hydrogen, shanks mare, animal, and peddle power, as well as some things that haven't been invented yet. They'll soon have heat pumps efficient enough to be used without back up in more areas. It's a fascinating thing to watch develop. Like so much, where it goes is profit driven.

[pam]

wellllllllllllllll, in a perfect world........................................

[momof 2boys]

I am totally for the wind power!!  Anything that helps our environment, I am completely for.  I know that when Beaumont area was getting the windmills, some people were against it.  They thought they would be noisy and ugly.  I've been out to see them.  I found it to be quiet.  And to me, they looked like giants protecting the prairie.  My son said they remind him of ships on an ocean.

[Ole Granny]

I agree! Also, wonder why it was not used long before now.  With our wind-what a savings!

[Diane Amberg]

    We are having a big hassle over an off shore wind farm right now. Blue Water Wind put in a proposal  and certain groups are up in arms.  Birds will die, it will hurt tourist business, it's too expensive, some rates will go up.  Hurricanes will destroy them.  Only Delmarva Power customers will be affected, not anyone else.  (City of Newark has it's own coop. and we pay to them ..cheaper.)  I'm all for the wind farm myself. We can use tidal energy too, if we would.

[Lookatmeknow!!]

I'm definitely for the wind farms, too.  I am like Flo, don't know to much about the coal mines, but sure that they do alot of polluting.  But does anyone know why we don't benefit from the wind farm at Beautmont??  I've heard that the power goes to another state.  Why?

We live in the country so we have Caney Valley Electric.  It's a rural coop, and it's not cheaper than Westar.  We have, at our house, started to use energy effecient light bulbs which have cut alot of the price.  And our appliances are newer which helps, but still.  I would love the benefit from the wind farms.

[indygal]

There are no easy solutions to our energy problems, but solar and wind make the most sense to me. I'd like to see our R&D people get the funding needed to test new products and processes. These two resources are basically free to harness, it's just so expensive to get the power where it needs to go. We will need to make changes to our infrastructure, and of course, that costs money.

One thing I do not believe is a good solution is spending more time and money on coal-fired plants. I hate to admit I learned anything in my now-ending geology course at WSU, but we did spend a great deal of time discussing pros and cons of coal power. In my opinion, the negatives far outweigh the benefits. For instance, the coal has to be mined and transported to the power plant (fuel burned to move fuel ... I understand Wyoming is the state where much of the coal for western states is being mined). Also of concern is the amount of water needed to operate a coal-fired plant...a resource that is becoming far too scarce in western states. Sulfuric acid, the cause of acid rain that kills plants and poisons surface water, also is a problem. While there may be EPA standards followed in the US, other countries may not have strict enforcement. Once the pollutants are in the air, soil and water, they eventually cause problems in other parts of the world.

There are far better ways to generate electricity that cause far less damage to our environment. I also think more people would be willing to try solar or wind power if there were tax credits or other financial incentives to offset the initial costs.

I do think the wind turbines are lovely to watch and, at least in my eyes, have not diminished the beauty of the Flint Hills in any way.

[frawin]

I said I was not going to post anything further on any "ARGUABLE" subjects but I thought this was very interesting news article that ties in with this subject.
Frank

Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says

By Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 13, 2008; D07

The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption.

But in a report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of wind-turbine installation.

The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by 2030 to meet rising demand.

The report noted that a big expansion of wind-power generation would also cut the amount of water used by the electricity industry by 17 percent by 2030.

The report said that, under "optimistic assumptions," expanding wind generation to meet 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 would cost nearly $197 billion, but it said that most of that would be offset by nearly $155 billion in lower fuel expenditures. There would be, it said, other offsetting positive effects.