Often while traveling I run into other salesmen that I have met through the years. It is interesting how we often end up in the same places. The cattle industry is worldwide and yet fairly small in the number of people that are involved in it. Those companies that serve the cattle industry are few. Anywhere that cattle are concentrated, you tend to run into the same people. The advantage is that you occasionally have company for dinner that otherwise would be eaten alone.
Tonight I was visiting with an acquaintance from Colorado who happened to be eating in the same place that I was. We talked about all of the wind generation fields that are going in throughout the plains. For both of us it seemed that no matter where we travelled, we saw wind generators being installed. We both agreed that it was a good thing. We also were both in agreement that there are a lot of ethanol plants being built and they are not necessarily a good thing.
I think biofuel plants should be limited to converting human waste and garbage to fuel. They should not be converting plant mass to fuel. Ethanol production is a losing proposition for the taxpayers of this country. Converting crop acres to corn production that will be used for ethanol only drives up food prices. It is not an efficient use of our land resources. Ethanol production continues to be subsidized. It should not be. Spend the subsidies to develop technologies for converting garbage and human waste to fuel. Spend the subsidies to develop efficient solar and wind technologies. Lets develop nuclear fuel generation plants and fuel cells. Quit wasting our tax money on ethanol. It doesn't really help us.
Showing posts with label wind generators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wind generators. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Capture the Wind
There's another Wind Farm coming to the Panhandle...
Shell WindEnergy and Luminant, a subsidiary of TXU, announced an agreement to build 3,000 megawatts of wind generation in Briscoe County. The plan would top the world's largest wind farm near Abilene, which produces 735 megawatts.
"People love it in Briscoe County," said Jerry Leatherman, managing director of ACE Renewables, which has contracted with Shell to help develop the project. "It is typical of rural areas of the Panhandle where the water table has declined (reducing irrigation) and other things have drawn people away. It's been shrinking."
The impact could be substantial.
Employment will increase, both for construction and during normal operations.
"It'll give a big bump during construction," said Mark Wilby, senior business development manager for Shell. "And after construction, on a project of 85 to 90 turbines, usually there are two to three full-time jobs and another four or five for maintenance. Conceivably this could be 1,500 turbines is one estimate."
Everywhere that I drive I see wind generators -- either generating electricity or parts on a truck headed down the highway. This part of the world is fast becoming the Wind Power Generation Capitol of the World.
Huge wind farm in works
Two big players raised the stakes in the wind power game Friday.
Shell WindEnergy and Luminant, a subsidiary of TXU, announced an agreement to build 3,000 megawatts of wind generation in Briscoe County. The plan would top the world's largest wind farm near Abilene, which produces 735 megawatts.
A megawatt can power about 250 average homes.
The planners think the reception has been very positive.
"People love it in Briscoe County," said Jerry Leatherman, managing director of ACE Renewables, which has contracted with Shell to help develop the project. "It is typical of rural areas of the Panhandle where the water table has declined (reducing irrigation) and other things have drawn people away. It's been shrinking."
The impact could be substantial.
"You've got 900 square miles and 1,700 people," said Tim O'Leary, communications manager of Shell. "There will be an economic impact and demand on infrastructure. There will be an economic impact for decades."
Employment will increase, both for construction and during normal operations.
"It'll give a big bump during construction," said Mark Wilby, senior business development manager for Shell. "And after construction, on a project of 85 to 90 turbines, usually there are two to three full-time jobs and another four or five for maintenance. Conceivably this could be 1,500 turbines is one estimate."
The power from the project would significantly boost the wind energy Luminant's parent company, TXU, can deliver to customers. It currently buys 705 megawatts and has a contract to start buying another 209 megawatts.
"We're the largest purchaser of wind power in the state now," said Tom Kleckner, Luminant spokesman. "So actual ownership of generation is the next logical step."
The announcement came after a lot of action on the ground trying to catch the wind.
"It's been very interesting leasing rights," Leatherman said. "There has been a great deal of competition. I'd say eight different developers have been in here and left. It's been a challenge."
Nobody wanted to talk about project costs, number of acres leased or exact locations. However, the plan is to build the wind farm on top of the Caprock in the southeast sector of the county.
"It's not only on the rim or edge of the Cap, the wind is very good as you approach the rim for several miles," Leatherman said.
"It's been very interesting leasing rights," Leatherman said. "There has been a great deal of competition. I'd say eight different developers have been in here and left. It's been a challenge."
Nobody wanted to talk about project costs, number of acres leased or exact locations. However, the plan is to build the wind farm on top of the Caprock in the southeast sector of the county.
"It's not only on the rim or edge of the Cap, the wind is very good as you approach the rim for several miles," Leatherman said.
Everyone involved is waiting for the Texas Public Utilities Commission to issue a final order that will start the construction of transmission lines to get wind power to the metropolitan areas in the eastern part of the state, so time lines are not firm.
"PUC Chairman (Paul) Hudson has said he anticipates transmission could be completed by 2011/2012," Wilby said.
While other developers have proposed large projects - Boone Pickens touts a 4,000 megawatt project and Airtricity and partners propose a 2,235 megawatt project - the Shell/Luminant plan is different.
The twist is to use the turbines to also pump air into underground formations to compress it. The compressed air is then released to turn generators, producing power when the wind is not blowing or demand is too great for the wind to keep up with. The geologic situation below the surface looks promising.
"One of two formations have to be present - a salt dome or depleted aquifers, either gas or water," Wilby said. "The Panhandle is an ideal place for that."
_________________________________________
Everywhere that I drive I see wind generators -- either generating electricity or parts on a truck headed down the highway. This part of the world is fast becoming the Wind Power Generation Capitol of the World.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wind Power
This article was taken from the Amarillo Globe News today.
______________________________________________
Region a wind powerhouse
Panhandle among suppliers of top wind user Xcel Energy
By Kevin Welchkevin.welch@amarillo.com
New ratings show the Panhandle and South Plains are already leading players in the wind energy game.
Xcel Energy, which serves parts of the Panhandle through Southwestern Public Service, is the utility that provides its customers the most wind energy in the country, according to the new report from the American Wind Energy Association.
"The Panhandle is possibly becoming the wind power capital of the country and we're in the heart of it," said Xcel spokesman Wes Reeves. "Right now wind is 10 to 15 percent of our capacity at SPS and we will see that grow to possibly 20 percent."
The utility added wind capacity in Texas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Colorado during 2006.
The new Texas power came from four installations in Hansford County in the northern Panhandle that are rated to produce up to 110 megawatts of electricity.
Going with the wind
Utilities using the most wind energy in 2006:
Xcel Energy: 1,323 megawatts
Southern California Edison: 1,026 MW
MidAmerican Energy Holdings: 861 MW
Pacific Gas & Electric: 793 MW
TXU Energy: 704 MW
Xcel buys that power from John Deere Credit and local owners.
One megawatt is enough electricity to power an average of 250 to 300 homes, according to the State Energy Conservation Office.
In 2007, Xcel has added up to 160 megawatts of wind power at the Wildorado Wind Farm largely owned by the Edison Mission Group. Shell Energy's Llano Estacado Wind Ranch at White Deer also serves the utility.
In addition, AWEA ranks the 19th Congressional District as having the most wind power production among districts across the country in 2006.
The district, represented by U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, runs from Deaf Smith County southward past Lubbock to Big Spring and Abilene then north toward Wichita Falls.
It had turbines that had a total rating of 1,419 megawatts.
The district's activity is part of what put Texas in first place for the second year among states producing electricity from wind.
Texas had 2,768 megawatts of capacity while California had 2,361, according to the AWEA report.
The expansion of wind energy may not be over.
"There's at least 20 companies that have expressed interest in developing it in Texas," said Susan Williams Sloan, communications specialist for AWEA. "If transmission is built, there will be more projects. That's our limiting factor."
Xcel's goal of 20 percent wind is in line with standard estimates of how much can be handled.
"In Denmark and regions in Germany and Spain, they have 10 to 25 percent. There's a lot to be learned," Williams Sloan said. "Texas is still at less than 5 percent."
_________________________________________________
Wind power is an important part of our future. In this part of the world we certainly have plenty of it!
Some related links:
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/04/global-warming-again.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/03/ethanol-why.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/03/alternative-energy.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming.html
______________________________________________
Region a wind powerhouse
Panhandle among suppliers of top wind user Xcel Energy
By Kevin Welchkevin.welch@amarillo.com
New ratings show the Panhandle and South Plains are already leading players in the wind energy game.
Xcel Energy, which serves parts of the Panhandle through Southwestern Public Service, is the utility that provides its customers the most wind energy in the country, according to the new report from the American Wind Energy Association.
"The Panhandle is possibly becoming the wind power capital of the country and we're in the heart of it," said Xcel spokesman Wes Reeves. "Right now wind is 10 to 15 percent of our capacity at SPS and we will see that grow to possibly 20 percent."
The utility added wind capacity in Texas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Colorado during 2006.
The new Texas power came from four installations in Hansford County in the northern Panhandle that are rated to produce up to 110 megawatts of electricity.
Going with the wind
Utilities using the most wind energy in 2006:
Xcel Energy: 1,323 megawatts
Southern California Edison: 1,026 MW
MidAmerican Energy Holdings: 861 MW
Pacific Gas & Electric: 793 MW
TXU Energy: 704 MW
Xcel buys that power from John Deere Credit and local owners.
One megawatt is enough electricity to power an average of 250 to 300 homes, according to the State Energy Conservation Office.
In 2007, Xcel has added up to 160 megawatts of wind power at the Wildorado Wind Farm largely owned by the Edison Mission Group. Shell Energy's Llano Estacado Wind Ranch at White Deer also serves the utility.
In addition, AWEA ranks the 19th Congressional District as having the most wind power production among districts across the country in 2006.
The district, represented by U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, runs from Deaf Smith County southward past Lubbock to Big Spring and Abilene then north toward Wichita Falls.
It had turbines that had a total rating of 1,419 megawatts.
The district's activity is part of what put Texas in first place for the second year among states producing electricity from wind.
Texas had 2,768 megawatts of capacity while California had 2,361, according to the AWEA report.
The expansion of wind energy may not be over.
"There's at least 20 companies that have expressed interest in developing it in Texas," said Susan Williams Sloan, communications specialist for AWEA. "If transmission is built, there will be more projects. That's our limiting factor."
Xcel's goal of 20 percent wind is in line with standard estimates of how much can be handled.
"In Denmark and regions in Germany and Spain, they have 10 to 25 percent. There's a lot to be learned," Williams Sloan said. "Texas is still at less than 5 percent."
_________________________________________________
Wind power is an important part of our future. In this part of the world we certainly have plenty of it!
Some related links:
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/04/global-warming-again.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/03/ethanol-why.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/03/alternative-energy.html
http://panhandlepoet.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Ethanol -- Why???
The traffic volume on the highways throughout the Panhandle seems to be increasing. That's a good sign. It is a sign of a thriving economy.
I have been seeing a lot of trucks on the highways carrying what appears to be capital equipment and machinery. I have recently seen parts for the giant wind generators, many large storage tanks, motors, fan assemblies, valves, etc. Almost all of the pieces destined to either wind generator fields or to ethanol plants.
I really struggle with the ethanol plants -- especially in corn growing areas that rely on the Ogallala Aquifer for sufficient water to grow the corn. Think for a minute about what it takes to grow corn in the Texas Panhandle where our rainfall is approximately 20 inches per year, or less. The fields are prepared by tractors fueled by diesel, the primary nitrogen fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia) requires huge amounts of natural gas to manufacture, the water is pumped from an aquifer that lies several hundred feet below the surface and therefore requires energy to lift the water. Usually the irrigation pumps are powered by electricity, the bulk of which continues to be generated at plants fueled by natural gas. Once the corn is ready for harvest, the combines that shell it, and the trucks that take it to the ethanol plants are fueled by diesel. I have heard it said that we spend approximately $0.98 worth of fossil fuel to produce $1.00 worth of ethanol. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The one area of benefit that I see, is that the ethanol plants are a source of jobs in many smaller rural communities. I think that's great in the short run, but what will happen in the longer term? Will those jobs still be there in 10 years? Or, will they dry up with the demise of ethanol.
One argument says that this is a transitional time for ethanol. Eventually we will shift to a cellulosic basis for production rather than using corn. I think that's great, but will that reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to produce it? I doubt it.
Another problem with using corn, or any other crop for that matter, for making ethanol is that it is causing a shift in acreage from other crops to corn production. This does several things. 1) It increases the amount of fertilizer used which adds to potential runoff issues. 2) Corn demands a much larger amount of water for production than most other crops raised on the High Plains, further stressing the already significantly depleted water supply. 3) The acreage shift to corn from other crops drives up the price of all crop-based commodities. This may be good in the short-run for the farmers. But, it will eventually be reflected in one of two ways. Either our food and fiber costs will increase at the consumer level, or we will end up purchasing more from other countries.
If our strategy in developing ethanol as an alternative fuel is to decrease our reliance on other countries, it won't work. It will just shift the reliance from a minuscule percentage of our fuel demands to a significant percentage of our food and fiber demands.
Increasing crop prices may have the short-term positive effect of increasing farm income from the marketplace to offset government subsidies. This would be a positive benefit to the taxpayers of the nation if the Congress would just not spend that money on something else. We all know how that will turn out.
Currently there are significant government subsidies to incent the creation of ethanol capacity in our country. Some of the subsidies are direct and some are related to the investment of funds in alternative energy production in lieu of taxing those funds derived from other means. Either way, it is dollars out of the taxpayers pocket. I would much rather see that money spent on projects such as the windmill generators, or geothermal, or nuclear energy. The problem is, ethanol plants seem to generate more votes because of the "pork-barrel" nature of the projects.
It would be nice if Congress would vote for sensible legislation rather than their behavior being totally dictated by what will get them the most votes, or line their pockets the quickest. I think we need to fire them all and start over.
I have been seeing a lot of trucks on the highways carrying what appears to be capital equipment and machinery. I have recently seen parts for the giant wind generators, many large storage tanks, motors, fan assemblies, valves, etc. Almost all of the pieces destined to either wind generator fields or to ethanol plants.
I really struggle with the ethanol plants -- especially in corn growing areas that rely on the Ogallala Aquifer for sufficient water to grow the corn. Think for a minute about what it takes to grow corn in the Texas Panhandle where our rainfall is approximately 20 inches per year, or less. The fields are prepared by tractors fueled by diesel, the primary nitrogen fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia) requires huge amounts of natural gas to manufacture, the water is pumped from an aquifer that lies several hundred feet below the surface and therefore requires energy to lift the water. Usually the irrigation pumps are powered by electricity, the bulk of which continues to be generated at plants fueled by natural gas. Once the corn is ready for harvest, the combines that shell it, and the trucks that take it to the ethanol plants are fueled by diesel. I have heard it said that we spend approximately $0.98 worth of fossil fuel to produce $1.00 worth of ethanol. It just doesn't make sense to me.
The one area of benefit that I see, is that the ethanol plants are a source of jobs in many smaller rural communities. I think that's great in the short run, but what will happen in the longer term? Will those jobs still be there in 10 years? Or, will they dry up with the demise of ethanol.
One argument says that this is a transitional time for ethanol. Eventually we will shift to a cellulosic basis for production rather than using corn. I think that's great, but will that reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to produce it? I doubt it.
Another problem with using corn, or any other crop for that matter, for making ethanol is that it is causing a shift in acreage from other crops to corn production. This does several things. 1) It increases the amount of fertilizer used which adds to potential runoff issues. 2) Corn demands a much larger amount of water for production than most other crops raised on the High Plains, further stressing the already significantly depleted water supply. 3) The acreage shift to corn from other crops drives up the price of all crop-based commodities. This may be good in the short-run for the farmers. But, it will eventually be reflected in one of two ways. Either our food and fiber costs will increase at the consumer level, or we will end up purchasing more from other countries.
If our strategy in developing ethanol as an alternative fuel is to decrease our reliance on other countries, it won't work. It will just shift the reliance from a minuscule percentage of our fuel demands to a significant percentage of our food and fiber demands.
Increasing crop prices may have the short-term positive effect of increasing farm income from the marketplace to offset government subsidies. This would be a positive benefit to the taxpayers of the nation if the Congress would just not spend that money on something else. We all know how that will turn out.
Currently there are significant government subsidies to incent the creation of ethanol capacity in our country. Some of the subsidies are direct and some are related to the investment of funds in alternative energy production in lieu of taxing those funds derived from other means. Either way, it is dollars out of the taxpayers pocket. I would much rather see that money spent on projects such as the windmill generators, or geothermal, or nuclear energy. The problem is, ethanol plants seem to generate more votes because of the "pork-barrel" nature of the projects.
It would be nice if Congress would vote for sensible legislation rather than their behavior being totally dictated by what will get them the most votes, or line their pockets the quickest. I think we need to fire them all and start over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)