Bluster(y) in N.D.

[jimdahl]

I remember hearing a bit about this guy when he was brought into the business school last Fall:

Mammoth wind farm could make North Dakota world energy leader (GF Herald)

It really is amazing when you think about how much wide-open uninhabited space N.D. has, most of it quite windy.

He's asked state and federal officials to find $500,000 for a marketing study, and wants up to $5 million a year until 2010 to continue the effort.

N.D. making that sort of bold economic development investment would certainly be refreshing. However, questions about transmission would need to be answered:

Some state officials and energy industry representatives say Henry's notion seems far-fetched.

"I don't see someone developing thousands of megawatts of wind power in one fell swoop," said Floyd Robb, a spokesman for Basin Electric Power Cooperative.

Kim Christianson, an energy programs manager for the state Department of Commerce, also has questions.

"One of the assumptions are that if you sell a large enough block of energy, the transmission lines will just fall into place. I still think you're going to have some very significant transmission issues," he said.

And on the other side of the coin, N.D. is a leader in coal energy production, and Mr. Strinden correctly points out that wind energy isn't a panacea that will supplement, not replace, traditional sources:

Strinden: Traditional energy sources are crucial (Fargo Forum)

In the 1970

[The Sicatoka]

It's far from a new idea.

"To Infinity and beyond!"

[jimdahl]

Wind energy in N.D. has certainly been studied forever, and N.D. has gained a dozen or so projects since 1997. However, those projects are miniscule, like the Minnkota project cited which produces only 0.9 MW. The reason always given for lack of large projects is transmission problems.

What's fascinating about Mr. Henry's proposal is he claims that if you build a supersized farm, say 1300 turbines producing 2000 MW, that the economies of scale will actually self-fund installation of a new transmission system. Other experts, cited in the Herald article, disagree.

[ScottM]

I know Xcel Energy has been kicking around a major windpower generating facility in various capacities for a few years in western Minnesota. One of the biggest problems is the initial capital outlay, from building the towers to the actual lines and other infrastructure to deliver the electricity to customers. I believe, although it's been awhile since I read anything on it, that Xcel was anticipating an upfront cost of at least $3 billion for what they want to do to deliver the power to the upper midwest and wean itself off fossil and nuclear fuels over time. However, given the reluctance of utilities regulators to increase rates and the speculative nature of large scale windpower, it's been near impossible to float the idea to the capital markets. One of the biggest problems with any large scale, or even small scale, energy project is that you get alot of NIMBY protests from people where the lines and other equipment would be located.

[sioux fan in phoenix]

My wife could provide plenty of free wind energy & I can guarantee there would be no transmission difficulties. Does anyone know why solar energy fell out of favor? Is wind energy more practical or economical?

[PCM]

It's far from a new idea.

"To Infinity and beyond!"

Funny you should mention that. When I drove to Bismarck a few weeks ago, it was around 20 below (air temp). The Infinity wind turbine could be seen for miles around -- and it wasn't moving!

What a great advertisement for wind energy. On a day when the demand for electricity was near its peak, that fancy, high-tech wonder wasn't producing a single Watt.

I've read a couple articles lately about the bird kill associated with wind farms. I believe there was a wind farm in California at which seven eagles had been killed in a year.

What would happen if we put large numbers of wind farms throughout North Dakota, a primary route for migratory birds? Would we turn the state into one huge Salad Shooter for waterfowl?

This guy makes some good points, too.

[Smoggy]

I don't know if it is up and running yet, but there was a pretty good sized farm being built in Southern ND that was being surveyed this summer. I can't remember the town for the life of me.

Out here, by Palm Springs there are some large wind farms. Because of the mtns, the wind can really get whipping, but it's nothing compared to ND/MN. My guess on the bird issue is that out here the elevation is so much higher that it puts the windmills higher. Also the windmills tend to be by mtn passes. I would think that in ND you'd have less bird deaths due to elevation, and that there is a much bigger area for the birds to fly through.

[PCM]

I would think that in ND you'd have less bird deaths due to elevation, and that there is a much bigger area for the birds to fly through.

Ever hear of "prairie pothole country?" Those are the wetlands where many migratory waterfowl nest during the warm months. The problem with birds is that they don't stay in the air all the time.

[star2city]

There is actually a sort of harmonic convergence that may allow this mammoth wind farm to have a shot of being economically and technologically feasible, in spite of the capital outlay and inconsistency in wind velocity:

-transmission lines may be de-bottlenecked with a new composite with 2-3 times the transmission capacity (3M Composite for Boosting Electric Power-Line Capacity),

-sustained high natural gas prices (natural gas provides most of the swing load),

-and fuel cell technology still in development for maintaining peaking generation capacity (powered with hydrogen produced from peak wind periods).

Vastland.org contained several links: former UND President Clifford is a co-author of the proposal, Pembina Ridge Wind Development Project , and a Map of North Dakota Windpower can be compared with the USA average windpower

The cold spell in January was exactly the conditions needed to test the new composite transmission material, which is being tested west of Fargo. Already, new lignite plants are being considered in western ND, in part because the radical change hoped for in transmission capacity.

Do wind turbines kill birds? Here's the answer.

[Smoggy]

Ever hear of "prairie pothole country?" Those are the wetlands where many migratory waterfowl nest during the warm months. The problem with birds is that they don't stay in the air all the time.

No, I haven't heard that phrase before.

[jimdahl]

The most common anti-wind energy argument seems to be, "the wind isn't always blowing". That implies an assumption by wind power supporters that wind power would completely replace dino-power. While that may be the ecological dream of some ill-informed greens, I'm talking about this from a purely monetary perspective.

The real question is: can wind power (when available) substitute for dino-power at a lower price? If so, then you generate as much wind power as you can, thereby saving money when it's available, but you're still generating dino-power to fill the demand gap, dependent on both demand and wind availabilitity.

I'd be stunned to see us efficiently store large amounts of power in fuel cells/hydrogen/etc... any time soon. We've been trying hard for a long time (well, not me personally, but you get the idea).

[PCM]

The real question is: can wind power (when available) substitute for dino-power at a lower price? If so, then you generate as much wind power as you can, thereby saving money when it's available, but you're still generating dino-power to fill the demand gap, dependent on both demand and wind availabilitity.

But this means that wind actually doesn't replace any fossil-fueled generation. You still have to build the fossil-fueled plants to meet the peak demand on the days when the wind isn't blowing. Consumers must foot the bill for reliable energy sources as well as the unreliable ones. Unless wind energy becomes much, much cheaper than coal-based generation, it's difficult to see how you could make the economics work.

Fossil-fueled plants are most efficient when they're running at or near their peak capacity. The more efficiently they run, the less expensive the electricity they generate becomes. Therefore, if you require the fossil-fueled plants to back off on their generation on the days when wind energy is plentiful, the electricity they generate becomes more expensive.

I do believe that wind energy can and should be a larger part of the energy mix. However, anyone who touts it as a panacea for our energy and environmental problems is selling snake oil. Until we discover an economically feasible way to store energy, there's no way wind energy will ever replace a substantial portion of fossil-fueled generation.

Also, anyone who thinks there are no environmental impacts from wind turbines is only fooling themselves. The more prevalent wind farms become, the more noticeable their impact on the environment will become. That isn't limited to the bird kill issue. It also includes noise pollution, visual pollution, land use problems and all the issues associated with transmission lines, which are considerable.

[jimdahl]

But this means that wind actually doesn't replace any fossil-fueled generation. You still have to build the fossil-fueled plants to meet the peak demand on the days when the wind isn't blowing. Consumers must foot the bill for reliable energy sources as well as the unreliable ones. Unless wind energy becomes much, much cheaper than coal-based generation, it's difficult to see how you could make the economics work.

If non-fossil fuel generation were ever allowed to reach zero, that would certainly be true. Economic feasibility might require diversity of generation that would provide minimum wind-power outputs (the wind is always blowing somwhere).

The concerns about environmental impact are very real. However, N.D. is ideal in that in addition to being windy, it's giant and very sparsely populated. I suspect you could set up quite a few giant wind farms that would never be seen or heard by anyone other than their employees.

I'm the first to admit I know very little about power generation, which is why I'm studiously trying to avoid debating the actual economics; but as a hot topic in N.D. for many years, I have found it very interesting to read the expert opinions of both sides.

[PCM]

If non-fossil fuel generation were ever allowed to reach zero, that would certainly be true.

In North Dakota, about 90 percent of the electricity generated is from coal and 10 percent is hydro from Garrison Dam. Therefore, non-fossil fuel generation is about as close to zero as it will ever get.

However, N.D. is ideal in that in addition to being windy, it's giant and very sparsely populated.  I suspect you could set up quite a few giant wind farms that would never be seen or heard by anyone other than their employees.

The more remote the location of a wind farm, the more expensive transmission and maintenance costs become.

That brings up another problem North Dakota has with respect to any form of energy generation. Geographically, the state is too far away from major of centers of population where most energy is consumed. (The state exports two-thirds of the electricity is produces.) The fact that electricity must be transmitted such long distances to the end user automatically adds to the cost of any energy generated in North Dakota.

[Cratter]

There's another report done by Henry.

"Developoing Very Large-Scale Wind Energy In ND"

http://www.nwclimate.org/Wind%20Report-Jan04-final.pdf

[Smoggy]

Too lazy to go looking and reading, but isn't that new 3M transmission line supposed to transmit electricity more efficiently and carry more. If that takes off it might help the wind farms. Though I'm sure that will be very expensive, but I'd think it'd more than pay for itself in the long run.

[star2city]

GFHerald readers have already seen this, but the following would appear to be very good news for Rugy and North Dakota;

Company proposes N.D.'s largest wind project at Rugby

[star2city]

There's another report done by Henry.

"Developoing Very Large-Scale Wind Energy In ND"

http://www.nwclimate.org/Wind%20Report-Jan04-final.pdf

With the announcement of the $225 million, 159 MWatt wind project near Langdon (http://www.businessweek.com/) Blair Henry and Tom Clifford's goal announced three years ago of generating 2000 MWatts from the Pembina Escarpement takes its first major step toward reality.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this deal is that Minnkota Power agreed to be a partner (Blair Henry had publicly blasted Minnkota for their non-interest in the past).

Perhaps if a few more ND communities could take a few lessons from Langdon ([url="http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=32786

[star2city]

N.D. braces to harness wind energy

High energy prices do have their benefits for North Dakota:

Jay Haley, a Grand Forks engineer who is one of the state

[Fetch]

Do wind turbines kill birds? Here's the answer. (link did not work for me) ?

[Goon]

Do wind turbines kill birds? Here's the answer. (link did not work for me) ?

I heard that somewhere. I think it was brought up a few times. Speaking of weather what is up with the weather today?

This is gross. I am looking forward to someof that Global warming. Its been cold as hell last night.

[SiouxMD]

Backlog of regional projects frustrates wind developers - GF Herald

North Dakota has 42 projects in the queue, nine of which have been approved, with 33 waiting.

It looks like North Dakota is trying to capture more of its energy wind potential (currently #1 in the nation).

[ScottM]

Not really related to wind turbines, but this article shows how oil/gas will continue to impact the state.

In 2001, new exploration into the Montana side of the Bakken