Kanas republican governor shuts out local input and on wind farms

[guzzijohn]

Our newly elected gov has shut out any further possibilities of wind farm development in parts of kansas. It appears that he pretty well ignored local input (thought republicans were for more local control) and wheeling and dealing with oil company. So much for developing alternative energy.

Wind farms —Gov. Sam Brownback's deal on wind farms in the Flint Hills is laudable, but his method stinks. The governor apparently dickered with BP Wind Energy to drop its project in northeast Cowley County. So far as we know, he did it without consulting Cowley County officials, area legislators or local landowners. Also, so far as we know, BP Wind Energy was fixing to discontinue its project in Cowley County even before the governor got directly involved. The real questions now are: Did the governor's folks lobby from an earlier time to put the Cowley County project to rest? And did they deliberately fail to talk with local officials and landowners whom they knew would be disappointed with the outcome? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," the governor is guilty of shoving this deal down local throats.— Winfield Daily Courier

*

Many business and civic leaders in south-central Kansas are understandably upset with the way Gov. Sam Brownback moved forward with a plan to more than double the area that will be off-limits to further wind-energy development. The press release making the announcement noted that plan was supported by a "broad-based coalition of Flint Hills ranchers, preservationists, wind developers, power companies and government officials." Unfortunately, that coalition didn't include officials in some Kansas communities who had been working for years to attract wind-farm developments in their areas. The Flint Hills often are mentioned as a prime attraction for Kansas tourism. That's great, but it's highly doubtful that tourism will provide an economic boom for this region great enough to offset what may be lost in terms of business and industrial development.— Lawrence Journal-World

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/05/23/1860253/kansas-views-on-wind-farms.html#ixzz1NGw3BaoE

GuzziJohn

[magooch]

There is probably a lot more to the story than you might think.  Wind-power is never going to be the big deal that some think.  It is expensive and not reliable unless you live somewhere where the wind never stops.  Wind and solar power has to be backed up by conventional power plants that are idling.  I believe state and federal government would do far more toward securing reliable energy by encouraging develpement of natural gas, hydro, bio and even coal and nuclear power generation.

[dukkillr]

Wind-power is never going to be the big deal that some think.  It is expensive and not reliable unless you live somewhere where the wind never stops. 

Have you ever been to Western Kansas?

You are right though, there is more to this than the above post mentions, or rather, it glosses over.  People in Kansas, particularly those who don't live there, have some ridiculous love affair with the "scenic Flint Hills".  The Flint Hills are exactly what you would think.  Some hills.  They are covered by grass.  They have some deer, a few quail, very few prairie chickens, and a ton of cows.  God help us if we spoil that landscape viewing with clean energy!

Several years ago I worked for a small conservation organization that was one of the active players in land conservation in Kansas.  The board of directors actually voted to the refuse to work with a company that wanted to put windmills in the flint hills despite the fact that it would have provided clean energy (that must come from somewhere) and it would have been offset with quality habitat protection in other places.  Still, we can't ruin the Johnson County fake cowboy experience...

[yellowtail3]

You are right though, there is more to this than the above post mentions, or rather, it glosses over.  People in Kansas, particularly those who don't live there, have some ridiculous love affair with the "scenic Flint Hills".  The Flint Hills are exactly what you would think.  Some hills.  They are covered by grass.  They have some deer, a few quail, very few prairie chickens, and a ton of cows.  God help us if we spoil that landscape viewing with clean energy!

Thanks for filling us in on the rest of the story...

[Blackhawker]

There is probably a lot more to the story than you might think.  Wind-power is never going to be the big deal that some think.  It is expensive and not reliable unless you live somewhere where the wind never stops.  Wind and solar power has to be backed up by conventional power plants that are idling.  I believe state and federal government would do far more toward securing reliable energy by encouraging develpement of natural gas, hydro, bio and even coal and nuclear power generation.

Here is some of the deal on wind farms:
(Please bare with me as this is what I have learned, heard, and read when I was personally dealing with a wind farms in addition to what a federal employee that was preparing environmental impact reports several years ago told me.  Some of these things may have changed over the past 5 or 6 years.)

First off, Europe was using wind energy for 10 to 20 years earlier than we have been.  Guess what?  As what I have read and know of, they have found that it does not hold the promise of "free energy" as once thought.  I believe that they are not investing in it as they did many years ago.
Secondly; there is a lot of deception involved with wind farm development.  Wind energy companies come and go.  A wind energy company that sets contracts with land owners is often gone by the time the first phase of the wind farm is finished, leaving the land owner to deal with a completely different company....and many more thereafter.
Third:  Many times, a wind energy company's original plans state that 100 or 200 towers will be put in place.  It's almost guaranteed that once they have their foot in place, at least two to three times that many towers will follow.
Fourth:  Again, as I have heard of it when I was dealing with wind towers....a tower has roughly a 20 year life span.  Once the tower is "dead" and no longer useful, it is the land owner's responsibility to take it down.  Otherwise, it will sit there forever.  As much as they're paying land owners for each tower in place, I'm certain that the land owner will not want to foot the bill to take one or more 400 ft structures down.

More....and these are just my thoughts....
Is wind energy really free?  Think about this:  How much energy does it take to spin one of these things?  Could you (one person) walk up and push a blade and get it spinning? (obviously you cant reach the blade)  Now, imagine the amount of force it takes to move these things continually, day after day, at the speeds in which they move.  (The outer blade of a 398 ft tower moves nearly 100 mph) 
OK, now that you've imagined the amount of power or wind energy it takes to keep these propellers in motion, now imagine how much energy has been taken from the atmosphere.  Doesn't it make anyone wonder how weather patters might change if we keep taking wind energy from the air?  Will it change our rainfall patterns over our most precious areas of farmland?  Will it cause drastic changes in weather patterns, including severe weather?  Hmmmm....,kinda makes you wonder with all of the tornadoes we've been seeing lately. 
Again, these are just thoughts.
No matter what you think of this, I think we all will agree that when it comes down to it, NOTHING IS FREE!  No matter what we do to have a positive effect in one area (in this case, clean and free energy) there is ultimately going to be an equal and opposite effect somewhere else.   Something, somewhere has to pay the price.