Alternative? Energy

Posted on December 30, 2007

My recent drive across Kansas let me think some abot energy and that is of course a wide spectrum.

The Governor there has weighed in on the idea of building more wind mills and is stopping new coal fired electric generation. She also is in favor of turning more of the state’s fertile farm land to the growing os biofuel crops instead of food. She even signed bills giving tax credits to bio and wind generation facilities.

The University of Kansas is studying construction of sodium cooled nuclear plants and the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill easing taxes on new nuclear plants.(Did not see whether that ever passed the Senate or was signed by their liberal Governor but I suspect it did not proceed).

So it seems there is a dichotomy of thought on energy in that “flyover” state.

The state also produces considerable oil and natural gas. The drive across the state on I-70 (the only east -west route through the state) finds numerous of the “grasshopper” pumps.

Now I was struck by the huge array of wind mills being constructed at the top of one of the very few ridges in the state. I haven’t found the details of how many of them are being built but do recall reading that they will make enough electricity to run a small city (30,000 people is the number that stuck). Well, the amount of land being dedicated to these monsters - had to be 200 feet tall - has to be more than enough to build that size city and in fact you could probably build Manhattan (NY not KS) on less acreage. I wonder how the flocks of Canada geese that migrate through that area will fare when these “bird Cuisinarts” start turning?

Now Kansas is rightly proud of their agriculture and of course the Governor is very willing to pander to the farm vote by offering credits and incentives for farmers to grow bio fuel crops. And the incentives for building wind mills in the middle of farms, with the cash flowing from the ground leases on thousands of acres, must appeal to the farm voters as well.

Now, having seen the actual foot print of the nuclear plant at Seabrook and comparing it to the footprint of the windmill array and also to the land needed to grow bio fuel crops compared to the small space taken up by each producing oil well. Those grasshoppers sit on maybe 400 square feet in the middle of an also producing farm.

My thoughts also wandered to the ANWR in Alaska with all the oil it would produce (reducing out dependence on foreign oil) and how little real impact there would be on the millions of acres there. And to the Gulf of Mexico where Cuba and China are drilling for oil while Americans are prohibited. If we were really concerned about our dependence on foreign energy, we would not be sitting on huge reserves of oil, gas and coal - untapped.

Growing crops for bio fuels reduces the crops for food, driving up prices of the food and the fuel, it is not a long term viable source. Wind is not a viable answer either. Even in the best of sites, the wind is not constant - it can only supplement other sources, sources not subject to the whims of nature. Solar is likewise not a viable constant source. Hydro power is fairly constant but no one seems to want to dam any more rivers to tap it. Oil and coal are not dependent on weather and neither are on the verge of depletion, particularly coal. Nuclear, as seen around the world, particularly France and Japan, is a safe, constant and economical source of energy.

The real crisis we face in energy is the Nimby, regulatory, environmental nightmare facing the real production of energy. My drive across Kansas helped me clarify in my mind the real challenge we face.

» Filed Under Media Bias, Democrats, Taxes, World politics, Global Warming, National Politics