By Kyle Lehman, 3-08-08
| Caption: |
|
|
|
|
| Click the image for a full-size map of Montana's wind power resource estimates created by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory | |
Got a big laugh out of the map showing the power flows both from Koocanusa, Hungry Horse and Colstrip. Gotta laugh more considering that most Colstrip consumers are safely upwind.
I must also wonder, given all the aerial photos of "fragmented habitat" from petroleum products and service roads, when we are going to see the same shots from wind farms. Oh, but one is all right and the other isn't? Depends on logic, I guess.
That all said, I wish wind power development all the best. Just as long as I'm not expected to subsidize it before its time.
Dave. In 2006, you and the rest of us taxpayers subsidized coal to the tune of $2 billion more than we subsidized wind electric generation. And that's even with the 1.9 cent/kWh production tax credit for wind. Why? . If a coal producer, for example, sprays his coal with diesel oil, the IRS suddenly recognizes that coal as an “alternative “SYNfuel” eligible for a tax credit that currently totals $3 billion per year. Its a loophole that needs closing. You also subsidize coal by giving it a license to pollute. Take away that license and the cost of your electricity will go up by as much as 10.5 cents/kWh to clean up mercury and CO2. You don't get dirty electrons with wind, so all things considered in the long run using wind to keep the Big Sky blue is a better deal.
You can check out the huge subsidies going to oil and nukes, etc. at http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/SubsidyReformOptions.pdf
A skeptic's question: Why are we so concerned about providing power to Las Vegas? Sure, wind power is cool and there is great potential to generate it here in Montana, but what does the average Montanan get out of it? If we go into wind power in a big way, there should be some tangible benefit -- lower power cost, for instance, or local control/security -- for Montanans. Otherwise, this is just the old pattern of resource exploitation.
Comment By Russ Doty, 3-10-08Jeff:
We need the infrastructure, not to supply Vegas, but to convert to electric cars and a hydrogen economy. Biofuels won't do it. Montana is likely not going to sell much power to Vegas because they can generate with wind, solar and geothermal much closer to the load and the line loss and power line costs make projects in WY a better prospect to sell power there. We need smaller projects in Montana widely distributed on the grid to take better advantage of it. The big project exploit us and do not better most of our counties and most of our farmers.
Kyle,
A good follow up would be to fill us in on "firming" power. I understand that whenever windpower, for example, is to be added to the grid that a regulated utility must have "firming" power, that is power from "hard" generated sources in reserve to offset loss of windpower when there is a wind lull/calm (daily), that it may also need to be "greed" back-up generation and that the "grid" is almost tapped out on its ability to provide that in-place or proposed "firming" power. Can the windpower folks and the "traditional" suppliers bring us all up to speed on this with the help of your good reporting?
Thanks.
Oops - freudian typo ---"green" back-up generation, not "greed" back-up generation!!!
Comment By Russ Doty, 3-13-08Northwestern would have you believe that firming power is a problem. And it is more of a problem for Northwestern because of poor business decisions. Thyat is it sold off all of the generating units we paid for during deregulation that would help it out and make it easier to manage their system even though they would still need some additional firming capability which it would have if the gas plant in Great Falls had not been sold out of the bankruptcy for what was essentially scrap. However, it is not as big a problem as it is made out to be. There currently is a proceeding before the Public Service Commission on this issue. I filed public comments that would indicate what Northwestern is negotiating to pay for firming is too high. You can read those comments (31 pp.) at http://www.newworldwindpower.com/dotycommentsontwodotwindcase.htm As far as a green firming source, it will require the shifting of some baseload water power in certain areas where that will work. Not all dams can be pressed into service for this because of river flow considerations, etc. Widely diverse generation and use of other resources like geothermal and solar help smooth out the power curve. When we use natural gas to firm, it is usually a net savings on natural gas depending on how much natural gas is online in a system. If wind displaces natural gas generation, then it serves its function well. And the use of some natural gas to firm only reduces slightly the overall benefit of using of wind to generate instead of natural gas. Western Resource advocates projected a savings to consumers of going to 21% wind on the systems by 2020 in the rocky mountain west of $5.3 billion a year. http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org The numbers in that study are low because the price of natural gas has gone up significantly recently.
Comment By Chaos Tamer, 3-14-08Great information. Thanks, Russ!!
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/montana_windustry_poised_for_growth/C38/L38/