Letter to the Editor

Wind is the future of power in Nebraska

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Many of us have spent the last week transfixed by events unfolding in Japan. As the Gazette recently noted (Nuclear troubles puts wind power in spotlight, March 16), much of this focus has turned to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, where workers are struggling to contain further catastrophe.

While our thoughts and sympathies are with those in danger, we can't help but wonder whether a similar disaster could happen here in the heartland.

Nebraska is home to two operating nuclear power reactors: the Cooper Nuclear Station, near Brownville, and the Fort Calhoun Station, which can be found just north of Omaha. Each of our nuclear power reactors is regularly inspected, and by all accounts are in good repair.

But despite our greatest precautions, Japan reminds us that we can't always be prepared for what's next. As we grapple with the threat of nuclear disaster, it's important to consider the ways in which we generate the energy we depend on, and the sacrifices we are willing to make.

It's time to take seriously the safe and affordable options we have here at home, in many cases right in our own back yard. Nebraska ranks 6th in terms of wind energy potential and fourth in land most suitable for wind development. In spite of these tremendous resources, we rank only 22nd in installed wind capacity.

These statistics tell us, first and foremost, that we are leaving both money and opportunity on the table. Simply put, we are failing to capitalize on the vast natural resources at our disposal.

But these statistics also tell us that there is potential here -- that we have room to grow.

A U.S. Department of Energy study concluded that utilizing wind resources for up to 20 percent of the nation's electricity would create nearly 3,100 permanent and 25,000 temporary jobs in Nebraska alone. Expanding wind generation is projected to increase property tax revenues by $31 million annually for Nebraska schools and local governments.

This news comes at a good time. A recent report shows that the price of wind turbines has fallen 7 percent since 2009, and 19 percent since 2007. The cost of wind-generated electricity is now on par with both nuclear and coal-fired power, and as technology improves, so do our prospects.

The Gazette correctly noted that transmission limitations remain an obstacle to realizing our wind energy potential. Updating and expanding our electric grid is inevitable and will take place whether the power we produce is home-grown wind or imported fossil fuel. For that reason, investment in electric transmission infrastructure remains among the nation's highest priorities.

But it's important to remember that the need to upgrade our transmission grid isn't unique to renewable energy. True, an improved grid facilitates the development of renewable sources such as wind. But an updated grid also improves reliability and energy security, and assumes an important role as we focus on ways to ensure access to safe and affordable energy for years to come.

When considering upgrading our transmission system, it's important to find an approach that works for everyone. We must first start by making effective use of the existing transmission system. If expansion is necessary, then we should do so in key locations by adding capacity to existing corridors or other public right of ways. New routes should avoid sensitive natural areas and land important to the local community.

The cost of new transmission should be broadly allocated, to those who will benefit from the increased capacity as well as improved reliability. Property owners and communities affected should receive a fair share of the economic benefits from the venture, in the form of ongoing lease payments or an actual equity ownership stake in the development. Local development of smaller scale projects should be promoted with interconnection standards that ensure equal access for all.

Most importantly, landowners and community groups with a stake in a proposed transmission line should be engaged early in the planning process. Your voice matters. Remember, our best chance to find a solution that works for everybody is to share the solution that works best for you.

Hladik is the Energy Policy Advocate for the Center for Rural Affairs (www.cfra. org) in Lyons, Nebraska. The Center for Rural Affairs is a private nonprofit specializing in strengthening small businesses, rural communities, family farms and ranches.

Comments
View 14 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • And we've had lots of it the last few days!!! Think of all the energy we could be building up?

    -- Posted by FNLYHOME on Thu, Mar 24, 2011, at 11:10 AM
  • Sadly, however, the temperamental nature, of wind, and solar, precludes them as primary sources of energy, due to our inability to 'store' the energy until needed. Nuclear fuel, as well as fossil fuels, allow the latitude of following the demand. Using wind and solar, as primary would require our societal structure to change to accommodate the supply, when available, stratified by a priority of need.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Mar 24, 2011, at 2:47 PM
  • The damage done to the nuclear power stations in Japan by the Tsunami, has given every Al Gore lover the opportunity to bray endlessly about nuclear holocaust scenarios and how nuclear power is finished, and the only answer lies in the Church of Climatology, the wind turbine. When actualy the wind turbine has killed more americans then nuclear power.

    http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/17/inconvenient-truth-wind...

    -- Posted by remington81 on Fri, Mar 25, 2011, at 8:38 AM
  • Alright Remington you've made your little contribution to the FUD(Fear,Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign run by the handmaidens of big energy and the Koch bros. lovers in their anti-environmental campaign. It's a tactic first perfected by PR firms like Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchen and Edelman when tobacco executives were swearing to congress that tobacco does not cause cancer and that nicotine is not addictive, and since adopted by the rabid anti-enviromentalists and their money men in big oil and energy.And you've done it with a citation to a source-Newsbusters-that, when studied over a period of time will show itself to be a fount of disinformation, distraction, and outright lies second only to Pox Noise.Now that you've made your contribution you can run along and try to learn the difference between then and than. Before you get your knickers all knotted about spelling/grammar police let me say I have from previous vocations an architect's or engineer's regard for precision especially in matters of ones supposed native language. If you cannot be relied upon to get such small details correct why should we rely on you to get the larger ones correct? Even if your assertion were correct. a turbine might kill one or two people and that's done. It does not leave a radioactive footprint which will persist in the environment and food chain for years if not decades. Try to develop a range of sources for information rather than just one which is a major wingnut contributor.

    -- Posted by davis_x_machina on Fri, Mar 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM
  • Wind is a laughable source of energy. Contrary to popular belief, it is not free. In fact it is much more expensive that nuclear and coal energy. Unless you either want to A) artificially raise the costs of coal through legislation such as Cap & Trade, or B) subsidize the hell out of it through taxpayer money.

    Every single MW of wind needs to be backed up by a reliable, dependable and constant source of baseload capacity such as coal or nuclear. With wind, you are doubling the resources for half the requirements.

    And I also love the argument that wind is free, yet somehow it is going to provide thousands of jobs. Are these volunteers? How many millions of dollars does it cost to build a 1.5 MW wind generator? It will make landowners "rich" but will cost customers nothing?? Really? Which is it? So it's a "low cost - no cost" resource that will provide millions in taxes and will also create thousands of jobs? Using even a limited mathematical thought process, you should be able to deduce that's not possible.

    And for the sake of argument, let's say you're right (which is ridiculous). How many jobs are lost in coal and nuclear industries? Enough to offset the new jobs from wind? Lousy argument.

    Wind energy is a public relations scare tactic stunt that is making wind developers rich...nothing more.

    I'd suggest those of you that want more wind energy invest your own money in a small kW household wind turbine for $50,000 so that I don't have to subsidize your guilt through my electric rates.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Fri, Mar 25, 2011, at 12:56 PM
  • *

    davis_x_machina,

    Nice rant! I imagine you make loads of friends. Way to change hearts and minds! We all know that a targeted derogatory rant convinces people of your sincerity and intelligance.

    I hate to point it out but you sound quite a bit worse to me than the usual bunch of "FUD" folks, whoever that might be. I especially like the faux-erudite tone that you take when chastising others for spelling and/or grammar mistakes. It is a good tactic to make sure that you sound like a sheep with a thesaurus that paraphrases talking points.

    The comparison of conventional energy sources to big tobacco is a delightfully masterful stroke. All you could do to make yourself more irrational and mouthpiece-like is to call in the evils of the religious right! Good job!

    Also, you need to work on your writing skills before you blast others for it. Try using more than one paragraph. Feel free to run my post through the spell-checker on your i-Pad to further expose me as a simpleton. After, all since I am not for your views, I must be a fool, right? Or.....NOES, I am a FUDDITE!

    And, Remington81, there are more than enough reasons to criticise wind power than to pull out, "it has killed more people than nuclear power". Don't feed into the hysteria.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Mar 25, 2011, at 9:07 PM
  • I agree, I dont want my money paying for it. They should not get a penny more then the coal and oil firms.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Mar 26, 2011, at 9:15 AM
  • thats sarcasm if you missed it.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Mar 27, 2011, at 9:10 AM
  • Sir- with all due respect, a nominal amount in my opinion.And no I didn't need either a thesaurus or spell checker for any of my post.If you did your vocabulary is worse than the typical Merkins.

    I was surprised by the vehemence of your response and the personal tone it took, as if you were personally insulted, a response which suggests to me a degree of involvement that might verge on sockpuppetry.

    Let me assure you I have no interest in trying to convert, or make friends among, a sector of our society which might be most closely characterized by the phrases "get a horse"or "if man had been intended to fly something would have given it wings."

    I believe that technologies have their own course and momentum and will develop regardless of the ignorance of those who pay little attention.

    I'm more than willing to let those stew in the juices of their own ignorance while the rest of the world passes them by.

    While you're doing your critique on composition you might try reading for comprehension in which case you'll find I did not compare tobacco to any form of energy I merely said some of the tactics that industry had developed to try to forestall regulation had been adopted by big oil and energy to the same end even to the point of employing some of the same people who had developed those tactics.

    I actively encourage those who know little other than their opinion to sit out these debates rather than cluttering up the proceedings with their ignorance.

    -- Posted by davis_x_machina on Mon, Mar 28, 2011, at 8:45 AM
  • *

    davis_x_machina

    Nice use of separation of ideas this time! I am glad to see you are sharing the same degree of tolerance with an average klans-member. Attack all that isn't the same as you! You go so far as accuse me of sockpuppetry. I don't know if you think of me as the puppet or the puppeteer. No matter, I am not interested in associating with intolarant fools. Especially insensibly crude ones that try and hide behind their so called "mastery" of 3 dollar words.

    I am quite familliar with the suppression of technology and all the ways to cloak it. You are exhibiting one, remington81 the other. However, remington81 doesn't drop to the level of invoking artificial pubic hair. I would listen to someone that is wrong over someone that is rude any day of the week. Ignorance can be corrected, bigotry not so much. Good luck in your patheticly small minded life.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Mar 28, 2011, at 10:14 PM
  • *

    I'm wondering if the wind energy industry wasn't subsidized, if the free market would support it.

    You could substitute "wind energy industry" with "the Chevy Volt...etc"

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 9:07 PM
  • Sir- Same amount of respect. If you knew anything about sockpuppetry you'd know you'd be simultaneously the puppet and the puppeteer.I'm still struck by the vehement nature of your initial response and the use of the first person in the initial reply as if you were the individual slighted.I do admire some of your dance moves.

    You've got as many ways to avoid the subject as some of those lawyers.

    -- Posted by davis_x_machina on Fri, Apr 1, 2011, at 8:31 AM
  • just wondering mickle, oil subsidies good, renewable energy subsidies bad? Why the big oil subsidies and no one says a word but give money to a wind farm and all hell breaks loose?

    http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Apr 2, 2011, at 6:12 AM
  • *

    bigdawg - actually, I'm opposed to subsidies of any kind. (so we actually found some common ground?) I can understand why they were initiated at times to stabilize the market, etc. However, now that measures have been taken to regulate ag markets, oil markets, etc., I believe that all subsidies should be tapered off over a point of time and then discontinued altogether.

    That being said, I'm also opposed to social subsidies...as a way of life, not as a temporary means of help. Let's get our people productive, and get them off the public dole.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Apr 4, 2011, at 10:13 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: