BP invests in the largest U.S. windfarm in Kansas. What do you make of that?

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture

I find it interesting that BP is investing in a wind farm. What do you make of it. Here is some text from the article I read and a link to read it entirely.

Dec. 27—The largest wind farm to be built in Kansas is set to begin operation by the end of the year.

Flat Ridge 2, jointly owned by BP Wind Energy and Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, is on a 66,000-acre site covering parts of Harper, Barber, Kingman and Sumner counties in southern Kansas.

The project has 274 wind turbines, each with capacity to generate 1.6 megawatts of electricity or a total of 438 megawatts. That's enough to supply electricity to 160,000 homes.

Besides being the largest wind farm in Kansas, the $800 million project is the largest ever to be built all at once, instead of in phases.

The owners said the giant wind farm was built in Kansas in part because of its business environment but largely because of its wind resources, which have been ranked the second best in the United States.

http://www.rr.com/news/green/article/rr/42603754/79438510/Kansas_largest_wind_farm_set_to_begin_operation

 

Comments

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
I've always wondered why oil

I've always wondered why oil companies don't invest in alternative energies.  If you eventually have to change the paradigm why not be the frontrunner?  They have the funds and they have the infrastructure to take advantage of the change.  Very smart in my mind.

DenisePf
DenisePf's picture
Could just be a bit of

Could just be a bit of green-washing.... letting the company claim in commercials that it cares about the environment.

I think I have already seen it do that in places.

holymoly
holymoly's picture
The province of Ontario has

The province of Ontario has or had plans to invest to 880 wind turbines off-shore in shallow Lake Erie, enough to power 2 million homes.

Ontario with its Green Energy Act initiatives is provingto be a frontrunner in Noth america supporting wind and solar technology. Currently there are hundreds of wind turbines about an hour's drive east 

of Detroit across the river.

In 2014, Ontario plans to eliminate the last coal-fired plant.

That said, there is still a push to build and/or retool nuke plants.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but we need to think bigger.

nora
nora's picture
We should also be lobbying

We should also be lobbying for some wisdom in alternative energy applications.

Because we already have this horrible problem with the NUCLEAR research going down the road of greater harm and pollution by using URANIUM instead of STROTIUM (is this the correct element? I may have it wrong.)  Uranium was know at the time to create more hazardous by-products, but I guess somebody's brother-in-law or something had uranium deposits at the ready, and it was a matter of instant profitstream or expediency that was the cause of all today's nuclear waste woes!

And is wind the best choice?  I think that is the question that should be asked. 

In my opinion, it is fiendishly noisy and I wonder, if this is applied in huge wind fields in too many places, will it change the "music of the spheres" (Earth Hum) for the worst?  Just one thought.

nora
nora's picture
SUBSIDIES must be

SUBSIDIES must be involved.

If BP is "investing" in this, then we the taxpayers must be SUBSIDIZING THAT INVESTMENT!

Historically, the USA taxpayer always subsidizes new technological breakthroughs and APPLICATIONS,  It is just the pattern devised in a profiteering economy, and the means the Powers That Be use to deliver new technology to the people.  The ILLUSION, however, is that the private sector is doing us a great favor and service!  Sheesh.

Examples:

o  Canals

o  Railroads

o  Aircraft and Airports

o  Medical advancements (via WARFARE, that is, the treatment of wounded soldiers)

o  Medical research (via taxpayer grant programs and Defense Department contracts)

o  Nuclear (and US taxpayers still pay all external and insurance costs)

o  Computer technology

o  Suicide seeds (actually developed by the government and GIVEN to the Petrochemical/Pharmacuetical sector -- Monsanto, DuPont et al)

We need the BACKSTORY on this new green energy application. imo.

 

 

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
I am personally not crazy

I am personally not crazy about wind turbines either.

They kill lots of birds. They are made of fiberglass so we can't recycle the old turbines. They can catch on fire and when they do they are left to burn spuewing toxic fumes and fiberglass into the air. They are loud and I swear I read somewhere that they are actually causing a change in the temp of the earth? I'll have to go back to some notes I have.

holymoly
holymoly's picture
MrsBJLee wrote: I am

MrsBJLee wrote:

I am personally not crazy about wind turbines either.

They kill lots of birds. They are made of fiberglass so we can't recycle the old turbines. They can catch on fire and when they do they are left to burn spuewing toxic fumes and fiberglass into the air. They are loud and I swear I read somewhere that they are actually causing a change in the temp of the earth? I'll have to go back to some notes I have.

About killing birds, let's get serious. Some anti-wind turbines activists whom their welfare for bird's I question,. used that argument on turbines at Wolf Island in the St lawrence and the verdict was 94 birds were killed in one year.

The vast majority of kiiled birds are those that run into buildings. so get serious

 

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
If they actually do an avian

If they actually do an avian study before siting the turbines they can avoid many bird kills. But to argue with me because you say the vast majority of killed birds are those that run into buildings doesn't make me feel any better about killing birds with turbines. Have you ever seen a bird get killed by a turbine?  Just so you know the facts there is a study you can read.

Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

This fact sheet, which is a product of the NWCC Wildlife Workgroup, summarizes what is known about bird and bat interactions with land-based wind power in North America, including habitat impacts, and what key questions and knowledge gaps remain. It uses a three-tiered classification of wind-wildlife relationships based on the weight of the evidence and agreement, or lack thereof, among researchers in the field on each particular statement contained in the Fact Sheet.

“What Studies Have Shown” are conclusions widely supported by peer-reviewed studies and on which there is broad consensus among researchers.

“What Is Less Well Understood” presents ideas reached by some field studies, but either the evidence is too limited to support a firm and broadly applicable conclusion, there is some evidence to the contrary, or there is some controversy regarding the idea among researchers. 

“Areas Where Little Is Known” presents questions to which even tentative conclusions cannot yet be reached based on current information and data gaps. These questions are hypotheses yet to be tested or are gaps in current knowledge that have been identified by researchers.

The information presented is restricted to land-based wind facilities.

Click to Download the Fact Sheet

Here is a link to the page if the above link doesn't work.  http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/bbfactsheet.aspx

 If you can stomach it....watch the death of a bird caused by a wind turbine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU

Learn from the past.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE

 The above video is every educational. Oh, and regarding the wind turbines catching on fire and being allowed to burn check out the following video link.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaDUKrT-ztk

Need more just let me know.

 

holymoly
holymoly's picture
Looks like your copy and

Looks like your copy and paste makes your post almost unreadable.

OK, let's make Wind Turbines bird-friendly.

I'm sure you drive a car, but would you rid yourself of it because of all the roadkill?

Or maybe you consume meat, have you visited how they manufacture that Big Mac you consume? 

 

Geez

 

 

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Sorry about the way the post

Sorry about the way the post ended up. YES I know there are people out there that have designs for wind turbines that are bird friendly. There is also a company that has some type of system that detects when birds come into the area and it will shut down or slow down the turbine till they leave the area. Avian studies should be done before deciding that a site is suitable for a wind farm in the first place. I'm not against wind turbines for energy but I hope that we have learned from our past mistakes. I do hope you watched the videos I posted.

I do NOT consume fast food, and only organic chicken or wild caught salmon so I am a bit insulted by your last statement.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Want more information on the

Want more information on the negative impacts of wind[farms? Look up this study on the internet. I can't remember where I found it but if you google the title I am sure you will find it too. Here is the first page of the study and what is covered in it.

Inquiry into rural wind farms

Submission to the Legislative Council General Purpose

Standing Committee No 5

by

Dr David Burraston and Ms Sarah Last

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current push for fast tracking industrial wind power stations in rural NSW is being

put forward as solution to the problems of climate change. However, the public are not

being presented with balanced information on the issues surrounding industrial wind

energy. Landholders are being persuaded to host industrial wind turbines with little

knowledge of the impact this will have on their own and other people's property, the

environment or the wider community in general. In this submission we present evidence

that demonstrates that industrial wind energy does not live up to the claims of its

proponents, and counters the misleading information the wind industry continues to

distribute.

The research and information presented in this submission will be ofinterest to people

who care about the environment, the truth and a sustainable future. Our submission

comprises of the following broad themes

Synopsis of major research requirements for industrial wind energy research

Brief overview of problems with electricity generation by wind turbines

Research demonstrating industrial wind energy's

failure

to displace fossil fuels or

significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Discussion of environmental concerns, project lifespan and the urgent need for a

realistic decommissioning policy

Negative health effects and noise pollution

Negative impacts on property values

Negative visual impact

Myths surrounding "green jobs"

Sustainability considerations for rural landholders without industrialisation of the

landscape

Negative social impacts on rural communities

Comments on Renewable Energy Strategy

Conclusions from a rural landholders perspective on the reasons not to sign up

a wind power company lease

 

 

holymoly
holymoly's picture
Then go ahead with nuclear

Then go ahead with nuclear .....

Paleo-con
holymoly wrote: Then go ahead

holymoly wrote:

Then go ahead with nuclear .....

That continues to be the best choice right now.

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 How's that?

 How's that?

Paleo-con
Semi permeable memebrain

Semi permeable memebrain wrote:

 How's that?

It provides the least amount of polution, deaths, accidents, and injuries, while providing the most bang for the buck in energy. 

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Least amount of pollution? ?

Least amount of pollution? ? ?  Why because you don't have to breath it? What about the spent rods? The pollution from what ends up buried in the ground (radioactive waste) and surely the accidents have caused many deaths. I don't believe we are out of danger with regards to Fukishima yet either. I just believe it is much to dangerous!

holymoly
holymoly's picture
Paleo-con wrote: Semi

Paleo-con wrote:

Semi permeable memebrain wrote:

 How's that?

It provides the least amount of polution, deaths, accidents, and injuries, while providing the most bang for the buck in energy. 

 

Most bang for the buck? Are you serious. In the province of Ontario two nuclear projects were axed in 2009 because of sticker shock, a whopping $26 billion price tag. That's why Ontario opted for  the Green Energy Act and contrary to Mrs Lee, thousands of jobs have been created and so quickly.

The ongoing operating costs can be lower, but the capital investments are staggering and a shelf life of 20 years if that.

Also the costs of any liability, things to consider like meltdowns, leaks, are only around $500M to the developer, and the taxpayer

absorbs the rest.

Paleo-con
MrsBJLee wrote: Least amount

MrsBJLee wrote:

Least amount of pollution? ? ?  Why because you don't have to breath it? What about the spent rods? The pollution from what ends up buried in the ground (radioactive waste) and surely the accidents have caused many deaths. I don't believe we are out of danger with regards to Fukishima yet either. I just believe it is much to dangerous!

Therein lies the problem.  You base your opinion on feelings and beliefs rather than tangible facts.  Run some actual numbers and get back to me.  How many have suffered injury or death from stored rods compared to other sources of energy?  How many have died, including Fukishima, compared to those working in other energy producing formats?  I understand that you just plain don't like nuclear, and that is your right, but at least be honest about the numbers.  Unless you are one of those liberals who find it convenient to turn your head when faced with inconvenient truths, you just might pick up a reality or two about nuclear power.

Paleo-con
holymoly wrote:Most bang for

holymoly wrote:
Most bang for the buck? Are you serious. In the province of Ontario two nuclear projects were axed in 2009 because of sticker shock, a whopping $26 billion price tag. That's why Ontario opted for  the Green Energy Act and contrary to Mrs Lee, thousands of jobs have been created and so quickly.

The ongoing operating costs can be lower, but the capital investments are staggering and a shelf life of 20 years if that.

Also the costs of any liability, things to consider like meltdowns, leaks, are only around $500M to the developer, and the taxpayer

absorbs the rest.

Yes, the most bang for the buck.  Compare the actual cost of producing the power and you will see more clearly.  Most of the cost you are talking about is caused by social activities like law suits, and has nothing to do with the actual energy production.  Now consider the actual cost of producing green energy.  Start by stripping away the social activities like taxpayer subsidies.  You seem to have legitimate concerns over the taxpayer being forced to absorb the cost of energy production, so I am sure you will fairly apply this concern to any source of energy.

polycarp2
Probably had taxpayers not

Probably had taxpayers not abosrbed the costs of hydro-electric power, we'd all be using kerosene lamps. That's how electrification on a national scale began. It was beyond the scope of private investment.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

holymoly
holymoly's picture
Paleo-con wrote: holymoly

Paleo-con wrote:

holymoly wrote:
Most bang for the buck? Are you serious. In the province of Ontario two nuclear projects were axed in 2009 because of sticker shock, a whopping $26 billion price tag. That's why Ontario opted for  the Green Energy Act and contrary to Mrs Lee, thousands of jobs have been created and so quickly.

The ongoing operating costs can be lower, but the capital investments are staggering and a shelf life of 20 years if that.

Also the costs of any liability, things to consider like meltdowns, leaks, are only around $500M to the developer, and the taxpayer

absorbs the rest.

What the nuclear industry does is low ball its figures to secure nuclear contracts and the taxpayer pays up the difference.

A retooling of a local plant was slated to cost $4.3 billion and in the end the price tag was $13 billion.

since you are in USA soem reading for you 

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/highcostnpower_mdpirg.pdf

Yes, the most bang for the buck.  Compare the actual cost of producing the power and you will see more clearly.  Most of the cost you are talking about is caused by social activities like law suits, and has nothing to do with the actual energy production.  Now consider the actual cost of producing green energy.  Start by stripping away the social activities like taxpayer subsidies.  You seem to have legitimate concerns over the taxpayer being forced to absorb the cost of energy production, so I am sure you will fairly apply this concern to any source of energy.

polycarp2
When a nuclear plant melts

When a nuclear plant melts down, the bang for the buck is usually more than they bargained for.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"