The consequences of fossil fuel dependence seems embodied in the daily reports coming from the Gulf of Mexico. And so greater attention turns to alternative sources of energy.

And wind power is a great part of that equation in Minnesota, considered one of the leading states with wind power potential.

The promise of wind power is often trumped by the reality of building the wind turbines in local communities. Township, city and county governments must weigh the potential economic and environmental benefits of a wind farm with the community's concerns about having the noise and shadow flicker of living near a turbine. We've seen clashes in places like Goodhue County and Austin.

Insight Now has had a pretty good continuing conversation on the benefits and drawbacks of wind power.

Now we want to push that discussion forward with views from different perspectives on the issue. In our next InTakes segment we asked sources in our Public Insight Network this question: How should we balance the need for alternative energy with the concerns a local community will have to a wind turbine development in their midst? Here are some of the answers:

No balance if wind never replaces fossil fuel

Carol Overland
An attorney in Red Wing who specializes in utility regulation and land use. She says she represents "regular people, activist groups and local governments." She also writes the Legalectric blog.

Projects must be sited with respect and consideration for those who must live with it -- if you can't live next to it, can't sleep, have turbines looming overhead because they are sited too close to non-participants homes, that's not worth doing.

To be worth doing, it must also displace, not supplement, some existing noxious generation. The Renewable Energy Standards enacted thus far (by the states), and contemplated, across the country do nothing to shut down any fossil fuel generators and only mandate a market in excess of what is already generated. The utilities plan to use this as a way to build transmission to enable market transactions and to use coal to displace natural gas.(The standards) only require additions to an already glutted electric market.

Name one project where wind went up and the fossil fuel generator went down.

(Ed. note: Here is Minnesota's standard. It talks about alternative energy achieving a percentage of overall energy generation.

Focus on small, local projects

Dan Juhl
President and CEO of Juhl Wind, a company based out of Woodstock, Minnesota that has completed 17 wind farm projects Juhl says that it specializes in "community wind development."

The fray you are seeing in Goodhue and some of the other counties is not really a community wind issue. If you look closely, most of those projects do not have local ownership and really should not be called (community based energy development). From what I know of those projects, they are all pretty big in scale and would be very difficult to pull off as a true community project.

Community based development could be one of the greatest economic development opportunities we have ever seen. These projects create local jobs in construction, electrical, road and civil construction, legal, accounting, banking, and on. Plus, because the local people have ownership, the bulk of the revenue stream stays in our communities and state.

Make the case: "If not wind, than what?"

Bob Peterson
Winona County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments Chair, which deals with issues regarding wind power development in the county

(There needs to be) communication between wind energy companies and the neighbors; accurate information on the impact of existing windfarms on their neighbors (and sensitivity) to the genuine concerns neighbors express, working with them to retain the maximal amount of their lifestyle, and how these units help keep personal taxes lower. (You need to) remind those who object of the alternative realities - if not wind, how about more coal, more nuclear, more high voltage power lines?

(Winona County) tends to have smaller personal, off-grid units which allow individuals to be independent. Larger projects are happening (we have a conditional use permit ruling in front of the Winona County Planning Commission in July) and are re-writing the County WECS ordinance in committee.

Our pro-agricultural policies are bolstered by commercial wind projects by expanding the tax base while impacting agriculture to a very small extent.

(Ed. note: The Winona County board of adjustment recently ruled that a farmer who lacked a variance needed to take down a wind turbine.)

Mind the rules and the money will follow

Wayne Hesse
He's a farmer and part owner of a wind park west of Winthrop. He also runs a small consulting firm that focuses on developing wind farms.

Wind Energy should be a balance of enconomic rewards for the community and so not to disturb the quality of life in the area. I live in the Buffalo Ridge area and we have many projects built in the surrounding townships. We have had almost no problems with these Wind Parks as long as the State Set backs and noise studies are followed.

It is a economic boon for the small local towns and schools because of the additional personnel moving into the area. The State Production tax on power produced returns revenue to the (townships) and counties.

The main thing is to keep the landowners and public informed when doing a project in their area.

When Europeans came to this continent and offered to "buy" land, the indigenous people thought "really - buy land? we don't own it - but if you want to give me something for it - ok" While that is of course not precisely how the conversation went, but I have a feeling that wind rights could be the21st century version of that. "really - you want to buy my wind? ...ok"

Let's make sure that we are setting policy that ensures community input and fair compensation for all effected.

Timber, mining and agricultural industries, in large part, build this state (and a few nice homes on Summit Ave) while leaving the Greater Minnesota countryside with some pretty difficult issues to deal with. Here is to hoping the new industries of the 21st century leave the countryside better off for generations to come - not stuck with an infrastructure they don't want and no way out of it.

I read that article on the Winona county farmer who has to take down his wind turbine. The whole thing sounds like egos shouting "You didn't say Captain may I." I also wonder, don't they need building permits in Winona county? I mean how do you build a 135 foot tower without a commissioner or tax assessor noticing? I can't re-shingle the roof without a permit.

Some clarification is in order for the Winona County person who eventually took down his windmill. He is not a farmer. He put his 134 foot windmill on 0.7 acres of land. He is a professional windmill contractor. The County zoning ordinances clearly state a variance is required if a structure is greater than 35 feet in height.

He put up the windmill, then applied for a variance, an act in violation of state law. His variance request to install solar panels 2 feet from his property line were approved. His intentions were good, his means of implementing his intentions misguided. This is the case which prompted Winona County to review and re-write our WECS ordinance.

Energy is complicated because we made it so. We do not have a shortage of energy in this country. We have a critical shortage of PORTABLE energy in this country. We make this problem even worse than it should be because we use portable energy for non-portable needs. We refuse to drill, even when we can do it safely. With the Gulf oil spill fresh on our minds, we wonder if it is even possible to do it safely given the alleged mindsets of oil drillers. However, that is another story. Every energy source has its advantages and disadvantages.

Wind turbines do not do any good without wind. They cease to function if insects build a nest in the exciter, get ground up in the process, and corrode the collector plates with their body juice. Ergo, the towers that hold these exciters must be above flying range of most small critters. They are very expensive to build, make annonoying noise, may throw a blade in spite of safety features to prevent it (This already happened.), and create an electricity collection problem. Turbine blades in the wrong places really screw up radar used for National defense and air traffic control. Also, the demand for electricity is not usually very near the wind farms.

Government involvement generates delays and paperwork nightmares that inflate installation costs. Taxes inflate generation costs that make wind power more expensive to sell. Energy subsidies make life even more complicated for producers and power companies legally required to purchase all surplus wind energy, whether they need it or not.

Photovoltaic cells are expensive, inefficient, and get dusty. They do not like flying debris, sand storms, rain, sleet, hail, or snow. They require actuators to continuously aim them toward the sun. Like wind turbines, the demand for their output is not necessarily where or when they work best. No sun? No electricity.

Geothermal sites are viable heat sources to generate steam for turbine electricity. We have at least three potential sites in Minnesota. Molten rock close to the surface is relatively unpredictable. Mess with it and the outcomes may be rather violent. Iceland and Greenland have used it for years as an energy source with great success if you overlook the volcanic eruption that belched volcanic ash all over Europe. It has huge startup costs, but offers cheap electricity and low-pressure steam to heat buildings. Like all steam generators, we need cold stuff to convert the steam to water. Also, liquid rock can be very toxic if it contains nasty stuff like sulfur. If the reservoir decides to vent, bad things happen.

Nuclear plants are great resources for military ships, especially submarines and carriers. However, we are dealing with the most toxic elements on this planet and they last a long-long time. Nuclear waste is a big problem. Protection against terrorism is also a big problem. Continuous bombardment of nuclear materials gradually makes structural materials (like steel containment vessels) brittle. As a result, nuclear power plants have a normal expected useful life of about 30 years before some pretty big components need replacement. Otherwise, they gradually inherit the structural integrity of an oatmeal cookie.

We have untapped oil reserves offshore and in Alaska. We also have huge reservoirs of methane (natural gas). Unfortunately, raw natural gas is contaminated with other gases such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, butane, and propane. This requires energy to refine it. Communist China is even drilling on the Atlantic shelf just beyond our territorial limit. They can use their directed drilling equipment to tap oil reservoirs within our territorial limit. Our politicians have banned offshore drilling in this area, so the Chinese are helping themselves to our oil with our environmentalist blessings. Our President has changed his mind about offshore drilling, and changed his mind again compliments of the BP oil spill in the Gulf. Cuba wants China to drill north of their island country.

Hydrogen is one of the cleanest of fuels because the product of combustion is water. However, hydrogen is so reactive that it is not found in its pure state. It will not liquefy at any pressure above 4 degrees of minus 273.15 degrees Celsius (absolute zero). Brrrr! That law of physics generates a major design challenge for hydrogen automobiles. Some misinformed politicians wanted to repeal the law of physics to avoid the problem. No, it was not April 1 when they said that.

Actually, the hydrogen source is methane (natural gas). If someone collides with a hydrogen car and breaks that high-pressure thermos bottle, kaboom! You may ask which fuels power that high-tech refrigeration equipment. The answer: at least one of the above energy sources.

Wave power is useful if you have Fjords like Norway. The moon drives the tide inland and out toward the sea, running salt water turbines. It works, but it is expensive. Fortunately for Norway, the demand for electricity is nearby. Our river dams generate electricity. They also grind up fish, frustrate spawning runs, and they do not like tree branches or other river trash. River boats have trouble getting around them. Some people are considering buoys in high wave areas to generate electricity as the buoys bob up and down over the water. Surf boarders might protest so that may never do.

Thermocouple stacks generate electricity from dissimilar metals exposed to heat. I believe Belgium lays these under streets to generate electricity. It is an expensive (and touchy) problem to fix chuck holes. One company in the USA uses this technique to generate electrical power without steam turbines. The South Koreans have one plant online and want more. However, the heat sources are petroleum and coal.

So far, I wrote about non-portable energy sources (well, almost). Those nuclear boats are portable, but BIG. The following describes portable energy sources.

The US Air Force is testing and certifying the use of a 50/50 blend of synthetic fuel and military grade jet fuel to power its aircraft. The starter products for the synthetic fuel are methane and either wax or coal. The Air Force is building photovoltaic cell farms and wind turbines to supply its local electricity needs. It is making an effort to reduce its CO2 footprint and dependence on foreign oil. However, carbon dioxide emissions at high altitude have a long way to go before plankton, algae, plants and trees can make them harmless.

Hybrid automobiles convert braking energy into electricity. That is fine for stop-and-go traffic, uphill and downhill cruising, and city buses. It does nothing for steady highway driving. Ok, so let us add bigger battery packs, an option to plug them in to a home charger, and add a slip clutch to the drive shaft between the petroleum engine and the electric motor. The slip clutch allows the DC motor to power the vehicle without petroleum engine assistance. If that battery is the size of the proposed Chevy Volt, it will occupy most of the car’s underbelly. A collision will send 300 volts DC with high amperage anywhere it wants to go. If it is a lithium ion battery pack, it may explode. The gasoline tank that sits directly above part of it may catch fire. Also, our existing electrical power grid will not support the extra load required to recharge massive numbers of electric cars. Also, chemical batteries only last about 2 – 3 years and they are a hazardous waste. Some space probes use nuclear batteries to generate electricity to drive plasma jets, but I don’t think we want to go there.

The University of Minnesota is growing algae to absorb CO2 and use the algae as a fuel source to put the CO2 back where we do not want it to go.

Europe gets much better mileage by using diesel instead of gasoline engines. A carbon-oxygen chemical reaction (CO2) produces more heat than a hydrogen-oxygen reaction (H2O). Diesel fuel gives better mileage because its molecule contains more carbon and less hydrogen than gasoline. Hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water. However, water is cleaner than CO2. The Japanese are experimenting with water injection to convert exhaust heat into steam. World War II bombers (B29) used this to extend their range. However, listen up. Water does not burn. It absorbs energy to do its thing.

We can ride light rail on electricity for commuter traffic. Unfortunately, it does not always start where we want to board or stop at our desired destination. Not all fellow passengers are friendly. It relieves the demand for portable energy because it uses a non-portable energy source (most of the time) to provide a portable energy need. However, it still needs power generators that may use nasty carbon fuels. The cost cannot be justified compared with other transportation vehicles that do a better job. It does mitigate the need for broader roads to support longer-range automobile commuter traffic. Like all of the above, each has its place.

Bottom line, there are no good answers.

High voltage transmission lines Use high-voltage resistors to isolate the electricity from the metal towers that hold them high above harms way. However, some electrical current reaches the ground and travels underground wherever it finds a conductor (like soil moisture). The magnetic radiation can affect plant growth. Dairy cows near power transmission lines felt static electricity while they were being milked. That did not help milk production. Farmers also felt static electricity when they opened metal barn doors.

I think we need to add the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to weigh in on the issue. After all, everyone else is there. Let's hear from the cows.

Thank you Bob for clarifying the Winona incident. As Roger has explained in detail there is no answer in any one solution. What's important is that we pursue all avenues to come up a solution to our energy problem. Roger is correct in stating our number one problem is portable energy. That is why I support these other sources to produce portable energy such as ethanol. There are problems with everything but it's not like we don't have any with petroleum. e.g. oil spills, air polution, transporting etc. In Spain they created a focused solar generator and of course the primary problem no sun no energy. But by combining this with man made geothermal technolgy they can store the heat they produce. I was recently informed of the Winnebago plant that used 2 wind genrators to power their alcohol production plant thus creating portable energy. There are problems with Nuclear Power but I think it's more in how we use it that causes the most problems. Small reactors the size of a garden shed can bring energy to remote areas with out a massive power grid. These mini-nukes are very safe, the primary problem with them is everything attached to them. If we don't get them up an running we will never find ways to improve them. We have volunteers for this technology like Galena, Alaska but the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is dragging it's heals. Imagination and vision will get us where we need to be. Combining technologies is the key but if we don't make the tools we will not fix anything.

Hey, we have been talking about wind power development and how that makes for new opportunities ... and for community strife.

One article in Wired Magazine suggests that we are simply going about investment and development of wind power the wrong way. (Thanks to the website Midwest Energy News for pointing this out).

The writer, Marc Gunther, says that placing wind farms in rural areas is the wrong approach:

"The US is building generating capacity in places that don’t need the electricity. Most wind farms are located in rural areas, where there’s plenty of land and a pragmatic attitude that welcomes wind turbines as a new 'cash crop' ... But the transmission infrastructure to carry that power to cities is missing."

The government needs to spend its money not just on turbines but the transmission lines to carry that power (or figure out a way to make turbines more palatable in suburban/urban areas).

States like Minnesota are keenly aware of the need for power lines.

Take five minutes and put on your "Joe" or "Jane" Taxpayer hats. You are the ones funding government investment in wind energy. Would you spend a bit of your money on power lines to create a wind energy infrastructure? Would you change how government spends money on wind power?

Speaking as "Joe Taxpayer," I would like to see public funds spent on 1) expanding wind power 2) upgrading and expanding transmission lines 3) R & D on electrical/energy storage systems that can make wind power better fit our 24/7 needs for electricty. How much taxpayer money? At very least, at least as much as the fossil fuel industries get in tax breaks, unpaid royalties and direct and indirect subsidies.

How many acres of flat roofs do we have, in the average metropolitan area? Every one should be awash in solar panels.
Does my voluntary premium to my utility REALLY result in more wind power installations than would be built without my subsidy ? How many customers are doing this, and what is the total contributed ? The big brouhaha over Big Stone 2 (coal), has been followed by near-zero coverage, of a natural gas alternative being built not very far away. Why has the press shown so little interest in this victory for cleaner and greener ?

There are a lot of alternatives such as Darrly pointed out. Recently there was a news item about a metro building saving money on hot water with roof top solar panels. Wind is a big one that should be pursued by our tax dollars. However the way we do it is all wrong. I would like to see it as a true investment. Our Government has a favorite status for some Nations we do business with. Why not for our own in the form of purchase contracts, or actual investment by purchasing stocks and bonds. Simply giving money away in the form of grants, tax breaks, and subsidies is not much more than charity. Corporations have an obligation to Bond and Stock holders to make money. Oh I'm sure there is some law against it and there are many that would oppose it for some reason or another. When it comes to something as important as Energy there must be a way we could do this.

One of the most overlooked facts about energy is the difference between portable and non-portable energy. Our most dire energy shortage is portable energy. Lacking an electric tramway system and electric vehicles with an efficient high-capacity transmission system, solar and wind energy are not portable. It is not even available if there is no wind and no sunshine. It is not usable if the resource is not near the need at the time it is needed. Also, Minnesota winters wreak havoc on flat roofs and the earth moves while the sun doesn't (relatively speaking). Also, government is intruding in areas where government does not belong. That is skewing judgment away from rationality. In this environment, decision-makers tend to pioneer the wrong things.

Natural gas (methane) is a petroleum product that is not readily renewable. It is a valuable starter chemical needed for a variety of industrial products, including plastic, some medications, synthetic rubber, clothing, adhesives, coatings and sealers, and a host of other products. It also is used to make synthetic fuel from coal and other long-chain hydrocarbons. It also is a way to make hydrogen portable for use in fuel cells. It should not be used to generate electricity.

Taking off my taxpayer hat and putting on my hat as a spokesperson for the American Lung Association in Minnesota to respond to Roger's comments: You are correct that wind-generated electricty, in its current form, has many challenges to overcome. The same can be said of solar power. But both are significantly cleaner (in terms of air pollution) than coal.

Natural gas is also cleaner-buring than coal, even though it is a finite fossil fuel like petroleum.

Bottom line: Don't let the 'perfect' stand in the way of the better. If we have a better, less polluting technology, let's use it now, and work out the problems as we move forward.

Thank you Robert for your comment. There is a lot more to be said about energy than both of our posts. No single solution fits all needs. We really do not have good answers with the state of today's technology and the mindsets of many energy consumers. We also have some "sacred cows" in the way of rational judgment. Human nature tends to cling to what works and is the least expensive short-term solution that fits the need. We tend to ignore or deny the existence of long-term consequences until they slap us in the pocketbook, or cause physical distress.

The demand for electricity is highly cyclical. A peak daytime load in the summertime could be 70 percent higher than the nighttime load. Coal-fired generators take up to 18 hours to reach peak power from a cold start. Power companies use the equivalent of jet engines geared down to provide peak power assistance because they can be powered up and down quickly to support peak demand. The national electrical grid shifts power between time zones to equalize loads and moderate supply requirements for peak demand. Nuclear power generators similar to the designs used in military vessels could do the same job as methane generators if we knew how to deal with the waste problem and secure the facilities.

Aluminum smelting requires lots of electricity. We could smelt aluminum with surplus power when it is not needed elsewhere. Alcoa has been doing this for at least 70 years in cooperation with nearby communities.

Some novel research in nanotube technology could be used for major advances in battery technology to safely recharge battery packs in minutes instead of hours. That would help the viability of electric vehicles.

There is much to accomplish. We could do wonders if we set our minds to the task. However, we need the freedom to invent and the risk capital to support this effort. We also need the legal protection of the court system that works for the little guy. That requires reform legislation. Justice is far too expensive the way law is practiced today. We also need to keep government out of the way when they stifle innovation. We have seen a lot of their antics in the wind power arena.

The Government has not done anything of any significance since the Space Program. Society has not done anything since the decade of the 60's. The attitude of why something can't be done dominates, and solutions always consist of banning or prohibiting. I fear the only thing that will be accomplished will be by my enemy, the money mongers. Corporations, Entrepeneurs, and very powerful rich people. Hey T.Boone how bout a hug.

Gerald, I am afraid that no one has clean hands. Please choose your enemies carefully. Someone wise said to me, "If you prepare for war, you always get one." Another mentor (my father) said, "People tend to live up to your expectations of them, and often exceed your expectations, both good and bad."

Not everyone in the banking and investment industry is a "bad guy." Corporations exist that genuinely care about their customers, vendors and believe in good citizenship. Ditto for entrepraneurs. Oprah Winfrey,the late Dale Carnegie, the William Gates Foundation,the President of Buck Knives, an anonymous professional football athlete, and the late Paul Newman were or are all very wealthy people. None of them fit the "bad guy" image. I think it is a mistake to condemn all for the behavior of a few.

Sorry I gave the wrong impression, I was speaking in abstract terms. My boss is one of the richest men in Minnesota and he is also one of the most generous. I have had several millionaire friends who were all good people. My tiraid was more a critizism of our government and society in general.

I just got back from a visit around southern Minn. To my surprise I happened apon a motel in albert Lea MN. Where workers were staying and I got to chatting and found out they were erecting 125 big wind generaters...they are transmission to WI. This is required by WI that a certain per cent be renewable energy. The first thing I asked was what about the grid and they were updating at that time. They were hooking into lines coming from Iowa. They are expecting to put up another 145 for WI next year. I said this once on here and I am gonna say it again. Bio~regionalism. Minnesota has great wind potential in at least half of the state but I am concerned that it is being sent out of our state. Land is being bought up for this purpose. The interesting thing about creating renewable energy is there are many different ways so I wonder why the race for wind in WI. They have water ways for Moderate sized Micro~Hydro and it is one of the least examined sources to date. Statistically there is enough water ways to produce a greater portion of electricy but it is being neglected.

Roger what does a flat roof have to do with anything?

Yesterday I was reading about a new form of solar. Using the direct current instead of running an alternater. It saves electricty and what is not used goes right into the grid. I really like that idea. I have also seen a small but fairly powerful light weight wind generator. Everyday there is a new option.

Save our wind for minnesota! I am not greedy but 270 generators in minn for Wi generation....whoa now! There is nothing stopping them.

I have no problem selling excess generation but like you I say whoa hold on there, what about us. Will we end up buying electricity from South Dakota wind farms? Sorry about this, I can't help myself, how about a wind generator in the Capitol building.

RE: Flat Minnesota Roofs. They leak. If a solar panel design needs a flat roof, expect a lot of maintenance and some wet surprises.

RE: Direct Current vs. Alternating Current. The raw output of a solar panel is Direct Current (D/C). If the D/C power can be used as is at the voltage available, that is the most efficient way to use it. Alternating Current (A/C) power can use transformers to step up voltage and reduce amperage. If you want to sell solar power to the power company for use elsewhere, it must be synchronized 3-phase A/C. High voltage transmission lines are 300,000 Volts A/C. Primary distribution power is 2,400 Volts A/C. Secondary distribution varies by country, but in the USA, it is 480 Volts A/C. End-user power is 120 Volts A/C plus or minus 5%. Electronic components can do some voltage regulation, but not with a lot of electrical power transmission.

RE: Wind generation in the Capitol Building. The biggest source is on the legislature floor. It is too hot for practical use and not reliable. Also, there is too much turbulance.

RE: Small light-weight wind generators. Insects get into their innards, build nests (or try to), get squashed in the process, and corrode the collector plates and contacts. The moving parts have to be higher than the critters' flying habits. They are also noisy when the wind blows. The blades create havoc with TV antennas. If they throw a blade, somebody gets hurt. That does not endear good neighborhood relationships. They also invite lightning strikes.

I'm currently working on a wind farm just across the border in South Dakota. Excel Energy is purchasing the power generated here and sending it to the grid for use in both South Dakota and Minnesota.

I somewhat agree that it makes little sense to purchase wind power in one location and then transmit it to someplace other than locally. But on the flip side, nobody was utilizing the wind resources in this particular location until we showed up, so at least it's being used.

Furthermore, the landowners are being compensated with a yearly lease of several thousand dollars per turbine per year, plus the short term boost from 300+ construction workers living in the area, and the long term boost of 10-20 full time maintenance crewmembers. More money is staying in the local economy than some people give credit for. The only way I see this equation could be any better was if a local co-op was the entity which decided to install the wind farm.

Another counter point could also be made: was the fuel (coal / oil / natural gas / uranium / hydro dam / etc.) being used to power your home harvested, refined, and sent through a power plant all done locally?

I believe a more reasonable solution is regional generation and distribution instead of an "us" and "them" mentality from one state to another.

This is the direction I hope the upgraded grid will go.

In Michael's re-introduction of this topic today he asks why build wind farms in rural areas far from cities that use the power. It is my understadning that to make the best use of a turbine there needs to be a large stretch without ground clutter that could disrupt the wind. Buildings make urban areas less attractive for wind power for that reason. Ground disruption of the wind also makes some rural areas less attractive than others. In the Eco Building at the state fair this year they had a computer station where you could determine the average wind speed for any location in the state.

I have a question for Bob Peterson, or Wayne Hesse, or both of them. How much time really do these turbines sit still do to lack of wind? I have a neighbor who owns a small, privately bought unit that sat still a lot of this very still summer. But his unit was on a pole that couldn't have been taller then fifty feet. Conversely, I lived in Pipestone about five years ago. The city owns one of the big units like you would find on the Buffalo Ridge northeast of town. The only time I ever saw that unit sitting still was when it was blowing so hard the unit locked up to keep from damaging itself. During days that were just as still as the ones we had this summer the big unit could always find enough wind to function. Couldn't it be said that, if you go high enough, the wind doesn't stop?

There are industrial uses for electricity that could use the electrical power on site, spawning a rural-based industry. One application is electric kilns to fire brick, pottery, and ceramic components. Electric furnaces could melt ferrous metal in foundries. Wind-powered electricity could run dairy farm machinery, power poultry barns, etc. Wind-farm electricity could smelt aluminum from bauxite ore, and/or sell to the grid at higher voltages. Supplemental power would be needed, but the power could be used locally to conserve grid power used for rural electrification.

The poles must be high enough to keep the exciters out of flying range of critters and support the long blades needed to operate these exciters efficiently. Wind is not a consistent or reliable resource. When it does blow, it is usually stronger at higher elevations, but not necessarily so. Synchronous alternating current is required to connect to any grid. Transformers must be used to achieve grid voltage. REA distribution lines could be used to share power at lower voltages. Transformers work in both directions. Using this concept, a single tower at each rural end-user could enhance the capacity of the REA grid and provide supplemental power without overloading the REA grid.

Pipestone is in the middle of open prairie. Flat land avoids terrain turbulence to provide ideal conditions for wind turbine deployment.

RE: Average wind speeds. I recall a story about a horse that drowned in a stream that was an average of 2 feet deep. A better metric is the annual percent of usable wind energy.

Khatti, I'm actually working on Buffalo Ridge right now. I can think of three reasons why the larger turbines still catch wind when smaller turbines don't seem to.

1. Positioning
Buffalo Ridge is a series of ridges, it can be demonstrated in some cases that these ridges channel some of the winds into where the wind towers have been located.

2. Height
Although there are always exceptions, it is my experience that wind speeds can be much higher than ground level speeds as elevation increases. I've been up in manbaskets and noticed even at just 40' up, the winds can be stronger.

3. Computer Control
In my experience, small residential wind turbines are not equipped with computer equipment or motors to aim the nacelle into the winds or pitch the blades to the best angle of attack.

On a side note, the turbines along Buffalo Ridge are mid-sized 1.0 - 1.5 MW turbines which are approximately 260 feet tall at their hub. The true "big" turbines are 2.5 - 5 MW rated and at least 320 feet tall. These are largely used offshore though.

Matt A.

Yeah I was wondering about height. As I stated, my neighbor purchased a small unit that is no more than fifty feet off the ground. He has the unit about two hundred feet from his grove--but still, that height doesn't even exceed the treeline.

I made a mistake in my orignal post. It was Dan Juhl, not Bob Peterson I was directing my post too.

Sadly, I must retract part of my initial statement. I just spoke with the foreman in charge of the power substation we're building on site. He stated that, although Excel energy can sell the power almost anywhere on the grid, it is most likely going to be sold to the east coast, probably New York, where energy is in huge demand.

My reasoning to believe Excel was selling the power in South Dakota and Minnesota was because the power lines we've built are routed through a substation serving several communities in South Dakota, and Excel's prevalence of power sold in Minnesota.

Khatti,

The observations you made are typical. A unit (other than a micro WECS) 50 feet above the ground will require high wind speeds due largely to turbulence. A unit at 250 or more feet in height will tend to be above turbulence, be located in zones of higher wind speeds and so will turn nearly all the time the wind is blowing. One windmill in Winona County which violats both the terrain and height rule suffers from nearly never turning.

The percentage of time a windmill is generating power is a function of several parameters which include but are not limited to wind profile and degree of wind turbulence. Wind profile is a weather/terrain phenomenom while wind turbulence is influenced by structures, trees, tower height, and terrain.

The airplane analogy is perfect here. Airplanes don't fly well in turbulence. Wind turbines need laminar (non-turbulent) wind flow for the very same reason. The explanations Roger supplied above expand upon some of the other wind mill issues and include some excellent explanations.

Mr. Caputo has raised the relevant point of generation vs. point of use. Wind power generation, much like oil and gas production, is best done away from people. Conventional pollution is not the issue, but noise, flicker, unsightliness (at least for most people), and laminar air flow argue for WECS to be rural. On the plus side this is an opportunity to increase economic output of farm land.

In Lewiston, MN a local family farm (in conjunction with Gundersen Lutheran) received a CUP from Winona County to put in three 400-foot high commercial wind generators (with the whole-hearted support of Lewiston!!!). His reasons were spot-on - those windmills replace imported energy, the power grid exports energy from MN to WI, and has nearly no effect whatever on his farming operation.

Matt_A, I neglected to recognize your technical contributions to my previous post. I apologize for the oversight.

The story reported by MinnEcon writer Paul Tosto about job losses at a wind turbine maker at Pipestone was backed by a report from by the American Wind Energy Association.

That association report painted a bleak picture for development, with new wind energy installations at their lowest since 2007. CEO of the association, Denise Bode, told the Des Moines Register:

“We’re increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, impacting our national security, instead of diversifying our portfolio to include more renewables..."

We pointed out that the real problem for growth might be that development dollars are all pointed to producing turbines and not toward a distribution system that could carry excess power elsewhere.

So the question remains on the table for you. How should the general public support wind energy development and production, if at all?

I really don't think the general public realizes how important alternative energy is, it is America's Achellies Heel. Energy prices has been a major factor in every recession since 73.

I pointed out on the Green Hype thread that subsidizing happens with or without our permission. Fossil fuel subsidies are more than double that of renewable energy. The public should pressure legislatures to reverse this trend.

If nothing else, we need to be investing in upgrading the grid since it should improve all forms of energy transmission and distribution, regardless of the source.

I believe we need to push, and push hard, for diversifying our energy generation portfolio. The more that can be done domestically, the more insulated we are from needing foreign nations to provide us energy. The more we can produce that is clean, the less we will contribute to global warming, and the eventual global security destabilization I see as a result if it continues unabated.

Either way, domestic renewable energy allows us to be more self-sufficient and allow us to remain distant from potential resource wars.

Add to the information provided above a report in the Worthington Daily Globe that details the amount of government assistance the project received through the JOBZ program.

How should the general public and government support wind energy development and production, if at all?

I could not help but notice the company is based in INDIA. So much for energy independence.

A while back, I cautioned people to avoid calling symptoms problems. Problem definition is the first and most crucial step toward problem solution. If we do not get the first step right, we will invariably solve the wrong problem and waste the creative and financial energy expended in the process.

The turbine generator company is based in India because they have patents that give them rights we do not have. Toyota has a critical patent that makes hybrid vehicles more efficient because they can operate the car on battery power alone by disconnecting the combustion engine from the drive shaft when it is not needed. The Scandinavians needed boom-latice cranes that could build tall buildings without a lot of ground space. They built cranes with the counterweights at the top instead of the bottom and planted the base where the elevator shaft was supposed to go. These cranes are used all over the world. Why didn't American crane manufacturers build these? The Scandinavians held the patents.

Michael, maybe we should start new topics that discover root causes. What is happening to American (USA) ingenuity? Why are so many new jobs created by foreign-owned employers? Why are jobs outsourced to foreign countries? What say ye?