The Public Utilities Commission yesterday rejected an application from Minnesota-based Geronimo Energy to build the Crocker Wind Farm in Clark County. Geronimo says its project would take less than 50 acres out of agricultural production, pay landowners $1.2 million a year, and add $54 million to the local economy over 20 years. The application drew dozens of intervenors claiming the wind farm should be rejected because of their concerns over noise, flickering shadows, and divisiveness in the community. According to Bob Mercer’s summary of yesterday’s hearing, commissioners appear to have based their rejection mostly on uncertainty in Geronimo’s application due to multiple possible configurations of the wind farm.
That seems odd: this same Public Utilities Commission approved the Keystone and Keystone XL pipelines in the face of significantly greater uncertainty, given that the PUC approved both tar sands oil transmitters before the federal government had approved those projects and their final routes. Both pipelines promised to disrupt far more farmland, threatened to take land by eminent domain, and roused far more extensive opposition based on more strongly evidenced environmental hazards. And economically speaking, the Crocker Wind Farm would produce energy right here in South Dakota, while Canadian pipeliner TransCanada only uses us as a passive host for infrastructure carrying product to the global export market.
The PUC accepts foreign occupation by pipeliners shipping imminently obsolete tar sands oil, but they kick out nicer Minnesota neighbors offering fairer deals to landowners and cleaner, sustainable power for everyone.
Let’s hope the PUC is a bit more sensible and forward-thinking when Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy brings its Dakota Range Wind project to the PUC. The proposed two-phase, 600-megawatt wind power project appears to be meeting positive responses in Codington and Grant counties.
From experience, I can say flickering shadows are a nuisance , but only until the sun shifts position a minute amount.
The noise isn’t unbearable and shouldn’t be to people who hear farm machinery pound everyday of their lives.
And I have yet to see a wind spill or a polluted acquifer from careless use of wind technology.
But, as Grudz loves to remind everyone all the time, I AM from iowa. So there’s that.
Would contacting our PUC commissioners and telling them to support renewable energy help?
Yes, mfi, you bring up an interesting fact about the sun and the fact that it moves around the earth as understood by most in the argument. I note that at a certain time of the day, that sun shines directly in my face as I drive west. It is a nuisance, but I am not harmed by it.
I think if you looked at Facebook and social media regarding this project, you would see the real divisiveness bought on by special interests.
Sorry, instead of contacting the word should be contracting the PUC with a better monetary deal to support renewable energy. That seems to be the way the pipelines got through Paul T.
PUC approved grain elevators with minimal bonding to put the public at risk of losing their farms over a broke elevator. But these windmills can not be heard from a car with the windows down and only heard by the farmer who gets paid for it. Still very little noise, there is one on my Dad’s farm and many in the neighborhood so I know. In the Argus Leader there was an article a while back by someone in the industry who stated that they can produce electricity for 5.5 cents per kilowatt and my electric company pays 8 cents wholesale and changes me 16 cents. So it is profitable without subsidies. Let the market make it happen without making up excuses for stopping them.
The closest of the large turbines is about 3/8 of a mile North in the neighbor’s quarter. If the wind is quite brisk I hear a sound like dry gears meshing. It is not that big a boo around here since I am the only person on this whole section. My hearing aid comes out at night I hear all kinds of sounds, mostly imaginary.
Another perfect example of South Dakotans just being ignorant and then they wonder why they have a hard time getting businesses to come here.
Paul T, it wouldn’t hurt!
Possibly even more helpful: finding a passionate wind advocate to run for Kristie Fiegen’s seat on the PUC next year!
You should ask why they don’t put wind farms on federal land. . . They could have put them on BLM land without this being an issue. I suspect the reason they don’t build the wind farm on federal land is due to incurred risk.
By putting the wind farm on private fee land, only being liable to the land owner and simply making payments to landowners if something were to happen reduces the energy companies incurred risk. The landowner on the other hand doesn’t have the same deep pockets to pay attorneys like the federal government does and likes the monthly check. The feds aren’t nearly so forgiving since the check doesn’t go to their employees pockets.
Unless you are a democrat. . . Sorry Bill, Hillary, Pelosi, Daschle, Blumenthal, Leahy, Reid, Boxer, Conyers, Rangel, Hoyer, Levin and Obama. I just thought people should know.
Whoops, dude, fouled again. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/federal-rule-could-fast-track-renewables-on-public-lands-20661
Obama wanted them, trump does not. Sally Jewell wanted them, but stinky zinke does not. Just thought you should know.
Generally where these proposed sites are lie in a fairly close proximity to existing grid lines. So once again the lack of support for Henry Red Cloud comes back to bite South Dakota on the arse. We need those like Henry to take a run at this PUC to, as the republicans would say, repeal and replace them.
How much natural gas would have to be burned to back-up such a wind farm? Where is the biofuel to be consumed for such back-up?
McTaggart. OTHER WIND FARMS (overbuilt capacity) will back up these wind farms – just like they back up others. It’s no different an approach than that used by the fossil-burners – who OVERBUILD (and yes they DO) to insure their reliability/availability in all circumstances. Here – check out this nifty wind map – which demonstrates that the wind is ALWAYS blowing somewhere – VOLUNTARILY making itself available for use – and there’s no need to dig up and haul it around.
http://hint.fm/wind/
A number of years ago, I tried to invest into a wind farm, but it ran into a road block. Transmission lines and the State of Minnesota not wanting to work with South Dakota on the transmission lines.
Overbuilding doesn’t seem very likely when wind farms are not being approved (see Cory’s report above).
I note that while just about every utility is planning for more wind energy installations, they are also planning to burn more natural gas at the same time. They have to deliver the energy when people want it, not when you think they should have it.
When taking wind energy from somewhere else, the somewhere else must burn fossil fuels to replace the energy they send you. So what you are really doing is carbon-shifting.
Texas announced yesterday the shuttering of several more coal burners due to cost of coal and cheaper alternatives.
Need to get distracted dirtbag Donnie on the job and bring coal back to Texas.
There is upfront cost, and then there is the cost of operating things long-term. Right now we are obsessed with what our energy infrastructure will cost now…penny-wise and pound-foolish.
I think Indiana gets a lot of their electricity from coal.
…and leave Donnie Osmond out of this discussion….
You handle Donnie, I’ll gladly take Marie and I promise never to grab her……brother Jimmie.
In case you missed this, Karen Pence’s first hubby helped develop Viagra. Rowdy, randy wingnuts and she won’t let her present hubby dine alone with a female.
Sorry for getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic.:(
There is a bit of a catch-22 here. If aligning a wind farm to current public feedback were to require making the wind turbines smaller if not vertical in nature, then the current interested parties that build the giant propeller-based designs may no longer be interested.