The Legislative Research Council will present its new Issue Memorandum on wind energy development to the Legislature’s Executive Board this morning. Some fast facts from the five-page draft:
- South Dakota has thirteen large wind farms plus some smaller projects producing 884 megawatts of wind energy. That’s 1/100th of the U.S. wind capacity.
- This June 2018 Vox article puts our installed capacity at 977 MW, but that leaves us well behind every neighboring state except Montana and 19th in the nation.
- “As part of the permitting process, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
requires bonds, guarantees, insurance, and ‘other requirements’ (which, as of 2009, includes environmental impact statements) from applicants to provide funding for the decommissioning and removal of the wind energy facility.” Gee, I don’t think we made TransCanada or Energy Transfer Partners explain how they’ll remove their oil pipelines when we’re all driving fusion cars. But no biggie—South Dakota doesn’t really enforce its bond requirements anyway. - According to a 2011 task force, “South Dakota’s total tax burden is materially higher than its neighbors under the current system and even higher after the rebates expire for sales/use and contractors excise tax.”
- South Dakota ranks 45th in the U.S. for total energy consumption but 8th for per capita energy consumption. We use about 0.3% of the nation’s energy.
- Electricity is 5.6% cheaper per kilowatt-hour in South Dakota than the national average.
- However, federal stats show that we pay $4,098 per capita per year for all of the energy we consume, the fifth-highest per capita energy spending in the U.S.
We’ll see if this Issue Memo inspires legislators to use more wind power instead of just making wind this morning at the Executive Board meeting.
There is some good news regarding the need to account for decommissioning in the planning. But the conclusions focus on the primary challenges…
“Those challenges include limited capacity for electrical transmission out-of-state, limited in-state markets for wind energy, and some commonly contentious relationships between wind energy facilities and surrounding property owners.”
They don’t have a good place to send the excess if they ramp up the wind production, and they still have issues with people living next to them.
Even if the grid infrastructure (or permitting processes in SD and other states) and general BANANA issues (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) get solved, they need to use more of the wind energy in South Dakota.
That means existing businesses must find more uses for intermittent energy, ramp up energy storage, or they need to attract/develop new businesses that rely on wind energy from the start. Just having more businesses will consume more energy, but 24/7 demand will require the consumption of gas as well.
For agriculture, that could mean electric tractors or finding ways to displace natural gas. The latter would include biofuel production, but also other heating and drying applications.
How about cleaning the water or recycling wastes whenever the power is available? Bueller? Bueller?
Computer farms would take the energy whenever it was generated to cool their servers.
Nothing in here about recycling the infrastructure as part of decommissioning instead of filling up landfills.
South Dakota missed the boat on wind. No one wants to deal with crooks and incompetents who spend a lot of time discouraging wind development while acting like a doormat on Spyglass. The leadership in SD is stuck in the early 1950s. They’ve even started to dumb down education standards to 1950s levels. There is absolutely no vision, which is why people leave the state.
You can build all the wind you want, but if the surrounding states are not willing to take the power, then what are you going to do with it?
If they are going to support more wind energy, then either invest in energy storage (whether it is efficient or not), or use it locally right after it is made.
The latter may be more feasible, but it may need agriculture and industry to use energy when people do not (particularly overnight).
As I said, no vision. Dakota Rural Action and other groups were leading the way on wind in the late 1990s, but you had the political infrastructure bought out by the coal people. The time to have solved those issues was early. Now it’s too late. It might not be too late for solar, but since SD missed the boat on wind, I don’t think it can catch up. Wisconsin is getting a lot of wind out of Iowa and Minnesota, three states that had some vision. South Dakota could have participated, but it has had failing leadership for two or three decades. Now, of course, we’ve got a nincompoop as governor in Wisconsin, too.
If you feel bad because SD is not generating as much wind energy as other states, then there is a simple solution. Stop feeling bad :^).
If SD is more energy independent by using more of its own wind energy, that will be a good enough outcome. If it can recycle more of its infrastructure than other states, that will also be a good outcome.
Making more solar energy runs into the same problems. If there is too much, where does the energy go? And will recycling be integrated into any decommissioning plan?
Remember “The Graduate” with Dustin Hoffman? Need a “right now” use for any excess wind energy? Three words! Bit Coin Mining.
PS … South Dakota has the fifth-highest per capita energy spending in the U.S.? That fact plus the paltry wages, taxes on groceries, super cold weather in the winter and income inequality contradict the “But it’s cheaper to live here.” mantra.
This is our breakdown of energy use in 2016 according to the EIA:
Industrial: 40.2%
Transportation: 26.3%
Residential: 17.2%
Commercial: 16.3%
So more of the use is not really individual in nature…just that we have heavy users and not as many people. Really the efforts at either reducing carbon or using more wind energy should be targeting the industrial sector.
We use more natural gas than anything else in the state for energy (not just electricity)….more than coal, hydro, biomass, or wind.
The individual use of energy as well as commercial and industrial use are all top ten in USA. That’s high by any analysis.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_capita.pdf
The question really is whether wind can displace some of those high intensity uses, like nitrogen fertilizer production or crop drying. Wind may do better at secondary heating/cooling of buildings.
This article by Axios energy writer Amy Harder refers to the wholeness of an energy system that Robert keeps pointing us toward:
https://goo.gl/fsw7UB
Yes, charging our future electric vehicle fleet by nuclear makes a lot of sense. Both in terms of the amount of energy and the small footprint per kilowatt-hour that is required.
https://www.keloland.com/news/local-news/south-dakota-deals-with-struggling-natural-gas-project/1399328709
I’m surprised that the costs of plugging the gas wells up were not covered up front by some kind of mechanism.
“Republican Sen. Ryan Maher of Isabel says he’s concerned landowners may be left to pay for the dormant wells.”
Dr. McT makes a lot of sense, indeed. When we have fleets of cars, and flying cars, running on electricity only we will not be able to charge them on wind mills and solar panels on the roofs of our jails, we will need either big oil burning plants or a bunch of the nuclear sorts of power that are clean and efficient.
https://www.nei.org/voices-for-nuclear-energy
John Kerry:
“Given this challenge we face today, and given the progress of fourth generation nuclear: go for it. No other alternative, zero emissions.”
Bill Gates AND Robert Downey Jr. on the same page, all wise about the splitting of atoms. This is a day, indeed.
Nuclear Headlines Worldwide ~ (copy and paste into GOOGLE to read the story)
Putin’s “invulnerable”nuclear-powered missile lost at sea. Joins the rest of Russia’s nuclear junk there, and could be leaking radiation.
Jonathon Porritt and 60 other British writers, politicians and academics condemn the concept of a “balanced debate” about human-caused climate change. “Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests.”
The nuclear establishment cannot be trusted on radiation. Beware of the nuclear apologists.
Renewable energy systems set to go ahead with new technology enhancing flexibility.
AUSTRALIA. Australia’s climate change policy sets a dangerous precedent for the world. Australia’s new Cabinet: A motley crew of climate denialists and pro nuclear proponents.
JAPAN. Japan’s 2020 Olympic Games a public relations cover-up of the Fukushima fiasco, for the nuclear industry. Risk of terrorist attacks in Japan Olympics: Japan strengthening waterfront security. Japan’s emergency drill envisages nuclear accidents at multiple locations. Watchdog says TEPCO nuclear disaster drill ‘unacceptable’. Big safety costs for Japan’s nuclear power stations- and costs will grow yearly.
-Japan plans to reduce its 47.3 tons of stockpiled plutonium. Fukushima: UN says cleanup workers in danger of ‘exploitation’.
FRANCE. Hot weather continues to cause lower nuclear power production in France. Increased danger for mountaineers, as climate change melts the French Alps.
RUSSIA. Scepticism, even among pro-nukers, about Russia’s much boasted floating nuclear power plant. Russian official threatens use of nuclear weapons in Syria.
UK. Following Brexit, UK will no longer be a member of Nuclear Fusion for Energy. UK government outlines plans for the civil nuclear sector if Britain leaves European Union without any deal.
Continued safety worries at UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Dumping of Hinkley nuclear’s radioactive mud would break the law. Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) points out the climate change threats to proposed Bradwell B new nuclear power station.
Following Chernobyl, Britain’s District Councils’ information role was limited to PR for the government. Demolition of Windscale Pile One Stack at Sellafield.
USA.
-Donald Trump has directed the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to delay a planned trip to North Korea.
-USA emergency measures include preparations for nuclear attacks on 60 U.S. cities.
-The nuclear modernization program is not sustainable economically– Kristensen. Why bother with an underground bunker? USA tests Upgraded ‘Earth-Penetrating’ Nuclear Bomb.
-Nobody wants to pay the $4.7 Billion Nuclear Bill for South Carolina’s abandoned nuclear project.
-Nevada residents strongly opposing proposed Yucca Mountain dump scheme.
-Plutonium remains in the ground below proposed Rocky Flats national wildlife refuge.
– Small Modular Nuclear Reactors could be a costly mistake for Idaho utility.
-Hotter water forces Pilgrim nuclear power plant to half capacity.
-U.S. army increasing its investment and use of solar power.
PAKISTAN. Imran Khan and Pakistan’s nuclear bomb.
SOUTH KOREA. War fear panic is good for bunker salesmen in South Korea.
TAIWAN. Taiwan Premier encourages renewable energy, repeats commitment to phase out nuclear power.
IRAN. Britain is now contributing to upgrade of Iran’s Arak nuclear reactor.
FINLAND. Finland company looks to China’s lucrative nuclear decommissionig and nuclear waste market.
If you use more than the wind or sun can provide when you demand it, you are burning gas or coal to make up the difference. If you replace nuclear with that combo, you emit more carbon, not less. Congratulations.
With regard to radiation, it seems the anti-nukes are only concerned with radiation in nuclear that is contained in steel and concrete today. Not naturally-occurring radioisotopes that are spread into the environment by the renewable life-cycles and what is needed to back them up.
Small nuclear reactors are going to be a boon for the nations that pursue them. I hope it is us instead of China and Russia. Those are going to be necessary to back up renewables without emitting carbon :^).
If you are worried about hot water for nuclear, then one thing you could do is to use your renewables to provide secondary cooling. If renewables are indeed that great, then they should solve this problem. Shouldn’t they?
By the same token, nuclear could be helping with the energy-intensive operations necessary to make renewables or to process their wastes, as well as run flexibly.
It is renewables and nuclear, not renewables or nuclear. They can work together to reduce whatever carbon footprint each one has.
1. If you use more than the wind or sun can provide when you demand it, you are burning gas or coal to make up the difference. (Aren’t you using less gas or coal than you would without wind or sun? That’s less carbon emitted than if you had less wind and sun.)
2. What quantifies your assertion that anti-nukes are ONLY concerned with radiation in nuclear that is contained in steel and concrete today.
3. Small nuclear reactors may be one method to back up renewables. Inovative storage methods may be a safer, cheaper and quicker choice to also pursue.
If you are worried about hot water for nuclear, then one thing you could do is to use your renewables to provide secondary cooling. If renewables are indeed that great, then they should solve this problem. Shouldn’t they? ~ Asking for a total elimination of a problem is just contrary and non-innovative thinking. Renewables can mitigate the problem which is better than expecting something that’s all or nothing.
It is renewables and hopefully not nuclear. They could work together to reduce whatever carbon footprint each one has but the downside of nuclear makes it a poor avenue to pursue.
“Republican Sen. Ryan Maher of Isabel says he’s concerned landowners may be left to pay for the dormant wells.”
Ranchers in Harding County are left to cope with ragged holes dug in the earth looking for uranium. The uranium those holes emit wasn’t enough to mine, just enough to poison the immediate area. A Harding County rancher took me on a tour of the Slim Buttes and pointed out several of those gaping holes mining companies left uncovered.
I am told the PowerTech project will fix much of this, by doing that fracking business and wringing out from the earth those uraniums that weren’t dug right the first time. Ms. Geelsdottir, if you really want to see some uranium holes don’t be looking in the Slim Hills of Harding, look in the Cave Hills and the Dewey formations a-way down south in the neck of the woods in District 30, not the District 28.
I’ve seen enough of them, thank you Grudz.
Porter,
1. Yes, if you incorporate wind and sun into the mix, you would use less carbon than some coal and gas combo. But you could be emitting NO carbon at all with renewables and nuclear.
Once everything goes renewables plus gas, then as the economy or the population grows, so does the carbon. So that path will lead to more carbon than today, unless you restrict access to energy.
2. The linear no-threshold hypothesis is not being applied to any part of the renewable fuel cycle. They do not have to restrict the emissions of naturally-occurring radioisotopes. If they did, I suspect that we would probably move to a threshold model, as that would reduce costs for renewables. If you worry about the total or that any amount of radiation is bad, then renewables would become more expensive. But a threshold model would cost less with the lower concentrations.
3. Why not do both? Storage is actually great for nuclear too.
Debbo,
Old-fashioned steam shovel operations for coal, uranium, or rare earth metals without proper isolation or remediation after the fact is not the way to go. For wind, it is that we don’t care if China gets ravaged…that is over in China after all.
But if you are going to generate energy, particularly bulk heat and electricity necessary to sustain a modern society, collection of the critical elements is unavoidable. Today you need uranium for nuclear, neodymium for wind, silicon or germanium or gallium for solar, and other things for batteries. It may be that recycling of our technological wastes will become more prominent if less mining is desired, or we could try extracting these items from seawater instead.
So we can either complain about it, or do it better. If you don’t do the extraction, then you will complain about not having the lights or AC on when you want.
But doing it right will mean extra cost. We are guilty of wanting the free meal without having to clean up the kitchen.
Robert, I didn’t make my point clear. The people who dug the holes just walked away and left them. SD did nothing to protect the citizens, but rather let the mining companies walk.
To be clearer, I am not opposed to nuclear as long as safety precautions are in place and there is a viable process for handling waste. I don’t view nuclear power as an evil option.
No problem Debbo, you are preaching to the choir on this one.
The problem with building the better nuclear plants is no matter how safe it is shown to be, we don’t pursue it with the vigor that is necessary to save the climate.
Think what would occur if we did not accept rare earth metals from China until their environmental regulations were as good or better than ours. But that isn’t stopping us from pursuing renewables. The ends are justifying the means a bit because we like the ends (i.e. more wind and solar).
Drumpf was griping about wind turbines killing millions of birds while his EPA was removing fines from wind turbine companies that accidentally kill birds. Makes a kinda sense. Since turbines are anchored 20 feet deep in concrete and can’t move, the onus is on the birds to stay away.
Whose on first?
Emergency planning zones for small modular reactors may be smaller than anticipated. Current reactors must have a 10-mile zone.
This is in response to their increased safety and reduced risks, and should reduce costs associated with construction and licensing.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-regulators-agree-smaller-SMR-emergency-zones
These are the ones that can be used for process heat and boost renewables without emitting carbon.