Wind-farming: New structure for producing energy
By MICHAEL YATES
Contributing writer
With recent fluctuations in gas prices and the constant need for cleaner, long-lasting sources of energy, Kansas may start to feel a pull for the installation of wind farms. Recent project ideas already have put pressure on the Flint Hills region, as numerous proposals of the establishment of several hundred wind generators have been suggested.
Wind farms, also known as Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), are large collections of wind-powered generators that typically span for thousands of acres.
While there are several different models of wind towers, each one consists of the same three general components: the generator, the support shaft, and the blades.
The generator itself, also known as the nacelle, weights an average of 50 tons and is the size of a motor home. This piece converts the wind energy into usable electricity.
The generator connects to the blades and rests on the support shaft. The shafts are approximately 200 to 300 feet tall, though most average around 250 feet. With the blades of a tower having a radius anywhere from 120 to 160 feet long, some towers can have a total height of 300 to 450 feet.
Though taller towers typically generate more electricity, and therefore reduce the number of required towers, the height of some generators will be greater than the Epic Center, Wichita's tallest building.
The placement of these giant structures in the Flint Hills has been a controversial argument for the past couple of years, but new support pressuring area residents to begin construction on wind farms in the Flint Hills recently has sparked a heated debate.
Building a wind farm in the Flint Hills would provide a clean, renewable energy source for communities, new jobs, and potential revenue. In Kansas such farms also are tax exempt.
"In essence, they're subsidized," explains David Brazil, Marion County Planning and Zoning Director. Brazil described the need for renewable energy sources as being "ethically the right choice."
Some experts predict 10 to 20 percent of our energy will be from renewable energy sources (e.g., sources of energy that will never be exhausted, such as solar and wind) by the year 2015. One proposal to install 1,000 wind generators in the Flint Hills region could generate 1/1000 of the entire nation's energy supply.
Nevertheless, some argue the resources required to construct a wind farm will not be worth the initial investment.
At the end of 2002, there were roughly 15,000 wind towers in the U.S. Though the towers were scattered over 27 states, 90 percent of the total capacity from those wind towers was held in six states: California, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. However, every generator in those six states combined still produced less energy than one nuclear power plant or one large coal-fired power plant, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's "Annual Energy Outlook 2003."
Another advantage of wind farm proposals would include opportunities for local landowners to receive money from energy companies for allowing construction of generators on their property.
Brazil described the gamble landowners take by granting energy companies their land. "Some landowners do very well; others don't feel like it was worthwhile."
While a wind farm could provide plenty of revenue and energy for the state, there are plenty of environmental and financial concerns as well.
The number one concern of many environmental activists and local residents is the scarcity of the original "Tallgrass Prairie." Less than three percent of the original North American Tallgrass Prairie remains intact today, and a large majority of that is contained in the Flint Hills. The original Tallgrass Prairie is, in itself, an endangered ecosystem full of animals that can rarely be found anywhere outside their natural habitats. The prairie chicken is one such animal. In the past 10 years the prairie chicken has rapidly approached extinction.
Not surprisingly, the effort to preserve the area and prized habitat is notable, even on a national level. Not only would a considerable amount of land be occupied by the towers themselves, but a large network of new roads would be needed for the transportation of required equipment in order to build the towers. Additional transmission lines for the transfer of energy also would be necessary.
Economical concerns for landowners don't end there, either. Each tower would require a hefty solid concrete foundation, each being approximately 30 feet deep and 15 feet square. When the towers are removed, the top four feet of the pad is removed and replaced with soil. The remaining 26 feet of concrete is left in the ground.
For the amount of effort to build a tower, the lifespan of the structure seems to be rather short. The nacelle of every tower must be replaced every 20-25 years, though they can be placed on the older shaft. If the sponsored energy company decides not to replace the generators, the tower becomes obsolete, and ultimately, the object of a finger-pointing argument of who's responsible for cleaning it up.
There are more critical factors that go into the building location of wind towers (fall-zones, bird migration paths, noise, landscape, and winter hazards when ice begins to collect on the blades), but ultimately the debate is reduced to the question: Just how important are the Flint Hills?
The Flint Hills attract many visitors with a widely-known reputation of beauty and magnificence, but many proposing power companies are not impressed with the number of tourists. Some believe wind towers would generate a much larger amount of revenue compared to income from regional tourism.
As people become more educated about wind farming, the argument may become less about "when" and "if" they should be built, and more about "where." New discussions concerning the possibility of wind farm construction in areas just north of U.S.-50 recently have presented a possible alternative to the Flint Hills debate.
Although the sight of hundreds of tall, white, spinning propellers may not be the most attractive landscape Kansas has to offer, most would agree it might be a better sight than an oil refinery or nuclear power plant.
