Just a thought. Highway safety and wind power.
August 18, 2008
Thought for the day – energy and highway safety. Bet you think I am going to mention the KEC’s recommendation to lower the speed limit to 65 mph. Nope.
Instead, I am going to recommend that KDOT or Lincoln County (please, pretty please) put in an exit or a pull-out, a rest area, something! on both ends of the I-70 corridor, where motorists start traveling through the Smoky Hill Wind Farm.
That way, tourists will HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO STOP so they can jump out of their cars and take pictures of the wind turbines.
To the guy with the North Carolina plates who wasn’t paying attention to traffic: You are one lucky man.
Also, I should mention – since this is one of the top 10 questions that I get – why aren’t a lot of those turbines moving?
Answer: When you’re coming from the west (ie, headed toward Topeka) you are entering Phase II of the project, which is still under construction. When it’s finished, the turbines will get going.
When you are coming from the east (headed toward Hays) you are entering the farm through Phase I. It is complete and it is running. If those turbines are stopped, it is for routine maintenance, or the wind is gusting above safe speeds (45-50 mph, I think), or there is no wind.
If the other turbines around a stopped turbine are still turning, then it is probably not the latter.
Do I sound grumpy? Sorry. It’s because I almost turned some poor tourist into a smear. I’m definitely not over it. He scared me to death.
However, there is a good side – formerly when tourists went through Kansas, the trick was GETTING them to stop. Turns out all it takes is a bunch of tall bright shiny twirly things (who knew!).
If the issue is now just getting them to stop safely, then that’s movement in a nice direction.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Reprinted in full below, because it’s a very thorough article.
Also interesting because two of the recommendations from the Kansas Energy Council for the 2009 legislative session involve soil sequestration (which can involve no-till and partial till).
The KEC’s recommendations read: “Urge Congressional delegation to include agricultural sequestration as an offset in any federal cap-and-trade policy” and “Increase state agency and private sector efforts to educate farmers (and agricultural landowners) about the benefits—reduced CO2 emissions, energy and dollar savings—associated with no-till agriculture and existing state and federal conservation programs.”
By Katie Stockstill
McPherson Sentinel
Farmers are feeling the record-high gas prices at home and work.
Even before oil hit $140 a barrel, fuel prices were affecting Kansas farmers and escalating the cost of doing business.
According to Michael Langemeier, agriculture economist with Kansas State University Research and Extension, 2007’s average energy-related costs, per acre, for non-irrigated crop farms were 37 percent higher than the previous five years. And 2008’s fuel prices are expected to increase costs.
According to a release from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, which advocates a no-till program as a way to reduce fuel usage, a 200-horsepower diesel engine, under full load pulling a tillage implement, will burn up to 10 to 12 gallons of fuel per hour.
At a cost of $4 per gallon for diesel, that computes to $40 to $48 in fuel costs per hour. Eight hours of tilling costs $320 to $384 in fuel alone.
To counter oil prices, area farmers have adopted new habits or altered their current patterns and work styles.
Brad Shogren, of the McPherson United States Department of Agriculture Service Center, said some farmers have gone the no-till route to save on fuel. (See chart below for no-till cost savings.) Others have continued to till, but have done so with less frequency.
Farmers have also started using GPS systems to help reduce the number of laps they make in the field and make their time in a tractor of vehicle more efficient.
Shogren said small changes in farming habits can often add up to big fuel savings for area farmers.
Carl Jantz, who farms 1,300 acres in south McPherson County and some in northern Harvey, said he has already made changes to counter fuel costs.
“I wouldn’t say we’ve done anything different this year,” he said. “We started changing practices a couple of years ago. It was due in part because of fuel — we went to minimum-till practices. We are not no-till like some farmers. We spray our wheat and we are burning now, which makes it so you don’t have to work it as much.”
Any time farmers can reduce the amount of time they spend in the fields, Shogren said, they are conserving fuel. And simple changes, like making sure tractors are well-tuned and have new filters, are simple, wallet-friendly ways to decrease fuel consumption.
John Deere has responded by producing more fuel efficient farm equipment and other farm implement companies have followed suit.
Truck manufactures have also begun trying to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.
Jantz said rising commodity prices have helped offset some of the cost increases, but many farmers are still feeling the effects of $3.50 diesel.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News update: back from vacation! lots of catching up ahead.
August 18, 2008
Huge thanks to Nancy, Eileen, Christina, and Ben who blogsat while MH was away.
Drought has returned to the High Plains (with a vengeance) (NASA Earth Observatory). Click that link for lots of supercool maps and other visuals. Like this one (hopefully it will post).
Soil moisture is decreasing. There is hardpan in some places, leading to dust in others. All reminiscent of the Dust Bowl.
Wisconsin just finished its version of the Kansas KEEP climate action plan process. To read their final report click here. From the highlights – near, mid, and long range greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals:
GHG emissions in Wisconsin increased 1.2% per year from 1990 through 2003 and are projected to continue rising by 1% per year absent any policy changes. To reverse this trend and achieve Wisconsin’s proportionate share of the reductions required to minimize the impacts of global warming, the Task Force recommends three aggressive but achievable goals for Wisconsin:
A return to 2005 emission levels no later than 2014
A 22% reduction from 2005 levels (approximately equal to 1990 levels) by 2022
A 75 % reduction from 2005 levels by 2050.
Wind power financing. Minneapolis-based Midwest Wind Finance (MWF), which finances community wind farms, is moving into financing for developers (NAWindpower).
Also, Dan Nagengast of the Kansas Rural Center has posted a wind financing handout (.pdf).
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
