New Alcohol Plant

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

Did you forget that we have Bush in the Oval Office? He likes emissions!!
Bubba have you ever been back East where the emissions from the coal fired plants causes "Acid Rain"? Wind farms use no fossil fuel to produce electricity, and the wind is a cheap form of energy! However, after awhile, they tend to obliterate the "view". There are getting to be alot of wind farms around the US. As far as EPA standards or governmental regulations, when they put in the packers, they said they wouldn't stink either. The "air scrubbers" were supposed to stop the odor. Well, I can smell them miles away!

True, wind farms use no fossil fuel, but they only produce when the wind is between 3-40 mph. (not sure if those numbers are exact, but they are very close.) If there is too little, or too much wind they shut down. The power grid has to have fossil fuel plants on with enough generating capacity to back up the wind farms when they don't run. The plant in Dodge is run on natural gas. Like I said before, the last few evenings it has been running at the max because there has been no electricity coming from the wind farm.

[Made in the USA]

That means if it costs one million dollars to build a coal facility that will produce a set amount of energy - it will cost 3.4 million dollars to produce the same amount of wattage in a wind farm - but that EXCLUDES the price of the land.--Army


Army, you are forgetting that it costs money to purchase coal, and that is on a continuing basis. The wind does'nt cost anything!

Bubba, the energy produced on the wind farms doesn't even stay around here. It all goes back East, just like most of our Natural Gas Production.

[lurker]

Retired KU Professor Raymond Dean thinks it's always windy out here.... and it really isn't a bad idea; just impossible to sell it in today's economy.

Why not wind?

Critics cite pollution, long-term costs for opposition to coal plant

By Tim Vandenack

The Hutchinson News

tvandenackAThutchnews.com


No question, the wind blows strong in western Kansas.


Whether it could be effectively tapped to preclude the need for three coal-fired power generators in Finney County, however, remains a hot topic of debate.

Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is planning to build the three 700-megawatt generators - enough to power more than 750,000 homes - adjacent to a 360-megawatt generator it operates south of Holcomb. The aim is to address what the Hays-based firm and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, the Colorado utility that would own two of the new generators, say is increasing demand for power.

But the massive proposal, under review by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, has drawn fire from environmentalists and others worried about the carbon dioxide and mercury that coal generators emit. Instead, the foes say Sunflower should tap into the zone's swift breezes, building wind turbines rather than coal-fueled burners, especially in light of carbon dioxide's suspected role in global warming.

"We all need to be moving away from coal, and in Kansas, at least, we have an outstanding opportunity to move toward wind," according to Raymond Dean, a retired professor of electrical engineering at the University of Kansas. He penned a report outlining why he thinks wind is a feasible alternative to coal for Sunflower.

Nonetheless, for Sunflower officials, who explored various options before zeroing in on coal, going with the fossil fuel is a no-brainer. It's legal, plentiful and cheap. Environmentally, they say, the project isn't the boogeyman critics make it out to be, noting plans to build an algae reactor that would help dilute up to 40 percent of the generators' carbon dioxide.

Beyond that, wind isn't as reliable as coal, and building enough windmills to generate the power Sunflower and Tri-State envision would be prohibitively expensive, Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said.


4,000-megawatt wind farm

As proposed, the three new generators in Finney County would cost $3.6 billion and be built in stages between 2007 and 2013. Most of the power would go to Tri-State's member cooperatives, which are mainly in Colorado.

However, KDHE must first grant Sunflower the requisite permits. As the review process has unfolded, many, particularly in eastern Kansas, have sounded off against the plans. The project has broad support in Finney County.

For starters, Craig Volland, chairman of the air quality committee of the Kansas Sierra Club, doesn't buy the premise that 2,100 megawatts of new power are needed.

Increased conservation would go far in reducing the need for such expansion, he thinks. Couple that with wind power and mix in a bit of natural gas-fired energy, and the problem can be licked.

Dean goes further, outlining plans for a massive 4-mile by 100-mile wind turbine corridor in western Kansas that would preclude the need for any new coal-fired generators. The capacity of the wind facility would be 4,000 megawatts, but taking into account lulls in the wind at any given spot, the complex would end up equalizing the output of the three proposed coal units.

The price, he estimates, would total $5.6 billion plus another $1 billion to build transmission lines and backup natural gas-fired turbines. However, he maintains such a complex would create even more jobs than coal generators. What's more, health costs stemming from coal's pollutants and other hidden impacts make the fossil fuel even more expensive than wind over the long haul.

"The bottom line is that if we accounted for all the real costs, it would be a 'no-brainer,' " Dean wrote in his proposal. "It would (be) economically advantageous to move away from coal combustion and toward high-penetration wind power."


Too expensive

Sunflower has no problem with wind power, Miller says, and the firm is even aiming to build a wind facility. But for the scale envisioned in the Holcomb project - meant to address population growth in Colorado's Eastern Slope region - wind just doesn't pass muster, calculations like Dean's notwithstanding.

Sunflower's number crunchers estimate the project outlined by the retired University of Kansas professor would cost $10.8 billion, not the $6.6 billion he forecasts. And that would be passed on to customers, resulting in a tripling, on average, of electricity bills.

"Is it moral to go out and make that choice and triple their energy bills for this decision?" asked Miller, alluding to the instances of a single parent struggling to scrape by or a business trying to stay competitive. "I don't think so."

Though the current debate is focused on coal power, Miller says Sunflower by no means has a one-track mind. He notes the algae reactor and other elements of a proposed bioenergy center adjacent to the coal-fired generators, including an ethanol plant, which would recycle each other's byproducts.

"It's kind of exciting because we're convinced it'll work and we'll be on the leading edge of doing new technology," Miller said.

Still, for others like Dean, the overriding concern is what they see as a continued emphasis on coal, which accounts for about half of all power generated in the United States. Coal proponents think the fossil fuel will always be the major component of power generation in the United States, but Dean maintains that such thinking is outmoded and "just plain wrong."

A proposal for three coal-fired generators in Finney County has reignited the debate on using wind vs. coal to power electricity.

The proposal: Build three 700-megawatt generators, enough to power more than 750,000 homes. Cost has been estimated at $3.6 billion. A plant to build an algae reactor that would help dilute up to 40 percent of the generators' carbon dioxide is also in the works.


Supporters say: Coal-fired plants are cheaper, wind isn't as reliable, and building enough wind plants to power that many homes would be too expensive.


Opponents say: A wind turbine corridor could equal the output of the proposed coal units. Cost has been estimated at $5.6 billion plus another $1 billion for transmission lines and backup natural gas-fired turbines. The health costs, stemming from the coal plant pollution, would cost more in the long-term.

12/08/2006; 02:34:53 PM

Made in the USA said:

..the energy produced on the wind farms doesn't even stay around here. It all goes back East, just like most of our Natural Gas Production.

Natural gas is piped to specific destinations.
Electricity is injected into grids .... it's impossible to specify where it's used... Dodge City's water is injected into a grid and I can't specify what water well I want my water to come from.

Computer data is injected into a grid BUT we can be specific about where it goes. That's cuz data is stuffed into packets.... envelopes with addresses on the cover.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

That means if it costs one million dollars to build a coal facility that will produce a set amount of energy - it will cost 3.4 million dollars to produce the same amount of wattage in a wind farm - but that EXCLUDES the price of the land.--Army


Army, you are forgetting that it costs money to purchase coal, and that is on a continuing basis. The wind does'nt cost anything!

Bubba, the energy produced on the wind farms doesn't even stay around here. It all goes back East, just like most of our Natural Gas Production.

That is true for the wind farm in Spearville, but Aquila has rights to some of the energy produced from the wind farm in Montezuma. That is why the power plant plant in Dodge City runs up and down most of the time, chasing the power from the wind farm in Monte....

[Made in the USA]

That is true for the wind farm in Spearville, but Aquila has rights to some of the energy produced from the wind farm in Montezuma.--Bubba

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought the wind farm at Monte was owned by Florida Power and Light.

[lurker]

Welperz, I heard that some land a few miles west of Dodge and just south of the railroad track was sold as a parcel for another alkehall plant.

I think I'm gunna start saving water now.

[Big Daddy]

We all should start saving water. Before we know it all the water we will have access to well be in a bottle!!!

[Made in the USA]

Print this
Email this
OTHER ARTICLES OF INTEREST:
Quickly boosting ethanol production through advanced process control
Faster, Better, Cheaper
‘Mixed Alcohol’ from Distillers Grains Gasification
From the December 2006 Issue


ATEC Steel acquires tank production plant in Kansas


Article Continues After Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based in Dodge City, Kan., ATEC Steel recently purchased a 100,000-square-feet field weld tank production facility in Baxter Springs, Kan. The company was expected to produce steel tanks at the manufacturing facility, formerly owned by Liebherr, in mid-October.
“This plant was built as a world-class manufacturing facility for heavy steel fabrication,” said Noel Garrett, president of ATEC Steel. “In lieu of planned phased expansions, ATEC can now immediately service all of the requirements for our customers.”

ATEC Steel, a subsidiary of Tank Connection, specializes in dry-bulk (hopper...


This article appeared in an Ethanol Producers Magazine this month. Does anybody know who "ATEC Steel" is in Dodge City???

[Bubba]

I've never heard of them.....

[lurker]

The only tank roller of any size in this area is Palmer Mfg. and Tank in Garden City. They are very successful.

Powder and Bulk Dot Com Newsletter - October 9, 2006 ran this last October.

ATEC Expands : Purchases New Field-Weld Tank Facility

Parsons, KS -- ATEC Steel has announced their purchase of a 100,000 sq. ft. plant in Baxter Springs, KS, a former Liebherr plant. ATEC Steel is an industry leader in knocked-down, high quality steel fabrication. Their specialty is dry bulk (hopper tanks) and liquid (flat bottom) storage tanks and silos for the power, industrial & petroleum markets.

Corporate website: Dry Bulk and Liquid Storage Systems - Tanks, Hoppers and Silos