From the Douglas Budget, Last modified: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:03 AM Mountain
Pioneer Wind Park will impact the future
TO THE EDITOR:
Like so many other proposed projects in and around the great State of Wyoming, the Pioneer Wind Park project has become a "target" for a small - read special interest - group, who is not terribly interested in the betterment of the well being of the general populace, but more interested in politicizing their point of view. In realistic terms, the number of "permanent" jobs created by the PWP, is relatively low. But, in future-looking terms, the impact is far reaching. And, it should really come as no surprise that the future is what is being impacted.
Wyoming, as we all know, is the largest energy producer in the U.S. with coal, gas, oil and uranium. Why should we not continue to follow that trend by adding an abundant natural resource to the energy mix? Yes, there are some environmental impacts in the immediate insofar as the construction effort is concerned. Long-term, the impacts are negligible comparatively speaking, especially when you compare to fossil fuel generated forms of power. Furthermore, the immediate impact of this type of power generation contributes to local coffers, increases local business revenues and affords employment opportunity which can parlay into career opportunities.
Coal, oil, gas, uranium - none of these forms of energy will be "phased out" of use in my lifetime, and one could argue for the foreseeable future. The truth is we do not have an alternative to these forms of energy and therefore we will continue to use them until such a time as we extinguish the supply or have developed a replacement fuel source. In the interim, companies looking for places to grow their business will weigh things like available energy sources, workforces, infrastructure, legislation, transportation, housing, etc. and will look for sustainable/green energy as they struggle to minimize their "carbon footprint" and "CO2 emissions" as the 'global market' will increasingly demand.
In the perfect world, we would be able to convert coal to liquid to provide our transportation fuel needs for aircraft, locomotive and motorized vehicle. Oil would be used solely for our chemical industry. Gas would be a primary heat source. Think about it, in this mix our resources would continue to be utilized, but in different ways and our overall CO2 emissions would reduce. But, that is utopian at best and will not be likely over the course of my lifetime.
So, what are the options?
Do nothing, a.k.a. business as usual - easiest of all options but not necessarily the most beneficial and certain to lead to more problems as the world ratchets up opposition by burning fossil fuels as a primary electrical generation strategy.
Build alternative fuel sources - we have probably learned by now that burning corn generated ethanol does not really gain us anything other than to reduce the effluents produced from burning fossil fuels for locomotion. And, though not widely publicized, producing ethanol is a net loss energy game. The process - here is a big surprise - consumes more energy than it produces. By the way, that is a fundamental law of physics - energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only change forms. And lastly, disposing of the ethanol residual materials is not without its own challenges.
Construct renewable energy facilities - while this is not a panacea or a magic bullet to cure all of our ailments, it may be a way for us to reduce our fossil consumption rate. It will likely not stop our consumption - we have developed industries around fossil fuels and indeed many of products we use and enjoy on a daily basis are directly related to fossil fuels - from water bottles to inks to televisions to MRI machines to lipstick to vehicle tires and the list is seemingly endless.
Renewable energy facilities will ultimately reduce our need to "burn" fuel to generate electricity. Don't misunderstand me - at our current rate, we need only construct about 1 million turbines capable of producing about 2mW each and we would probably have enough power for all of the U.S., for a year or two. It is highly unlikely that we will construct that many turbines. If you consider that our projected nationwide wind energy potential is approximately 10,458,945 mW and our latest annual consumption rate is 3,741,458,000 mW hours, we need to construct approximately (3,741,485,000mW hours/17,520 mW hours-energy produced by one two mW turbine running 24/7/365)/.35-efficiency= 610,157 turbines, of installed wind power in the US. If this source were capable of producing 24/7/365 it would generate approximately 305,399,880 mW hours or roughly 8 percent of our current consumption. The point here is simple, it will take us generations to build enough wind powered electrical generation to make a meaningful impact on our consumption. But, if we fail to act now, the price tag to do what we will ultimately be forced to do will only increase, and if we continue to develop now, the burden our kids and the generations who follow them will be less. After all, isn't that the dream we have as Americans, to build a better life for ourselves and our offspring.
Having spent time in many of the areas which have been homes to wind farms for years if not decades, it is difficult for me to see the "terrible" environmental impact form constructing these sites. I suspect that the people who oppose this type of development are not terribly different than the people who would oppose a national park or mining operation, or ski resort which may have been proposed. Take home point, because we live in a great nation with freedoms beyond most others, we are free to voice opposition. However, in our case the squeaking wheel is usually much better off financially, than the rest of us.
Trying to do my best for my family, fellow man and Country,
Robert Short,
Douglas
