AIR POWER: One time Haven family farmland east of Watford City
Image: North Dakota Supreme Court
When plans to build North Dakota's largest transmission line in three decades were unveiled, it seemed as though the political, legal and economic stars were in alignment. Minnesota's legislators wanted more renewable power, North Dakota farmers looked forward to the extra income, and environmental groups championed the line for carrying "green power" and cutting reliance on coal.
A 345-kilowatt, 270-mile-long transmission line in North Dakota has been in the planning stages since 2009. Minnkota Power Cooperative, the energy co-op behind it, released four potential routes to the public this past December. Because the study areas included private land, much of which is owned by farmers, it was felt there might be some objections.
Often referred to as the "Saudi Arabia of wind," North Dakota has a big stake in the nation's wind power development. So do the farmers and landowners whose property the turbines go on. Some are getting easement payments that add up to $10,000 a year, explained Chad Weckerly, a grain, wheat, corn and soybean farmer, and many of those payments increase 2 percent each year.
So far, though, backers of the proposed trans-Dakota line have been on a learning curve, running into a snarl of reasons showing that very little is easy about being green.
In the past few months, Weckerly has held four meetings across the state for landowners to voice their concerns. One of Weckerly's main issues is a loss of wind rights. He said the transmission line would take up too much space to allow landowners to lease their property to wind developers in the future.
"Generally, one wind turbine to another turbine is a 2,000-foot distance," said Weckerly, who sits on the board of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. "So if you're the lucky landowner that gets the transmission line on your property, it's not possible to get wind turbines on your land."
One-time payments are not enough
Minnkota has offered some landowners a one-time payment of $37,000 a mile for the new transmission line, Weckerly said. But the key here is one time. "The landowners are very much feeling that they should have annual payments," he said.
It's not that Weckerly or the state Farm Bureau oppose the project.
"We're not going to stand in the way of projects like this," said Jeff Missling, the organization's state executive director. "The biggest thing is making sure our landowners receive just compensations."
The $280 million transmission line, which will start outside of Center, N.D., and run east to Grand Forks, crosses 12 counties and is meant to replace an existing line that extends to Duluth, Minn., near Lake Superior.
That existing line, which transmits power from a coal-fired power plant in central North Dakota, is being sold to electricity provider Minnesota Power. Right now, Minnesota and North Dakota split the coal-generated energy from the Milton R. Young power station's Unit 2, located near Center, N.D., otherwise known as Young 2, with each state getting half.
Minnesota Power wants to add the existing transmission line with North Dakota wind power to its transmission system in order to meet Minnesota's renewable portfolio standard. The state mandates that 25 percent of Minnesota's energy be renewable by 2025.
The new Minnkota transmission line seeks to phase out all of Minnesota's dependence on the coal-fired Young 2 plant by 2024.
But another factor prompting the new line is North Dakota's increasing energy demand. In 2009, Minnkota forecast that its load will increase by nearly 2 percent every year for the next 25 years. This demand would otherwise prompt construction of a new coal-fired plant, Minnkota contends, but the new transmission line makes this unnecessary.
The current line shared by Minnkota and Minnesota Power carries an alternating current, meaning all of the power has to travel the path of least resistance. Since the power is generated in North Dakota, all of it follows a path to Minnesota. The new line would have a direct current, meaning the flow of power can be controlled at any time. This new advantage, coupled with North Dakota's eventually receiving all of the Young 2 coal power, is what makes a new coal plant unneeded.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentSo at $280M and an average wind capacity factor of 25% this works out to $3.5B/Gw which is about the cost per GW of a first of a kind nuke that the Minnesota leg just approved - no transmission line required. When we add $15B/Gw for the wind power itself we need to ask if the local politicians are smoking some of the agricultural communities most profitable but still illegal product.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdayal, you forgot to add the cost of finding a safe place to dispose of the used wind turbine blades, since those can't be touched for millennia being made of toxic metals like plutonium. Oh, and preventing the wind from getting into the hands of terrorists--A suitcase full of sheet metal in the middle of Times Square, just think of what that would do to the world! Just look at all the mess they're having in Japan with those uncontrollable wind turbines, ruining the seaweed industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people just don't understand that there are subsidies, and then there are military-industrial-complex subsidies.
In case anyone doesn't get sarcasm, it's the first paragraph.
What's the cost of all the extra safety features? The cost of the removal and safe long-term disposal of the spent fuel? The cost to the locals that comes form the reduction of their property values (as happens almost always when a nuclear facility is built)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll necessary safety features are included in the cost of the new AP-1000 nuclear plants. The cost of nuke fuel disposal is covered by a per kwh tariff on nuke energy now up to $35B in a fund. It will never be used since the used fuel will be reused in Gen IV reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a no more reduction in the value of property on the vicinity of a nuke plant. It is impossible to sell residential property in the vicinity of a wind farm.
You have no idea of the incredible and deadly mess created by your windmills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead it and weep.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
The leakage from an ancient sixties vintage nuke - impossible in a modern nuke - damaged by the corruption so endemic to Japanese culture will be gone in a few weeks while the windmill toxic waste is forever.
The fiberglass windmill blades shred and break down often ending up in toxic waste dumps.
The filthy stinking,deadly particulate, GHG, NOX and radioactive radon gas spewing natural gas plant required to load balance the windmill because of system wide methane spews as almost as many GHG's as coal killing for certain hundreds in North America annually.
While the toxic waste fuel of a modern nuke plant is perfectly contained awaiting reuse as fuel in Gen IV nukes, obviously the toxic spew from the every twenty year total replacement of aged windmills is not.
The Japanese nuke plant saved the lives of hundreds of workers who would have perished in the tsunami and has killed nobody. Windmills are deadly killers of installation and maintenance crews and hundreds of Americans are killed every year by the deadly explosions and toxic spew from all the gas plant required to load balance the suckers.
There are no terrorists concerned with nuke plants. Their favorite target these days are the massive nuke bomb sized LNG plants supplying backup power for the windmills.
So, what nuclear company do you work for? Do you get paid by the article? Is the money good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInquisitive minds want to know!
The power line is reputed to carry 345Kw about what a large auto engine would produce, do you mean it operates at 345Kv
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgood catch...although 345kw would be about 7000 horse power..maybe a locomotive...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this