digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at cleantechnica.com

Missouri Town Powered Fully by Wind

cleantechnica.com — The town of Rock Port, in Missouri, is another of the growing number of towns and cities laying claim to be powered entirely by a renewable energy. And though the small town only boasts a population of 1,300, it is the first community in the United States to be powered entirely by wind power.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Athlyn, on 07/23/2008, -4/+19This is the wave of the future. It's encouraging to see that unlimited and natural energy sources are being turned to.
    • ElSnuggles, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't this be the "breeze of the future" not the "wave"? Tidal energy is cool too, but I just don't see this town producing much...
    • brundlefly76, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Its the future for certain places. Wind turbines only work in very specific areas of the US where there is substantial wind. This is why you see them going up in the Texas panhandle alot.

  • empeethree, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3original article

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/080715-wind ...
  • socialpyramid, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13The answer is blowing in the wind...
  • LilyRose54, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13Good for Rockport! In this area of the country we have a LOT of wind (some pioneer women went insane from it) and it seems logical to me to use it. Wish we had more than two in the city of Lincoln, NE.
  • Masternajee, on 07/23/2008, -2/+10Excellent sign of the times to come.
    • daddiogig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Excellent? To provide the same amount of power as a standard coal electric plant provides, it takes 196 square miles of property to properly space all of the turbines. Multiply that amount of land by the wattage we would need for every house in the USA to have electricity and we would need all of China and Russia together to plant the wind turbines. Now how is that excellent? And what do those people do for their own electricity when we have used nearly the whole world to provide space for just our wind farms? No Masternajee - this is not excellent. You are just one of those non-thinkers who agree that anything is better than the way it is. By the way, how would we sustain a 12.5 MPH wind throughout all of that land to run these excellent turbines? Now take a little time to think and then tell us how excellent this all will be. Some people will accept anything they are hearing just so they can look cool. The problem with being so open minded is that your brain has more of a chance of falling out of your head.
  • sustainablogger, on 07/23/2008, -1/+10This was also the first wind farm in the state of Missouri...
  • Junkey, on 07/24/2008, -0/+11Very bad ass but I have to ask. What about days where there isn't wind?
    • travisg100, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3From what I understand it's like constantly charging a battery. The energy that the wind produces is stored somewhere and used as needed so on days with no wind it just drains the stored energy and then on windy days it just charges it back up.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/24/2008, -0/+14Everyone must go outside and blow at the wind farm
    • gameboyhippo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+14Common question. We are on the grid. We actually sell our excess energy to the grid and we get energy from the grid when we are not producing enough energy. Needless to say, we produce more energy than we use.
      • santaliqueur, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8We? Are you part of this town?
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8He's one of the wind machines. They're sentient.
      • natenovs, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4a 2-way power grid is an excellent idea
      • foofightrs777, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Yes, he is. As evidenced by the fact that he used "we" rather than "they".

        (and because he said so in another thread)
      • rocketman42, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Doesn't that imply that you're NOT fully powered by wind? Sure if you look at the aggregate, you can say you produced enough wind energy to power all the needs of the town, but without coal (or whatever your local energy company is using), your town would go dark during calm weather.

        This is still good news, but saying it is fully powered seems more like a PR move than reality.
    • MrFurious2k, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Unfortunately this is the biggest negative of wind power. Right now, wind turbines must be supplemented to 90% of their projected capacity by conventional sources. Since conventional sources cannot be "turned up" or "turned down" easily, there is a significant question of waste.
    • N00F, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2There will always be down time with wind power, that is to be expected. But the power that it does add to the grid is always a help.
      Now, what if the windmills were to pump water instead of generate electricity? The water would be pumped to a higher ground, like a tower or the top of a hill, into a reservoir. The water would then run downhill and power a turbine. When the wind stops, the water continues to run, sort of like stored energy. When the wind picks up again, it starts to pump water to the top. There could be a problem if the reservoir runs out before the wind starts to blow again, but if the reservoir is big enough, it could be unlikely.
      I think that's a pretty good idea that hasn't been explored.
  • tbhurst, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12Missouri? Really? Good for them.
    • sustainablogger, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Yep, really... we're not total hicks... ;-)
      • gameboyhippo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Hey wait... This is my home town and we are hicks. :)
      • BNSF9647, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3We even have internet to get onto Digg!
      • bjornski, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2@BNSF9647

        Your Wi-Fi reaches the outhouse?
      • kukurio, on 07/25/2008, -3/+0The proper term is hoosier.
    • rizzo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2some of us not at all.....
  • whiterice0, on 07/24/2008, -0/+17Oh yeah. Show me.
    • Slothy88, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9I see what you did there.

      Clever man.
  • Mr.Gone, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10Well, technically it's powered by baked beans but... well you get the point.
  • Merendino, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7How expensive is the energy? Just curious.
  • SpectralSounds, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5And all was well with the world. That is, until Global Warming changed the climate there and the winds packed up and went to nicer climates. Damn winds.
  • Rempefiesta, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3I thought Missouri was finally getting dial-up.
    • JimmyIkon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I'm typing this on a 50mb connection, so it's no that bad.
  • damian7, on 07/24/2008, -4/+16Taken from another article:

    " One nuclear reactor will produce ~1200 MW of power, but the single largest wind farm in entire US generates only 735.5 MW, and takes up 118 square miles.

    Keep on dreaming, wind power proponents. "
    • F9Phoenix, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11The only problem is a windmill won't melt people's faces off when it blows up.
      • santaliqueur, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7WHEN it blows up? Nuclear is safer than any other major power source.
      • Justice101, on 07/24/2008, -4/+3I'm pretty sure nuclear power is going to be inherently safer than giant spinning blades, but that's just my opinion.
    • NolanFinn, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Why hate on wind?
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1Not to mention the claims of birds being killed and people complaining of the ugliness of the wind farms
      • cheezintern, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6Yea, everyone I know would rather have a nuclear power plant in their backyard....
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Well yeah, but I was just commenting on the anti-wind arguments that have already been made with wind farms. Not necessarily saying people would prefer nuclear.
    • GreyICE, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4Well saying it takes up 118 square miles is pretty much the opposite of what the Arctic drilling proponents do. They insist on totaling the square footage their equipment is sitting on, not the actual area adversely affected.

      You've decided that somehow all of those 118 square miles are now unusable. Which doesn't match observations.

      When it was expensive, it was how much they cost. Environmentalists said the price of oil was going up and wind going down. You scoffed. Now it's "Look how much area they take up."

      Soon it's going to be "Will someone think of the birds?"

      Lets face it, most conservatives would rather rip their face off and eat it than admit the environmentalists they mocked were, well... correct.
      • damian7, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1What the ***** are you talking about?

        Oil DOES NOT EQUAL Nuclear

        This isn't about environmentalism vs. conservatism, this is about the few Nuclear power plants in America which is powering a significant amount of the country.

        The advocates for wind power say that it would require massive federal funding to get even 20% of our energy from wind power by 2030! Absolutely ridiculous.

        As for the 118 square miles, they ARE pretty much unusable. Businesses will not move there, people think they're ugly, and federal laws will prohibit people from entering the farms. Therefore, most of these plants will be moved into rural communities ruining perfectly good farm land.

        Lets not forget that Nuclear energy is constantly being upgraded. In the next few years, the DEMO project should be completed which will allow us to generate 25X more energy than the average plant. That's equivalent to roughly 25 of the largest wind power plants. Saving close to 3000 square miles.
      • alicynx, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I think that something major is being missed here. Nuclear energy produces this horrible stuff we label 'toxic waste'. Its really disgusting stuff, and pretty much kills everything it comes into contact with. On the other hand, what is the byproduct of wind energy?
        Yes, birds' lives are an issue - they are being rerouted with the use of netting now, and in the future we will surely come up with some way to divert their paths to avoid any danger.
        Most of these wind farms are being placed in barren areas where people wouldn't live anyway - negating the argument they're ugly (i disagree, a nuclear reactor is FAR uglier to me than a windmill) and take up too much space.
        Overall, wind energy is greener than nuclear, hands down. Isn't there an argument brewing about a federal radioactive waste dump site in Nevada? (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/05/943 ...
        Green can be conservative too, you know. Nuclear is just a bad choice all around, take it from someone who has lived most of her life within 50 miles of a reactor (Hanford, Trojan, WHPPS, etc).
    • Justice101, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I don't think anyone minds how much land the turbines are taking up, as long as the giant pillars are located in a desert or something, and not for example in the middle of Yellowstone.
      • docbob84, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Just build them in large open areas of farmland. Maybe I'm nuts but I don't think they even look that bad, some of the modern sleeker ones anyway. As for security concerns, I don't see why people care that much. The blades only turn at a few RPM's so they aren't going to fly off and destroy a town. And if someone decides to blow one up, they're going to cause a little damage and maybe take out a few megawatts of power. They probably aren't going to get more than one with a bomb, and if the bomb is big enough to take out several I'd much rather them destroy a wind mill than, say, a school or a nuclear power plant.
    • themonkman, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Your conveniently forgetting what is going to be done with the nuclear waste that nuclear power plants produce. Not only is it a social and environmental concern, it's becomes a bit of a national security concern as well. As with any material that can be weaponized, the more there is of it, the harder it is to keep secure. It's just like buildings. The amount of vulnerabilities and points of entry into buildings increases with it's size.

      Nuclear fuel is also a finite source. Mining for uranium comes at a very high toll to the land. It also increases our reliance on foreign countries for our energy sources. Fortunately, Canada is the largest producer of uranium, followed by Australia and Kazakhstan. The US is #8 on the list, and we are preceded by the countries of Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan and Namibia. When dealing with finite sources, you deal with uncertainties, just like oil. As battery technology advances, our ability to store the wind harnessed energy will become much better and yield lower energy losses. Unused federal land would be great places to put renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal/hydroelectric.
  • ePuck, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5Portland Oregon is fully powered by water.

    Wind turbines are very loud btw
    • themonkman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Most newer wind turbine engines can barely be heard further than 200-300 meters away. Just like cars these days are not typically as loud as an old Mustang or El Camino, more recent wind turbines are quieter, too. Besides, who is going to hear a wind turbine that is in a field that is miles from any home?
    • alicynx, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Actually, Portland is powered using several green sources - wind, solar, and biomass being just a few. (http://www.greenpoweroregon.com/green-power/renewa ...
      We are in the forefront of a mational movement to get greener power sources, and I sincerely hope that the rest of the country follows our example!
  • b3owolf, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Well, knowing my energy consumption habits, I could cripple this town in one weekend.
  • ThePerkins, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2The wind is provided by a scientific genius who created the system in exchange for the townspeople letting him run generators for scientific experimentation. A rival of mine commissioned this man to build him a teleportation machine. I must have one.
  • nontoxyc, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4This article doesn't have very much detail. I find it a little hard to believe that the whole town is powered by wind. Do they all drive electric cars too? As someone else mentioned, what about days when the wind doesn't blow? My understanding is that serious storage systems are a big problem for wind power like solar. Reminds me of the 300 mpg v8 special-chip mustang article
  • MCBROCK, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2On a still and very dark night ...
  • DomoDigital, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5I always knew the southern states were progressive.
  • CharlesSaint, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16I hear Washington DC is powered by hot air...
    • ThePerkins, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4BA-ZING!!!
    • jdago, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1i can believe that. hot air rises to bad some of them dont float into space
  • koenigje, on 07/24/2008, -7/+4Ok here is the real problem with wind power:
    1) The wind doesn't blow everyday, therefore no power those days.
    2) On days with no wind, the turbines actually USE power from the grid.
    3) It's a very small range of wind speed/direction that actually run the turbines at 'optimal' condition......which is what they brag about and do studies on, not the actual values.
    4) It is a huge start-up cost for these turbines and structure......they really aren't cost efficient.

    But hey what do I know......I'm just an Electrical Engineer that have done studies on these!
    • kenedamick, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3Wow - you must be very proud of yourself.
      • koenigje, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Well my mommy is........

        And it's call credibility. Asshat.
      • kenedamick, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Did you do any studies at blowhard school as well?
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Ok here are the real problems with Coal and Gas:
      1) They release CO2
      2) they aren't renewable
      3) They ***** up the environment

      But hey, its all ok if climate change doesn't affect me.
      • natenovs, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2ok here are the real problems with your argument:
        1) He wasn't suggesting the Coal and Gas are better
        2) Wind takes up a lot of space and therefor ***** up the environment too
        3) Nuclear is a better option, but you decided to leave it out.
    • themonkman, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4To your assertions:

      1.) There are batteries that are charged by the turbines which store power for days in which there is no wind. Cities augmenting their power with wind are obviously still on the grid, so they would continue to have power on days of low wind production.

      2.) On days with no wind, one could always have sensors on the turbines that turn of their electromagnets and turn them back on when enough wind is detected. Again, the turbines could use idle power from the battery on days of low production to keep their electromagnets powered up.

      3.) So your saying that a swiveling turbine could not adjust for optimal wind or speed direction? Perhaps they do not have these yet, but a system like that would be variably easy to incorporate with current turbine designs. It's not much unlike how a wind vain works.

      4.) The startup costs for other power sources, like new coal and nuclear plants would be much higher, I would imagine.

      I could be called an electrical engineer if I wired up houses during construction. That doesn't make me an expert on wind turbines or alternative and renewable energies. I would personally love to read your studies. Where are they published? Also, calling people "asshats" also doesn't lend to your credibility.
      • koenigje, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1And to your assertions:
        1) Yes I know there are battery backups, but battery backups are very big and currently don't have the capacity to hold a large charge for a long time.

        2) Yes sensors will help cut down the amount of power being used, but even senors use up energy.

        3) Ok if it is so easy to have a swiveling turbine, why isn't there one yet? It's due to trying to control the large blades and head efficiently without taking away from the structure of the machine. More moving parts means more chances to break down, leading to longer down times.

        4) Actually the start up costs are lower if you compare the energy output to the manufacturing costs.

        I'm not dissing 'green power'. I think it is the way to go in the future. We just don't have the technology yet to do it effectively.

        Oh and wiring up houses is what electricians do, not engineers. We sit at desks and on site wear white hats. Also my studies aren't publicly published. I work for a engineering consulting firm and only clients are made available to the information.

        And calling people asshats doesn't help credibility, but some people just are asshats.......asshat.
      • kenedamick, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Sir, you are the biggest RETARD I have seen on digg in awhile. Congrats on that and your electrical engineering masterpiece.
    • stev31h, on 07/25/2008, -5/+2im applying to grad schools soon for engineering, what school did you graduate from so i can avoid it?
    • docbob84, on 07/25/2008, -1/+0It must not be too bad. I doubt a CEO of an electric company just wakes up one morning and decides to build a wind farm, at least not as often as it's happening. I imagine studies are done and the feasibility and cost to profit ratios are calculated. If it didn't stand any chance of making them money, they wouldn't do it. So someone with more knowledge and more power than your electrical engineering degree must have determined it's not as bad an idea as you think it is. Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?
  • alukima, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6I actually worked in this town for a long time. The funny thing is that it's not a progressive town in the least bit. The town is made up of your stereotypical big truck driving "good ol' boys".
    I guess this shows that alternative energy isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's just common sense at this point.
    • foofightrs777, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That's what we've been trying to tell everyone for the past 10 years!
    • dave11980, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Actually they probably just wanted to go "off grid" after reading one too many conspiracy theories.
  • kenedamick, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Explains why the mayor is so full of hot air.
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Wind and solar power are the future. We don't need coal and hydrocarbons.
    • daddiogig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
  • Kenzan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I thought Missouri was powered by White Lightning and Moonpie farts.
  • BulgyMoose, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1pretty neat to see a place in the US operating on clean energy.
    • daddiogig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Leave it to a guy calling himself BulgyMoose to fall for this ***** hype. Some people think they are green just by acknowledging this kind of crap.
  • madrigaelic, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2This story is so old, it's painful to see it on the front door again. I mean, this was on Wired Science in April: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/america ...
    • alicynx, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0omg, that was, like, SO three months ago. Tre' Passe.
      If this was on a newspaper a year ago, I'd share your lack of enthusiasm. Some of us are just reading about this now, and in light of the current cultural circles of green energy promotion, it is still timely.
      imho.
  • jfish, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2It's not about this small town going green, it's a Mizzou research project to improve efficiency of wind power production. Also, for people worried about days without wind, you don't build these things in places where the average wind speed is less than 12.5 mph.
  • Kosher1947, on 07/24/2008, -5/+1Look Missouri sucks ass. I live here and no one is here that isn't in either Springfield, St. Louis or K.C. Beyond that is only hicks that don't require much power. Really they prove nothing other than 100 people can live off wind power. Missouri sucks donkey ass.
  • stunner21, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0So when theres no wind are they going to get all the residents to blow in the direction of the propellors? Those farms are so inefficient it makes them fairly unviable for large scale use. When they've come up with an environmentally friendly technology that works as well as nuclear power or coal then come talk to me, untill then just put money into research instead of wasting money on pointless gimick power.
  • Indpthinker, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah, good for them. But strangely, there aren't any birds left in the town. =)'
  • snowpunter, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Buried as duplicate.

    http://digg.com/environment/The_First_U_S_Town_Pow ...
  • jvredpath, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Do they eat the chopped up birds. No sense in letting that good food go to waste.
  • daddiogig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Problem is, the story is pure *****. Unless the wind blows 24/7 over and through this sleepy little town of 1300, pure wind powered electricity would be virtually impossible. There is nowhere in the world, much less the United States where the wind is always blowing. Everybody wants to claim to be the first at something, but these guys are only the first at lying about this.
    • alicynx, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Wow, I'm sorry, I missed your credentials. Do you really have any authority to back up your statements? Just a thought here, but if you aren't there, or you don't have any way to really back up what you're saying, it's best not to say anything at all. Bambi teaches that to kindergarteners.
    • N4life, on 08/21/2008, -0/+0I do not specifically know more about this town. What I do know is the wind does not have to be blowing all the time to produce energy. I have a battery in my home, it stores energy converted from my solar panels so on a cloudy day it can release as needed.
  • N4life, on 08/21/2008, -0/+0Solar power is the future, nuclear power is the past. We invest in Nuclear power, fall behind the rest of the world, let them continue to laugh at us and then we blow ourselves up. Hooray!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.