Entenza: Wind energy is ‘next big push’ in state’s economy
By Rae KrugerPORTER - Gary Stoks used a "Matt Entenza for Governor" brochure Tuesday afternoon to point out a photo from a company project.
Stoks had the brochure, not because he's a declared Entenza supporter, but because he agreed to let Entenza visit his company SMI & Hydraulics in Porter.
Entenza, a Democrat and former state legislator, said he stopped in Porter because the company is an example of entrepreneurship and is a leader in the wind industry. SMI & Hydraulics is the type of company he wants to help and wants to develop as the next governor of Minnesota, Entenza said.
The wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state, Entenza said.
But the present administration is doing little to lead Minnesota in the development of wind energy and other alternative jobs, Entenza said.
"This is next big push in the economy for Minnesota, and the state government needs to play a role," Entenza said.
Other states such as California, Colorado and Iowa are more aggressive in creating a demand for wind power, Entenza said.
Part of the reason the wind energy industry has had slowed is because companies are waiting to learn what the demand will be, Entenza said.
Stoks said his company recently laid off workers because the demand to build wind towers slowed. The company will typically make 15 towers a summer, and this summer, it appears it won't make any, Stoks said.
He didn't claim to have the solutions, but Stoks said the demand is uncertain but the industry's growth has also been hampered by a need to transfer the power in the U.S. electrical grid system.
"That's why projects are not going ahead; we need to figure out the capacity (issue)," Stoks said.
Entenza agreed. The state needs to apply more pressure on the federal government to resolve the grid issue. Projects can't move ahead unless there is a way to transfer the energy and handle the load, Entenza said.
During a tour of the facility Stoks said the company started with several hundred dollars and help from the Prairieland regional development corporation, a non-profit organization that works with various government programs. Stoks said the help was valuable and such programs are needed.
"That shows the power of a little economic development (incentive) that generated a lot of jobs," Entenza said.
Entenza used the National Wind Conference as an example of how Minnesota has let its leadership role in wind energy lapse. While states such as Iowa had 15 officials at the conference, Minnesota had one, he said.
Entenza is a native of Worthington and his wife, Lois Quam, a former health industry executive who now works in alternative energy development, is from Marshall. Entenza has ties to a region that is also familiar to Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, who represents Lyon and Redwood counties. Seifert is also running for governor and said he will formally announce his campaign Tuesday.
Entenza also spent time near Lake Benton Tuesday with wind energy developer Jim Nichols.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
ruralroute
|
|
|---|---|
|
07-02-09 7:04 PM
|
Hartman75, you are right -- normally I can't stand what Europe does, but they are ahead of the curve as far as safer storage. As far as what they use, "advanced fuel cycle" technology" is used. That "develops reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste-intensive, and more proliferation-resistant.(according to the US Dept. of Energy). The reason the US hasn't done it is cost: it costs hundreds of billions of dollars. I am not disagreeing with you on the value of wind or solar energy, hartman75, but we can't just dismiss nuclear energy as a viable option, either.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
07-02-09 5:36 PM
|
How do countries in Europe dispose of their nuclear waste, Ruralroute? If they have devised a safe method of disposing of highly toxic radioactive material then why don’t we use the same process as well? Or are they simply storing it someplace “safe” for the next several millennium until it becomes “less toxic”? Here’s the solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste; quit making it. Besides, aren’t you usually knocking Europe for all their socialist tendencies? If there were some way of eliminating the toxic waste produced from nuclear energy generation, we might have a possible solution.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
07-02-09 3:56 PM
|
Hartman75, where do you get that nuclear power is so expensive or unsafe? The European Union generates 30 percent of its electricity from it with a clear, safe plan to dispose of the waste. France is at 78 percent of its electricity. Belgium, Sweden and other countries also utilize it. Brazil and China both have plans for huge expansions in nuclear power. Plus, the US plants have reduced greenhouse gases by 20 percent, according to a University of Michigan study. If this is so expensive and so unsafe, then why are so many countries -- including two in supposedly environmentally friendly Kyoto treaty -- expanding their efforts?
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
07-02-09 1:01 PM
|
Rona45, cap and trade does not “artificially” drive up the price of energy. How much does it cost to remove smog, mercury, greenhouse gasses, nuclear waste and carbon dioxide from our environment? Who do you think pays to clean up our environment by attempting to remove pollution from our water, land, plants and animals? I’ll give you a hint, It’s not those actually generating the pollution! In fact, much of that pollution CAN’T be removed so it ends up moving down the food chain. There is a price to using coal, fossil fuels and nuclear energy that goes beyond just the cost of the commodity, we just have not been paying what’s due, until now. We, those of us who flip on a light switch and take warm showers are responsible for the pollution because, ultimately, all that energy (and pollution) was generated on our behalf. Is solar and wind power cheap? It is when you include ALL the costs of using fossil fuels or nuclear power.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
07-02-09 1:01 PM
|
Ruralroute, the govt. subsidized rural electrification beginning in the 1930's because it wasn’t “cost effective” for privately owned utilities to provide electricity to farmers. If you want to know why our current farming industry is unprofitable (or worse yet, unsustainable), read the book Omnivore's Dilemma. Consumers can choose to facilitate the infusion of renewable energy by changing the way they use energy, with their pocketbook and by speaking out in opposition to forms of energy generation which poison our environment. The great thing about solar and wind energy is you don’t have to be a utility to generate your own power. I do agree, rangeral, that some mandates regarding energy generation will emanate from the Statehouse however, it should be consumers influencing those decisions, not Politicians or privately owned utilities.
|
|
jailee
|
|
|
07-02-09 11:03 AM
|
I find it really sad and pathetic that so many people are opposed to promoting wind energy.
|
|
rona45
|
|
|
07-02-09 8:48 AM
|
It is usually the consumer who will determine the success or failure of a product. When it comes to a choice of what type of energy they choose to heat their home it will be based on affordability. Now when you get the cap and trade situation involved you will create extra expense which will drive up prices through new taxes and artificially manipulate the cost of energy to the point that the whole country will be financially like California. I don't believe we need the politicians to do our thinking for us. You should be able to see the results of doing that in any newspaper lately. Keep in mind it used to be politicians did the best for the country not their party.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
07-01-09 8:22 PM
|
"This is next big push in the economy for Minnesota." Are you going to tell that, Mr. Entenza, to the dozens of people in Pipestone who lost their jobs? If green jobs are the future, why are so many renewable energy jobs (wind and ethanol specifically) being lost? The economy plays a role, yes, but if this is such a cutting-edge job market, you would think jobs would at least be stable, even in a struggling economy.
|
|
rangeral
|
|
|
07-01-09 8:20 PM
|
Hartman - explain how the consumers would choose their sources of energy - would we build two or more competing sources, go with the majority and discard the others? Wouldn't that be a waste of money? The lowest comparable price would always win out in that scenario, even if it was the bigger polluter. Tell us how it would work.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
07-01-09 5:13 PM
|
Let me state that I am in favor of wind-energy, solar energy and nuclear energy for our future. Heck, if a country with a government as messed up as France can do it, the US should be able to as well. However, subsidies are a big drain on our government, and most of the people that get the money are corporate farms, not family farmers. If the subsidies have worked so well, hartman75, then why have so many family farms went out of business in the past 20 years? The Democrats back ethanol -- which is a disaster right now because it skyrocketed up the price of corn (ask how many farmers around MN, SD and Iowa who bought new tractors and combines last year as a result of these prices), which led to higher food prices, plus it is far worse for the environment than advertised. All you have to do is drive by an ethanol plant to see the emissions. Ethanol also will hit a ceiling in demand -- it is well on its way -- and many of the jobs created will no longer exist.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
07-01-09 3:20 PM
|
If it weren’t for “subsidies” area farmers would still be without electricity. Eventually the renewable energy industry will stand on its own two feet but until then providing financial help to develop wind power benefits our environment and will lead to the creation of good paying jobs, especially in our rural areas. Nuclear energy exacts too high a price when it comes to disposing of the waste and therefore does not offer a viable solution for producing affordable energy. Personally, I would rather have consumers determine the sources of our energy, not politicians. That means we also must keep in mind the environmental costs in addition to the monetary expense when comparing sources of energy. Our generation is just beginning to pay the price for energy decisions made by the generations before us.
|
|
rangeral
|
|
|
07-01-09 9:53 AM
|
Why wait for the public dole to pursue wind power? Eventually each energy source needs to stand on its own two feet, so a good confience boost for wind power would be to see people and companies investing without government subsidies. We do need the government to authorize the energy collection and distibution system. We do need the politicians to let us know how the other 80% of energy is to be generated. Nuclear is one of the best options for that solution. Also, it isn't the number of reps at a conference, it is what happens after the conference!
|