IBJNews

  • Home

Proposed wind farm seeking approval in Tipton

 IBJ Staff and Associated Press
August 3, 2011
Keywords
Alternative energy, Energy & Environment, Environment, Renewable Energy, Utilities
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An energy company that wants to build a massive wind farm in central Indiana has taken another step toward that goal.

The Kokomo Tribune reported this week that E.ON Climate & Renewables North America filed paperwork in Tipton seeking local plan commission approval of its Wildcat Wind Farm.

The company hopes to begin building 125 wind turbines in Tipton County by the end of the year. The complete project, which could cost up to $200 million to build, would span Grant, Howard, Madison and Tipton counties.

E-on, a European company with U.S. offices based in Chicago, plans to create 150 jobs during construction and four to six permanent full-time jobs when the wind farm is complete.

A public hearing on the company's request is scheduled for Aug. 22 at the Tipton County 4-H Fairgrounds community building.

In May, E.ON reached a 20-year agreement with Fort Wayne-based utility Indiana Michigan Power to sell it power from the proposed farm.

The 8,500-acre wind farm is expected to generate about 200 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 60,000 homes. The utility said the project will be connected to American Electric Power's transmission system, which will deliver the power to customers in Indiana and Michigan.

About 75 of the farm's wind turbines would be located in Madison County if plans come to fruition.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • reply
    BondAugust 3, 2011 2:26 PM
    I don't know of anyone (at least not anyone reasonbly intelligent and objective) that considers Wind a 100% solution to power generation. It is one of a variety of renewables that should be developed in parallel to help diversify the energy base away from its overwhelming reliance on fossil fules.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • No Gain
    HarveyFAugust 3, 2011 11:31 AM
    Power generated from wind turbines must be 100% backed up by conventional power sources unless you don't need electricity when the wind doesn't blow. This only drives up the cost of conventional power.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Good Project
      BondAugust 3, 2011 9:29 AM
      I like the wind farms between Lafayette and Chicago. Gives my kids something to do when we're driving to see Grandma. And many emerging technology's in this country were either created by or subsidized by govt money. Some succeed, some fail but I don't think those failures are a reason to quit attempting to advance technological development. IF we don't someone else will (China). Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • wonderful drive
      JoePAugust 3, 2011 9:20 AM
      Actually I started enjoying more my ride from Indy to Chicago once they built the wind farm. It's more interesting to see than the corn fields (not that I don't like corn fields).
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • benefits?
      tina kAugust 3, 2011 9:16 AM
      Ben so you would rather essentially ruin the land so that people can't use it. I have heard horror stories of ice chunks flying off the blades in the winter and crashing thru homes, and out West a number of endangered birds have had additional losses from contact with the blades. If you truely are interested in clean, cheap energy, than Nuclear is the only answer.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Good effects
      Ben B.August 3, 2011 9:06 AM
      I'm a fan of these projects for a couple of reasons. First, it is a way to get some extra income into the hands of farmers (they are paid rent). This makes it far less likely that they will sell their land to be turned into suburbs. Also, few people want to live within a mile or two of these structures, so it prevents sprawl in that way too. Not to mention that once the subsidies for coal- and oil-based energy are ended, this source of energy will be cost-comparable. But best of all, the external costs of a wind farm are minimal, while the external costs of coal- and oil-based energy are extreme (hence their "low" cost).
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Wrong use
      JoeAugust 3, 2011 8:57 AM
      The issue isn't the system, but us. We demand so much energy that nothing can truly satisfy what we demand. We must focus on reduction in demand and then these projects will be feasible.

      By the way, we greatly subsidize coal and oil for energy so how is this different?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • craziness
      jim fAugust 3, 2011 8:38 AM
      The people who scream the environmentalist mantra are behind these eyesores. Just try driving from Lafayette to Chicago without feeling nauseous from the field of rotating blades. The real irony is that a majority in that particular network are NOT hooked into an electrical grid
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Then what?
      DaveAugust 3, 2011 7:23 AM
      The Feds are currently pumping billions into "renewables". Once this ends, these wind companies will go bankrupt...then what? This is nothing more than a short term scam by Chicago crooks to grab some tax money and run. Read up on Spain's foray into wind and solar, they ended up quitting because it was never going to be feasible without massive govt. subsidies!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • wwwwwhhhhh
      kurtAugust 3, 2011 6:23 AM
      I hear these will power tens of homes.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ

    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT