Slashdot Mirror
Oil Billionaire Building World's Largest Wind Farm
gadzook33 writes "CNN is reporting that oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is planning to invest billions of dollars in what will probably be the world's largest wind farm. It will eventually generate 4 gigawatts, enough to power 1.3 million homes. The first 600 GE wind turbines are scheduled for delivery in 2010. Pickens says that each turbine will generate about $20,000 in income annually for the landowner who hosts it."
They are in the business of selling energy. Why should they not want to move into selling different types of energy?
I really don't understand why people think things like wind, solar, and nuclear power compete with oil. They don't. Natural gas makes a small amount of electricity, but oil fired plants are very rare and almost only used for peaking power. You can build as many wind turbines as you want but it is not going to appreciably affect oil usage because you are not making highly energy dense, transportable fuel. There is no conflict of interest whatsoever that a oil billionaire would want to build wind farms. A coal billionaire on the other hand ...
Please don't bring up "what about the birds?" in regards to wind turbines. Just don't. Sure, some may fly into one and die. Some won't. It's called survival of the fittest. Eventually, evolution will program birds so they will know "wind turbine ahead = death". The ones that don't pick up on it will be dead, and thus not to worry about.
You see, if air pollution from oil/coal/whatever happens, that affects the birds too, dumb and smart.
And this is why the guy is a billionaire.
because that doesn't fit the template that I've been fed of evil capitalists that hate planet earth.
Pickens is on record as saying that Peak Oil is not only real it's now. As one of the last wildcatters it's not wise to bet against him. Then again he really likes Oklahoma State football so he's not right about everything.
Don't worry. After there are enough windmills, they'll find out how much the energy removed from the wind will affect the climate, and wind energy will be the next big evil ...
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I am all for renewable energy, but I disagree with the idea of economic incentives. There have been a large number of potential renewable energy sources, and many people seem to have one that is their favorate. None of these (except hydroelectricity) have become major sources of power, due to various obstacles that still must be overcome. I think that once these ideas are economically feasable (*if* they are feasable) they will get investment and be implemented.
Incentives and subsidies rush products that are not yet ready into the market because they are made artificially cheaper. The problem is, instead of using whatever technology can profitably produce energy, we end up using whatever technology is the favorate of the most people, or the pet project of a particular legislator or lobbying industry (corn ethanol, I'm looking at you).
Well if you like conspiracies...
1) Wind is too easy. With oil they could hide fake costs and over inflate real ones.
2) Wind is everywhere. By getting exclusive drilling rights they can squeeze out the little guy so they have no new competition.
3) It's new. Big corporations HATE new. New is work and new is learning. CEO people hate work and learning.
Personally reason 3 makes the most sense, But the others are possible. The fact that this guy is trying to move to wind shows that he's at least trying to move foward. Good for him
> when oil billionaires are getting out of the business
Not exactly. Oil billionaries can't drill for oil anymore in the first or second world so they are looking at new sources. Drilling for some terrorist despot in a third world hellhole and hoping the regime lasts long enough to pay you the percentage they promised before the next revolution nationalizes the fields isn't all that enticing.
Owning windmills in Texas is a solid moneymaking proposition now and since Texas isn't likely to experience a revolution anytime soon and seize your assets long term investing makes sense.
Democrat delenda est
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
For most of us who have jobs that is nearly impossible. If you don't live in a big city, you don't have access to buses, and using a car is just about impossible to go to your job 10, 15 or even 20 miles away. So it is impractical to walk or ride a bike. So while that may sound great, over 75% of us can't do that.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
mass transit by and large sucks on this continent
we're too bloody spread out for self-propelled transit to be an option for most and i need to be able to carry things like groceries.
electric vehicles are nigh-impossible to get for the majority
alternative fuels are still building infrastructure, so aren't an option for most.
not that i don't agree with the sentiment, but realistic alternatives would be nice.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It may be, but here in the US there aren't sidewalks everywhere to ride your bike and to actually ride your bike you have to take tons of side streets unless you want to risk being run over on the interstate which takes you quite long and if you have to be at your job by say 8 you had better wake up at 6.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yeah, see, when you say "stop buying oil products" you have no idea how a statement like that can be so naive and obtuse at the same time.
This country runs on money but the currency that money uses is oil. It is intertwined in everything we have and do. You can't just stop using it no matter how hard you try.
Actually, the accident rate for cyclists on roads is about 7 times lower than that on sidewalks. Interstates are of course pretty unpleasant for bikes, but I'm not sure they're really suitable for cars either during rush hour.
That's one of my points. If everyone bitching about rising gas prices instead actually started bitching about bike facilities (esp. lanes, parking, showers), then we might be able to start to move in the right direction.
And no, there is really no way a 10-mile commute on a bike can take 2 hours. Average lifetime speed of cars, city and highway, in the USA has been measured a few times, and usually found to be in the neighbourhood of 18mph. Average speed of a pathetically unhealthy lard-ass on a bike: ~10mph. My own average speed for commuting on my bike after a month: 15mph. Now (2 years later): 18mph. Yes, I tend to take more circuitous routes, and that costs me a little extra time, but not much, and it keeps me smiling.
And then there are the intangibles. Arriving by car I have just wasted the time spent sitting in the car (books on CD and whatnot can help somewhat). If I've arrived by bike, I feel refreshed, energised, relaxed, and vibrant. I've gotten in my recreation for the day, as well as my workout. I've caused little pollution, little congestion, few parking problems for anyone, almost no noise, and made transportation safer for everyone just by being seen (yes, the single biggest part of cycling safety is making motor addicts aware that there are bikes on the road).
There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, of course. With shitty bike facilities, few people will bike, and with few people biking, there will be no obvious demand for better bike facilities. Change could start from either end, and I know which end I am on. Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
we accept the first law of thermodynamics, what impact will wind farms have on the environment?
Trying to get an idea of scale when comparing our size (or the size of these engines) to the ENTIRE WORLD would be a good place to start. It's like saying that the friction from all our cars breaking will slow down the Earth's rotation. Come on.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yeah..like THOSE are going to allow me fit a weeks worth of groceries in one trip. That and I usually hit 2-3 stores on Sunday..to get the best deals on things. The same is true for me. I shop mostly on the weekends. Rarely during the week. I have a turbo miata...and hell, I can barely get my stuff home in that.
My goodness, how much groceries are you buying?
I can't imagine what a family of four would have to contend with....hell one trip to Sam's and you'd need to tow about 8-10 of those bicycle carts bare minimum.
Once a week? That seems like a lot of groceries, even for a family of 4.
Most of us do not live in an urban setting my friend.
I live in a town of 23 thousand. about 12 miles from the town i work in, which is ~ 90 thousand people. Far from urban, methinks.
I've also not got time to shop every day...I tend to buy a weeks's worth and cook 2-3 meals on Sunday to eat through the week...lunches and some dinners....
Same here. I don't like going to the store every day. Who do you think is going to plan their outings more efficiently, someone in a car, or someone who's pedaling their way around?
so I have time to go to the gym and whatnot after work....
Seriously? You don't ride a bike because then you wouldn't have time to go to the gym?
Wait... you're refusing to ride a bike because you're worried that it will make you not look pretty enough??
Of course, it'll heat up a lot more over the next few years, thanks largely to cars and air conditioners.
You show up sweaty, go take a shower and get changed into your work clothes, and you look good. Relaxed and confident, in fact, the way you feel after a good workout. Body language says much more than clothes, especially to airhead businessmen.
Biking in the heat isn't bad. Wind chill ("augmented evaporative cooling") is rather nice, actually. Clever how we sweat when appropriate, isn't it?
As for the danger of cycling, I'd expect people who watch the mainstream media to make that claim, but on slashdot I'd expect better. Look up how dangerous cycling is vs. driving. No contest--especially when you consider the accident rate amongst reasonably experienced, sober adults. It's virtually nonexistent.
Does your blood pressure rise when you see someone on a bike? Gee. Mine rises when I see someone in a car acting as if he's going to be late to his red light. Cyclists consume almost no resources. Cars are very slightly faster (go look up how much, in day-to-day use), and at what cost? Cyclists are doing the right thing. Why doesn't your blood boil when yet another person gets into a car? Drivers cause rush hour and traffic jams and accidents, and every one of you is equally to blame, for choosing to use your car, and for not demanding traffic-jam-proof transportation solutions.
Motors give people enough kinetic energy to do real damage. How many cars have killed someone in the past year? How many bikes? Now which is dangerous? How many Americans have late-onset diabetes, heart disease, and a plethora of other obesity-related illnesses just because motors let them avoid any and all exercise? How much cancer can be directly traced to the burning of hydrocarbons? How many Iraqi deaths are due to a certain invasion because Iraq had oil and the USA was too weak to find a way around its addiction to artificially cheap energy for its spectacularly inefficient transportation "infrastructure"? New Orleans was just flooded by a hurricane, water levels are going to rise a hell of a lot more, and climate is going to get a lot more unstable--it's burning of fossil fuels that is responsible for these things. I could go on. But think really hard before claiming that motors make us safer."The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I'm a bike commuter (16 mile commute) who lives and commutes around suburban Minnesota, year-round. Here are my replies to some of the points you make. I'll preface my remarks by saying that the Twin Cities and surrounding areas are known for having a generally bike-tolerant motorist population, and summer heat rarely gets over 95 degrees (though in the winter temps below -10 without wind chill aren't uncommon!).
Shower at work? That's not terribly common.
This is indeed a limiting factor for commuting cyclists. I happen to work at a large employer that has showers (and lockers!) accessible to all employees, so I'm spoiled in this regard. Some cyclists aren't so lucky. I know some that take a birdbath with wet towelettes, or happen to have memberships at a nearby gym that has showers. No global solution here.
Also..where do you carry your change of clothes with you on that bike so they don't get wrinkled?
A bike with a rack and pannier can carry work clothes as you describe easily without wrinkles. Alternatively, some of my suit-wearing bike commuting brethren will drive to work once a week or so, and stock their offices/cubes/whatever with a few fresh suits, and change in the office on the days they do commute by bike.
Generally, a bicycle has little business on roads where 70mph is normal. Most roads that have speed limits that high (freeways, etc) around where I live are specifically "no bikes allowed."
The speed differential problem you mention isn't a problem provided that there is adequate horizontal spacing between the bike and the cars. Many roads where 50 mph is the norm have a sufficient bike-able shoulder where 5-8 feet of spacing is easily accomplished. It might not sound like a lot, but it is plenty of space, and traffic can pass the cyclist at full speed without slowing down or veering off to the side. Of course, many roads don't have such shoulders. Fortunately, the road system in the US is very dense. A little bit of studying on Google maps will usually yield good bike commute routes that stay off of the high-speed, zero-shoulder roads. They will often be a bit longer, of course, often winding through residential areas, business parks, etc.
I said that they shouldn't share the road with bikes
I disagree with this sharply. Cyclists and motorists can indeed share the road safely and not get in each other's way. All it takes is both the cyclist and the motorists to respect each other's rights on the road, and have an ounce of consideration for the other party. I admit that cyclists deserve much of the blame here. Many people on bikes think that they're not subject to traffic laws when they ride on the road, and do stupid things (run stop signs, pass cars in turn lanes, etc) that make the responsible and considerate cyclists look bad. Even so, bike-car collisions are relatively rare. Around here, even non-crippling/fatal bike-car collisions will make the evening news. Car collisions only make headlines when they are particularly spectacular. Your locale might be different, of course.
In the end...even with my short comings I'll admit to...there is just no practical way, in the professional world for most of us to ride a bike to/from work when you take climate into consideration.
Everybody's situation is different, and I concede that it is quite difficult many to commute to work via bicycle for various reasons, be it distance from work, family commitments, health conditions, etc. However, it is much easier, safer, and practical than many people think. I'd suggest that the nay-sayers take closer look at bike commuting. Even if you drive 3/4 of the way to work with a bike in the trunk, park the car, and bike that last portion, and only do this on nice-weather Fridays, you're cutting down on your fuel costs and getting some healthy exercise at the same time.
Most of the "socialist" things that western governments do are profitable for private business.
- Public schools and cheap/free higher education, if properly used, increase the educated work force and allow for greater productivity and profit.
- Public health care, if properly used, increases the overall health and productive lifespan of the population allowing for more productivity and greater profit.
- Public transport reduces the wear and tear on roads, decreases the consumption of oil(and therefor both the environmental impact and the actual cost of petrol), provides cleaner air(see benefits of public health care), reduces traffic congestion and therefor commute time, requirements for businesses to build parking structures, cost of expansion of roads, and a number of other things.
These sorts of things benefit everyone, including businesses, however no one wants to pay for them because that would involve a reduction in "my" money.The same thing goes for the long term costs of things. A CEO is interested in increasing his or her own personal wealth above all other things(that's how capitalism works), but the system has been put in place such that the only thing that matters to his or her own personal wealth is the short term results of his or her actions combined with luck. Any CEO with half a brain will trade a profit today resulting in a massive loss 5 years down the road for a small loss today resulting in a massive profit 5 years down the road.
This means that things like environmental pollution, outsourcing, and other forms of exploitation are rewarded for their short term benefits as opposed to punished for their long term consequences.
The problem with all of this is that in order to force companies to recognize long term costs and to organize the creation of and management of services which in and of themselves may never be profitable but which reduce costs and increase profits over the whole of society, we need a government, because populist and short sighted though they may be they're still better than private enterprise at certain things.
Actually it does.
IIRC (I remember seeing this somewhere).
At 125$+ per barrel wind power no longer needs tax breaks to be competitive vs other energy sources (coal and gas use rises in oil prices to raise their prices accordingly and some are contractually tied up to oil price).
At 150$+ per barrel solar will also stop needing tax breaks.
So it is evil capitalism at its best.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The phenomenon you're talking about is called the Tragedy of the Commons and it's been around since long before capitalism became the dominant economic model.
The problem arises whenever an action causes a short-term benefit to an individual, but a long term cost to a group. Since the individual is part of the group, he is faced with two choices:
That's a pretty easy decision to make, and we haven't (yet) found a way a getting around the problem without trampling all over people's rights.
It's particularly tricky when the cost is very long-term. As a previous poster mentioned, the reduction in wind energy resulting from wind farms will (given enough farms and enough time) have a substantial effect on the climate. But the long run cost of any individual wind farm is impossible to calculate, since there are so many unknown variables, and probably so small as to be negligible anyway. So how do we go about assigning blame and collecting compensation fairly?
A parting thought: If, 150 years ago, you had asked an average person what they thought the top environmental problem of the future would be, they'd have talked about dealing with horse manure. It's not because of government intervention that we don't walk knee deep in horsesh*t today.
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --