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."
In other news... Oil companies erect large billboards to block naturally generated windpower in an effort to negate the power generated.
In all seriousness, I really hope this works out, as any effort to lessen our carbon footprint is a good move in the right direction.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Will land owners have to spend the $20,000 per year of income on repairs?
Hell, sign me up for 5! I'll give up work, and just tend to these all day. Sure, it'll be cramped on my .20 acre plot, but hey!
Well, an apartment actually.. And I can also provide wind!
That's only 3.3 time machines worth of power.
when oil billionaires are getting out of the business then there might be something to this thing called peak oil.
just playing devils advocate as from a environmental point of view how could this be a bad thing. First off the US needs to do something like Germany and give economic incentives, ie a fixed price on energy. This way your not competing dollar for dollar with oil and coal.
This is a capitalist country after all, nothing happens unless there is a profit to be made. My only other concern is the amount of land that these wind farms gobble up. With the growth in population especially in energy craving areas like southern california land is at a premium, which makes dedicating hundreds of acres to a wind farm also cost prohibitive. Considering no only likes high tension lines running through their neighborhood it is reasonable to think that systems like wind and solar will have to think seriously about competing with local land needs.
just a thought
Sim City taught me that cold fusion is the way to go.
I wonder how much land this takes up? It's a great deal for farmers, who, if willing to sacrifice a little bit of farmable land, could make some serious extra cash. How many windmills can you get on a 1000 acre plot? 10,000 acre plot? Seems like a good deal.
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.
FWIW, these two projects (the wind farm and the water system) are really the same
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
I have a feeling this is just nameplate generation, something the story doesn't tell you. Figure actual capacity is about a third of this because of wind variability.
Dog is my co-pilot.
His money would be much more well spent, and given long term value, if he spent it on a nuclear power plant.
But they will never be 100% reliable. Like any other machine, all will break, sooner or later, and they all can fail in catastrophic ways. Airplanes, cars, trains, TVs, bycicles... all fail, even simple things like pulleys.
If they would catch fire all days, it would be a problem, and you can be sure they would be redesigned or not used at all. So please stop making a big issue from a sub 1% thing.
I live close to the Waymart Wind Farm. Just a few notes:
I totally support wind energy and think the turbines have done good for the community.
They make noise. Even at 1/2 mile away, low whooshing sounds are clearly audible, especially at 4AM.
They are HUGE. Pictures don't do it justice. By the time your next to one, it's an awesome site.
The community here gets jobs and money from them. The government pays 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for wind energy, netting the community here $150,000 a year. Also Florida Power and Electric pays about 12 employees here to service them. I've known a few that have worked on the turbines, they have some amazing pictures of being on top.
They significantly interfere with off-air television. I work for the cable company, and we had to build a giant antenna in another site because our first giant antenna was to close to the windmills. Local houses have trouble getting off-air signals, digital HD included.
They are a tourist attraction. The first few years they existed here, many people tried to sneak onto the private land to snap pictures etc..
He is probably running out of oil.. Must be it.. Need to invest in something else..
Example of a nuclear plant with 16 GW of electrical output, please. Else I'll call BS.
I can't help but wonder how much of an affect we will have on climate change once we start sapping energy from the wind currents on a massive scale.
Actually, a typical new nuclear plant will have a capacity of only 1 to 1.5 GW. The catch is that it should produce that power about 90% if the time. Typical wind farms product much less than 90% of their rated capacity. The installation near me (SE USA) only produces on average 25% of its rated capacity, although I understand the project in question is in a better location. Nevertheless, no one seems to want to stand up and give the actual percentage.
If we accept that the actions of human beings can impact the climate, and we accept the first law of thermodynamics, what impact will wind farms have on the environment? Imagine if every home and factory in the U.S. were powered by wind farms. How much energy would these farms be pulling out of the wind? How would that impact weather patterns? Something I've always wondered about. As we jump off fossil fuels and move on to other sources of energy I sure hope someone thinks ahead this time.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
This could definitely have an adverse impact on the environment by changing wind patterns thus inducing climate change causing the melting of glacial ice, flooding and making Florida disappear. I recommend we resume the consumption of hydro carbons until more research has been done.
Apparently the combination of tall buildings, glass, and bright light is pretty deadly for birds. The bright lights on the tall buildings (like those over 40 stories) can really confuse the birds when they are migrating. The birds are used to using visual cues from the stars and moon to navigate, and according to the article can end up crashing into the building at night since they are attracted by the light, or get confused into circling the building until they are exhausted. Then in the morning, when they try to leave the city, the glass of the building reflects the sky and the birds fly into the glass.
Most of the birds are small songbirds, which are easily swept up by custodial staff, and it happens at many buildings, so it's not so noticeable for pedestrians, but it's a big enough problem that the buildings (according to the article) have started dimming their lights to avoid killing more birds.
So if you want to argue against windmills on the bird issue, then you should be prepared to argue against skyscrapers as well.
A. There were 119,117,000 housing units in the United States in 2001. Approximately 106,261,000 were occupied as regular residences and 12,855,000 were vacant or seasonal.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
The largest nuclear power plant in the united states is Palo Verde which provides a maximum of 3.8GW.
The largest plant in the world is the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan which has a peak theoretical output of 8.2GW, but is currently offline because of damage caused by an earthquake.
So 4GW of power would be significant.
We have the best government that money can buy.
Or it could be just one last ego-polishing exercise. It seems to be a rather common trend that when some billionaire get near the end of their time down here, they get in a mood to blow the majority of it on such a project that says "look at how great I am!" It's not even a new phenomenon, that's how we got the Nobel prize after all.
Exactly what motivates it, I wouldn't know. Maybe it's an attempt at a last deal with (or against) the devil. You know, one last big grab for saint points, to somehow balance whatever else they have on their conscience. Maybe some just want to be remembered, so they have to attach their name to _something_. Some probably are just sociopathic enough to rather spend the money fast on something that gets them personally attention, than leave it to some heirs they never really cared about. Or whatever. Whatever the reasons, it happens.
So now look at T. Boone Pickens. He's 80. Whether oil has peaked or not, it's not like he'll actually live until he sees the bad part of it. In the short run, the oil prices going up, just means profits going up for the middlemen. It's not like there's a real alternative to using oil yet, consumption is still going up, and (assuming a similar profit margin) selling a tank gas at higher price just means more profit. Profits in the oil business may peak, maybe even soon-ish, but it's not like he's going to go broke before he dies.
No, that's not the motivation. He's pretty much the usual trolling for attention at the end. He's good to attach his name to something which to a very large number of people says, "OMG, he's a saint!"
What were the real choices? Charity? Always a choice, but it's not like he can compete with Gates or Warren Buffett. The latter alone announced giving $31 billion to charity. (In 5% increments each year. At the age of 75. Seeing a pattern yet?) Pickens doesn't even _have_ that much total. So while he'd whitewash his name a lot, it would still be lost in the honourable mentions. He'd probably just manage to edge out the over 2 billion pledged by Barron Hilton. (At age 80, pleadges 97% of his fortune to charity. Hmm.)
And even Hilton's donation only made headlines because he's essentially shafting the well known Paris Hilton out of the inheritance. If the gal hadn't been so well known, even if largely for the wrong reasons, you would have barely heard about it, in a footnote.
Enter the carbon cultists. Hmm, noone has done horribly much for those lately. There's a lot more publicity to be gained by doing something spectacular for those, than from going the charity route.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Have you ever seen the places, like in Ohio they put these wind turbines? Maybe you could clarify exactly what you mean by 10 times the environmental impact. From where I sit, these things are being plopped down in the middle of farms, not hurting any wildlife that the aforementioned farm didnt already displace. Given most farms wouldn't bother using fertilizer and pesticides on this chunk of land, I'm struggling to see the environment impact. Perhaps there are batteries or some other nasty stuff that go along with a wind turbine?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the DOE has generated a 'National Renewable Resources map'? Something that tells people where solar farms/wind farms/wave farms etc would most effectively be placed? Wouldn't the next logical step be incentives to build these systems in those locations? I know here in Michigan it's cloudy for 8 months of the year, so solar is out and wind is in (actually coal is in, thats the problem). And as far as 'the grid' is concerned, wouldn't it make sense to start plopping a 'wind turbine' on each new power transmission 'pole' (those huge ones that are giant steel structures carrying like 12+ cables). It seems you could directly feed the grid if an efficient transformer could be made.
In reading a few threads it is pretty obvious most posters have never seen a modern wind farm. SO here are some things that cut across threads:
1) Land area. What will the impact be on farmable land? Probably far less than strip mining or oil and gas. Strip mines in my part of the world are huge. And while they are operating the land can not be used and they require a huge support infrastructure. I have also seen heavily developed oil and gas fields. These too have enormous impacts on agriculture and wildlife due to the large amount of infrastructure they need (roads, compressor stations, pipelines, electrical plants etc.). Since most wind farms are far above ground they are often far less intrusive.
2) Related to the above, environmental impacts. Instead of beating a dead horse, see the point above.
3) Why can't wind power make it without huge subsidies? Why can't the free market solve the problem? Because it is not a free market. You have the Bush/Cheney energy "plan" shoveling subsidies to oil and gas companies, this distorts the market. But even if you removed the subsidies you wouldn't have a free market since a large chunk of the world's oil supply is controlled by a corrupt cartel called OPEC. When one group can manipulate supply and demand like OPEC can, free market principles cannot operate at all. It is a horrible situation, but the only way to level the the playing field for alternative energy sources is via subsidies.
Anyway, HTH.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The far left and many environmentalists will fight this tooth and nail.
First, it is proposed by a capitalist, hence it "must" be evil. There is far to much conspiracy thinking in those camps.
Second, it is proposed by an oil billionaire.
Now for the saner reasons. (Unfortunately I have talked with several people that will completely distrust it based on the first two points).
The first sane problem is that he is likely going to use the typical pinwheel windmill. Those things slice through birds at 200 mph, since the birds don't know to avoid them. GE should just buy out that company that uses a impeller style windmill that looks turned on its side. These appear solid to birds so they avoid them. Secondly, they don't spin faster than the wind.
The next big big problem is that these things are going to get trashed by tornadoes in that area and the flying blade pieces will likely kill some people. We are talking tornado alley here.
Next big problem is that they can't handle high wind speed and will often be switched off and the blades locked in place. Again, GE needs to buy that impeller design lock, stock, and barrel. They can handle twice the windspeed and only need locked down at above 100 mph wind.
Next, people will complain about all the electric fields, and there will be some health study, that will result in some class action lawsuit.
The only good thing going for it is that you have a billionaire with enough money to make it happen even with the lawsuits.
Really? After taking into account the cooling systems and safety shut offs and the mechanisms and processes for installing and removing fuel rods?
Forgive me, but I think you're just making shit up.
There were several examples of blades (I would guess the blades were ~70ft long, each, three blades per turbine) sheared off due to excessive winds. Splintered fiberglass across the desert. Never got to see one go in person, though. That would have been cool.
I thought they were immensely cool, from a geek standpoint. Obviously modern technology juxtaposed with the harsh, ageless desert. Pictures of Guadalupe National Park available at the park center had the windmills photoshopped out. I found this a bit odd, but people's aesthetics differ. [shrug]
You know what the kicker was? I was there to perform geologic mapping for the development of oil reservoir models. Turns out the geology of the place is some of the finest examples of an exhumed turbidite (underwater landslide) complex in the world, and these turbidites make mighty fine oil...
sig sig sig siggy sig
And you are an ignorant twit. When you learn the difference between profit and profit margin you can come back. Of course energy companies make large profits, the deal in really large volume. But their profit margins are either in line with similarly capitalized operations or a little below.
Learn...
The value of a stock depends on many things, the most important of which are these:
1. The value of the assets under the control of the corporation. I.e. the breakup value.
2. The cash flow of the business.
3. The profit margin, i.e. the basic rate of return on the invested money. Even though most profits are reinvested, retained or used to buy back stock because of the tax implications of dividends, investors still win because those other activities tend to increase the stock price.
4. Intangibles such as good will.
Remember that a corporation isn't a job program, it doesn't exist to serve the public, it exists to serve the shareholders. If the shareholders aren't happy they sell their shares, replace the board, sell off the corporation, etc.
Now lets have a quick pop quiz to see if you have actually learned anything.
Q1. If an energy company were to forsake profits to make Democrats happy, i.e. lower profits than similar investments, can you tell me what would happen to it's stock price?
Q2. Would the reaction be economically 'correct'?
Q3. Bonus Question. Search out the actual costs associated with a gallon of gas and determine what rank oil company profits come in at when you rank the following costs in their correct order:
1. Crude oil
2. Refining
3. Taxes (amortized corporate taxes + gas taxes)
4. Distribution
5. Dealer markup
6. Oil Company profit
7. Advertising
8. Exploration
9. Research and Development
Democrat delenda est
I'm not sure what you wear that you can roll up that won't look like it went through hell with wrinkles and such. I wear 100% cotton slacks and button down shirts...they look like crap if rolled up and put in a backpack.
"(3) Keep a small towel at work for your shower."
I take it you don't live in the south of the US, especially near the gulf coast as I do. A towel won't do it. We have LONG summers here...with 95+F degrees...and usually the same or higher humidity. Hell, here, you can start to perspire getting out of the shower before you start to dry off...seriously. A towel isnt' gonna cut it. I wasnt' joking that I started turning my AC on in Feburary...full time by middle to end of March...and it doesn't really go off till November.
That kind of sweat and funk ain't gonna make it in a professional work environment. A towel would be soaked before drying 1/4 of my body if I rode a bike to work.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Boone Pickens is probably best known as a prominent peak oil nut that the doomers like to cite -- he's probably mentioned more than anyone else except for Matthew "Fuzzy Logic" Simmons. Perhaps his best claim to fame is repeatedly predicting wrong dates for peak oil and then shifting them back when they pass by without notice. Of course, his support of the Swift Boat Vets has to rank a close second.
As an aside, the farm that's currently being built is going to be starting out at 1GW. So is the London Array, whose largest investor is Shell. Ultimately, this one will get bigger, though.
"She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin
So if a capitalist dumps poison in my well because he's too lazy to clean up after his manufacturing process, he's not infringing on my rights? But if the government orders him to stop, it is infringing on his rights?
Explain that to me.
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.
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. --
Great. So once you've got cancer or something similarly nasty (I assume that your body is your property, but the air anywhere outside the land you own isn't, and even on the land you own it's somewhat questionable if it is), then you can sue, hope that survive long enough to see the end of the lawsuit, hope that your lawyer is more competent than their lawyer, and die as a rich (or poor, depending on the outcome) person.
Thanks, I'll rather have some degree of proactivity. Some things just simply cannot be compensated for with the payout from a lawsuit.
They don't have to dump poison on your property for it to end up in your well. They can dump it on their property, where it will leach into the groundwater and from there into your well. Because water, inconveniently, doesn't stop flowing at property lines.
Things like air and groundwater can't be sliced up into pieces and parceled out to different owners. That's not some hippie ideology, it's a physical fact (unless we develop the technology to prevent air and water from crossing property lines).
So, if a capitalist dumps poison in the groundwater used by all his neighbors because he's too lazy to clean up after himself, is he not infringing their rights? Shouldn't they be able to collectively (i.e. by petitioning the government to pass laws) decide to stop him?
If you make school mandatory, then you'll have to force people to pay for it ... somehow. Doesn't make a really big difference if it's through taxes or fees, just that you might end up with different amounts in different locations if you don't force the schools to keep their fees at a certain level.
If you make school optional ... well, you'll end up with a lot of uneducated people who'll just skip school for some reason or another (don't care, don't want to pay for it, would like to attend but cannot pay for it, etc). Having a mass of uneducated people is generally bad for an economy (because they're less productive and more prone to becoming criminals), and you'll end up with enough of them to cover the low-wage crappy jobs even if you make school mandatory.
As for public transport... why can't a private company offer the same services?
Because a private company needs to make its profits from the fares alone. A city can accept to make little or no profit from the fares, because it reaps additional benefits from running public transport (increased economic activity of businesses in the city (which leads to higher tax revenues even if the tax rates are kept the same), less wear of the roads (which means less cost for maintenance), etc).
Are you saying it's impossible for a private company to make buses and put them on the roads and fill them with people, or for them to make a subway system?
No. But the problem isn't building the infrastructure, it's running the system once the infrastructure is up.
No, nobody wants to pay for them because they're already paying ridiculously high taxes, and can only imagine the corresponding private services costing even more, despite the fact that competition reduces the cost to the customer. There is no competition in the arena of public services.
If there are no profits to be made, there will be no competition. Ergo, no privatized public transportation, everyone has to drive cars again, wastes a lot of time being stuck in traffic and looking for parking lots, is forced to spend money on car upkeep if they want to get farther away from their home than walking/biking distance, etc.
In most of Britain outside of London, the buses are run by private companies who make profits from the fares alone, and pay lots of tax to the government on the diesel they fuel the buses with.