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."

30 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by BigJClark · · Score: 5, Funny


    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?
    1. Re:In other news by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are in the business of selling energy. Why should they not want to move into selling different types of energy?

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ...

    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      because that doesn't fit the template that I've been fed of evil capitalists that hate planet earth.

    4. Re:In other news by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:In other news by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really.
      Very few new power plants are going to built that burn oil. The majority of new plants now are coal, followed by natural gas, and soon I hope Nuclear.
      Wind farms will replace the Coal fired plants first so it really is a win for the oil companies to expand their revenue base.
      Same reason that BP makes solar cells.
      The Oil companies would like nothing more than to make more money selling wind power at the expense of coal. Which will make coal cheaper so the oil companies can use cheap coal to make expensive gas and diesel fuel to sell us to run our cars and trucks.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:In other news by polar+red · · Score: 5, Funny

      we have removed enough trees to counter that effect

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    7. Re:In other news by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't bitch and complain, stop buying oil products and use what instead?

      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
    8. Re:In other news by Ynsats · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can understand why people get upset about the level of the profits, but don't bitch and complain, stop buying oil products. If you buy anything that has any amount of plastics in it, you just likely bought an oil product. Even if it's something as simple as the plastic used to shrink wrap the pre-split logs you use in your wood burning stove, the plastic is still an oil-based product. Then again, those logs were like split by a machine that used either a diesel-powered, hydraulic log splitter or an electrically powered hydraulic splitter. The diesel comes from an oil product and the electricity may have likely come from coal or natural gas which are both oil products. Oh and can't forget that hydraulic fluid which is also an oil product as well as the lubricants used in the machines that processed those logs for your convenience.

      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.
    9. Re:In other news by fugue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."
    10. Re:In other news by veganboyjosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    11. Re:In other news by reovirus1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Where I live, on the edge of a city of 1.5million, it takes me 18 minutes by electric bike, 40 by regular bike and 40 by car average commute. I don't have to pay for parking for it, and it costs 5 cents to charge it at todays electricity costs. I've got studs on my e-bike for the winter and have reduced my driving to only a day or two a month to get to work. The bike cost me 1000.00 for the batteries (harvested Dewalt drill batteries made by a123systems), 300 for the hub motor and 200 for the controller. The bike itself is a piece of crap low end mountain bike, about 600 bucks new. With parking at 20-30 bucks a day, I've already more than paid for it. Plus I can still pedal the thing and get exercise when I want to. So yeah, bring on the wind farms so that my total carbon foot print for commuting goes down even further!

    12. Re:In other news by fugue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Really in this day in age, unless you have a dedicated bike lane...if you're on two wheels, it should be motorized for everyones safety.
      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."
    13. Re:In other news by mikael · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not forgetting buildings. Cities are known to increase temperate by two degrees centigrade for every mile radius of urban development.

      National Geographic had a program which described how the latest skyscrapers in New York were being designed to save on energy by using rainwater.

      Although, they were saying that every skyscraper increased the surface area of the city due to the vertical walls, but failed to mention the shadow created by the building.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:In other news by Flying+Scotsman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      .I'm going anywhere from 45-70mph...but, even if I did the limit...a bike cannot go that fast, and hold up traffic behind it till you can safely pass.

      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.

  2. Doc Brown ain't all that impressed by KlomDark · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's only 3.3 time machines worth of power.

  3. Re:'Bout time... by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sim City taught me that cold fusion is the way to go.

  4. Don't bring up "killing birds" by British · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Early adopter by Metasquares · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is why the guy is a billionaire.

  6. Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy by aengblom · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    Wait, so you think that developers are building these without incentives and that's a bad thing? Sadly, wind still does need incentives -- and gets it in the U.S. -- but the whole idea is for incentives to jump start the technology to where it becomes competitive without the incentives.

    And these turbines, at least, aren't really gobbling land -- a lot of them get placed on ranch land, so it's essentially multi-use.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  7. Re:its time to take notice!! by jkmartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Pickens is not a good guy by rhadamanthus · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is the same guy planning to drain the Olligalla (sp?) aquifer to supply southern texas with water. Private water rights being abused, right before your eyes.


    FWIW, these two projects (the wind farm and the water system) are really the same

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
  9. Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy by Pyrrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  10. Some notes by GreggBz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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..

  11. Re:Who is responsible for maintenance? by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was actually a car on fire in the parking lot this morning. Just sitting there, parked.

    Those things can literally crash and burn too.

    Totally off topic but it was the most exciting thing to happen at work in forever.

  12. Re:its time to take notice!! by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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
  13. Re:They are industrially designed by polar+red · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But they will never be 100% reliable. I never seem to find such quotes about nuclear power. I'd rather live next to a windmill burning than a nuclear power plant melting.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  14. Re:Who is responsible for maintenance? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well with a little initiative on your part, exciting things like that could happen in your parking lot every day.

    I'm just sayin'.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  15. Skyscrapers more dangerous by soren100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 Actually, the tall buildings in cities kill a great many more birds than windmills. According to the linked article, the conservative estimate is that 100 million birds are killed each year through collisions with buildings.

    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.
  16. Wow... you are dumb. by lupine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.