Slashdot Mirror
Pickens Plans On Wind Power
Hugh Pickens writes "T. Boone Pickens (no relation) has launched an energy plan and social-networking campaign that calls for replacing Middle Eastern oil with Midwestern wind. The Pickens Plan would exploit the country's 'wind corridor' from the Canadian border to West Texas to produce 20 percent of the country's electricity and provide an economic revival for rural America. Transmission lines would be built to transport the power where the demand is and natural gas, now used to fuel power plants, would instead be used as a transportation fuel, which burns cleaner than gasoline and is domestic. Pickens proposed that the private sector finance the investment, which would result in a one-third reduction, equal to $230 billion, in the U.S.' yearly payments to foreign countries. Pickens has already invested heavily in wind, notably a planned 4,000-megawatt wind farm in his native Texas. 'We've got to get renewable into the mix. The problem for this country is that we're paying $700 billion — you heard that — $700 billion a year,' Pickens says. 'We can't afford that. In 10 years we'll be broke if we continue that.'"
What about upright wind tunnels? They build a big structure a mile tall with plastic tarps 10ft above the surface for a few miles radius.
Air warms up under the tarp and goes up the tunnel. Estimates put power at around 500 MW. It was a project around Australia somewhere but it was cut to 1/2 mile for some reason (I dont know).
> Pickens is putting his money where his mouth is and at the same time
> helping America, that is a true Capitalist and a Patriot.
Sounded like that when I first heard of this... but I actually dig a little before jumping into supporting something. Check his WSJ piece of July 8 and these two quotes from adjacent paragraphs no less:
Quote #1
"It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation."
Quote #2
"The future begins as soon as Congress and the president act. The government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development in areas where the wind and sun are abundant."
Eh? Sounds like another corporate welfare client trying to get his grubby hands into my pocket.
If wind were really economical he wouldn't need subsidies and wouldn't be waiting on Congress to quit masturbating and do something.
News flash: Democrats LOVE these high gas prices, sure they wish the extra money were flowing into the Treasury instead of OPEC but they still can't work up any real displeasure at something that pushes their agenda so well. So why are they going to act?
Screw the hippie crap with wind, solar, etc., we are outta time. Build nuke plants. Not in twenty years, not in ten. I want a plan to have enough nuke plants online inside of five years to make electricity cheap enough to change the economics in favor of plug in electrics. We have the tech to build a safe nuke plant now, waste disposal is still an issue but we have time to work on that problem if we can avoid western civilization collapsing. And eventually I'm sure we will perfect the greener alternative energy sources and not need so many nuke plants... or we get finally solve fusion and quit worrying about energy.
Democrat delenda est
Gotta disagree with you there, cobber. Funny how folks have just gotten used to assuming that power generation has to be some multibillion dollar centralized facility. Dude, we've got intertie now. It's the law.
Seems to me that Firefox, for example, is a pretty ambitious project, as is SETI@home. Or, for that matter, the content aggregation that takes place at any big BitTorrent site.
To assume that "somebody big" needs to carry out the work of giving this country more power generation is like asking "who's in charge of this 'internet' thing?"
You want to see us have more power? Superinsulate a frackin' building with some friends. Earthberm one. Go on Craigslist for a few weeks, accumulate some surplus foam and other materials, and build a greenroof. Or put in your own solar panels. Or buy a surplus Whisper, put it on a tall post (height is good), and get more watts per dollar than PV. Plenty of biodiesel coops out there, both for refining fuel and converting vehicles. Join one.
We don't need no stickin' megacorps. We really don't. Most forms of renewable power just don't have that serious a set of economies of scale. Think about it. Me? I'm workin' on a few fronts, most notably getting local zoning codes changed to better accomodate this sort of thing and helping to optimize a 26,000 square foot building that's been converted into workspaces for things like bikemaking, vehicle conversions, and people like me who run small manufacturing businesses and such. Hopefully we'll have our first PV up this year. We've already got a guy making hydrogen and a project to build a pretty serious wind turbine.
Don't bitch. Build. Or, as a bumper sticker I sell says, Don't fight the system; replace it.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
LNG works fine for transportation, most of the around town buses in Cleveland run on it and it makes a HUGE difference to not have them spewing particulates every time they stop and go. I think the ultimate re: electric cars is something like the Prius but split the motor out into a trailer or detachable pod, if you're going on a long trip then attach the trailer/pod and you now have an x gallon tank and a motor strong enough to keep the batteries topped off. Your electric mode becomes more efficient most of the time because you aren't dragging the weight of fuel and a motor around, but you retain the ability to use the current distribution system. This is even a good long term solution since you can go with a diesel generator and use any of dozens of renewable sources to fuel it.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
A few years ago, I worked for the Evil Empire (ExxonMobil) as a summer intern. At that time, engineering students nearing graduation were a little nervous about working in the oil industry. What would happen to us if we spent most of our careers in oil, and then suddenly alternative energy sources took off? (It was kind of a dumb thing to worry about in retrospect. Major career changes are the norm.)
To convince us to stick with the company, a senior engineer gave us a presentation. He said first of all that our fears weren't unfounded. All the oil majors anticipate major technology changes to occur during our lifetimes. We will have to totally change gears and move to oil sand, oil shale, nuclear, or whatever.
The second thing he said was more interesting. ExxonMobil doesn't consider itself to be an oil company. As the parent suggests, ExxonMobil is in the energy business.
That's not just bluster, either. I haven't tried to independently verify this, but the presenter claimed that ExxonMobil is the second largest holder of mineral rights to uranium ore in the world. The largest is the Russian government.
If you look at ExxonMobil's last annual statement on page 19 it says "Fossil fuels are expected to continue to provide about 80% of energy in 2030". That does not sound much like a company that expects to be a big player in any other kind of energy any time soon.
Yeah, that's because nearly all their current assets are in oil, and they know that investors read those statements.
Reality, folks! They'll do anything to make money. Most alternative energy is only profitable after short-term govt incentives. If they can arrange for solar energy that's in their reach and not their competitors, they'll go for it hard-core. If the technology is too "small" (easily implemented on a very small, local scale at low cost) they'll do everything they can to torpedo it.
Picture it: You are part owner of XYZ gasoline-selling corporation. You are there with your partners. You profit when the company does, you lose money when the company does. You read yesterday that people can create their own gasoline out of used clothing. Do you (A) Try to promote the use/sale of cheap, used clothing? (B) pretend like you don't know what's happening (C) try to figure out how your company can remain profitability despite this new threat?
If you answered (A) or (B), it's because you have never been part owner of XYZ gasoline-selling corporation. Real altruism only exists in the absence of interest in the issue at hand. You can only really be altruistic with regards to child care if you aren't a child care provider. You can only really be altruistic about paper production if you don't make/sell paper. You can only really be altruistic about alternative energy if you aren't an energy company.
The actions of any large conglomerate with respect to society is like anyone: they'll work to amplify any cost they have to pay, and downplay any benefit they receive from others. (EG: you) Think about it: How much attention would you give if you drove your mother's car to the grocery store to get yourself groceries, vs. your mother driving your car to get her groceries?
Only when you are of significant means and/or maturity do you not actually care about the difference. Pretending that *any* company operates otherwise is naivety.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Transmission of electricity from the midwest to California would entail tremendous transmission losses.
That may be true, but California has the #2,#3, and #4 largest wind farms on the planet: Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm (690 MW), San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm (619 MW), Altamont Pass Wind Farm (606 MW)
Of course, their combined peak power is less than equal to the base power of one two-reactor nuclear power plant (~2 GW).
Of course. Decentralization of energy is the future and obvious best-case scenario, the ultimate refinement of how we generate power. A utopia compared to what we have today. Centralized power is ugly, dangerous, clumsy, and corrupt compared to a future where all technology is completely independent and decentralized. Centralized power lends itself to political corruption and only aids government in its continuous goals of more power and revenue. Decentralization would completely eliminate that justification for government power.
Imagine a future where every house is completely independent in terms of energy -- that's one less mega-industry for government to overtake, one less justification for concentration of political power into the hands of the elite few. This is the future, and someday when technology permits, it will happen with water, sewer, and communications as well -- if government isn't powerful enough to prevent it from happening.
In the future, we will even see decentralization within each household. Each device will be self-powered by some technology we probably can't even imagine today -- electronics, large appliances, small appliances, lighting -- each one will run independently of the rest, perhaps by some kind of super "battery" that lasts 50 years and generates exactly the necessary power and no more. If one device fails, nothing else is affected. We don't know exactly what this technology will be, but we do know that it will be decentralzied. Why? Because it just plain makes sense. It's the ultimate refinement of technology.
In the future, the era of centralized power will be viewed as primitive and clumsy, much like the people of today view the era of early communications compared to the internet.
Media scare-mongering has nothing to do with those of us who feel the US has had an irresponsible energy policy for decades now - completely relying on foreign oil production while shunning home-grown alternatives. This includes wind, solar, biofuels, and other 'green' sources, but it's also stupid to overlook our own domestic oil production, such as off-shore drilling in the gulf and in Alaska. We're still very much reliant upon oil, a fact which is not likely to change for the next 20-40 years no matter what our current intentions are, or what investments we make in alternative sources of energy. Additionally, there's natural gas production, coal (we have the technology to produce clean-burning coal plans now), and nuclear power which are all real, viable power production systems that we could start building tomorrow.
Sales taxes and incentives will not solve a fundamental supply issue on such a massive scale, so I don't see a point with punishing consumers even more than the current gas prices are already doing. No, I don't believe people are under the delusion that this will be solved immediately, but given that it's going to take a while to actually get fixed, I can see why people are anxious to see a real energy plan get underway instead of political pandering to various constituency groups to which politicians are beholden to (extreme environmentalists on one side, and big oil on the other).
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say that I hope gas prices reach $10/gallon and higher. Maybe then something will be done.
Let me say this. I don't support the bogus "windfall profit tax" crap. I don't think it's the government's job to keep gas prices low. I support nuclear energy but not drilling for more oil. In fact, I don't support ANY fossil fuel expansion at this point. It's a limited resource. It's going to run dry. The problem isn't foreign oil. The problem is oil as a whole. Drilling in ANWAR or oil-shale or off-shore isn't going to make a lick of difference because the oil market doesn't conform to normal capitalistic "rules".
Regardless of how long it takes or not to get the oil up and into our cars, the Middle Eastern oil companies have a captive audience in China and India and there is no motivation to lower the prices. Flooding the market with US oil does nothing to lower that price either since we seem to have no gumption to reduce our consumption here in the states. As soon as gas prices go back down, people will start buying SUVs again and Detroit will shelve all of the fuel efficient projects they might have going now. It wouldn't make financial sense to anything other than that.
We've had 30 years roughly to think about this issue. Since Carter and not a damn thing has been done. Every time someone floated ideas about conservation or alternative energy, they were summarily dismissed as being a anti-capitalist hippy.
And let's not forget that even IF we got the drilling restrictions lifted and started getting more oil out there, all of these figures assume our current rate of growth. That's just stupid. The amount of shit grows to fill the bucket. It's just some sort of unwritten law of physics. Cheap oil causes MORE growth thus making the supply last even less longer.
And honestly, gas is the least of our concerns. We have alternate fuel sources and methods for getting us from point A to point B. There are a lot of other things made from petroleum that we DON'T have replacements for. Medical plastics and other things. I don't want to have a catheter shortage just because billy bob had to have the biggest SUV he could find.
There seems to be this sentiment today that we shouldn't have to make sacrifices as citizens. And then I look at posters from WW2 that show Hitler driving a car and wonder how that would fly today.
I'm not a hippie. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a republican. I'm not an environmentalist. I'm a realist.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
You forgot the most economical viable but somewhat paradoxically unpopular course of action: Get serious about efficiency and simply use less energy.
What do you mean by "use less energy"? Like take cold showers? Ban hot tubs? Stop driving (or just certain cars like the evil SUV that no one in these discussions ever seems to own, but I see all over the freaking roads)? Or more easily adoptable things like using energy star appliances and them funny lookin' lightbulbs?
Basically, I think it's only "the most" economically viable to a point. What I think many of the "Just use less" people really want is a complete change of lifestyles. I can indeed save money by turning down the thermostat on the water heater and furnace. I can save money by not driving anywhere and walking or bicycling. But these things also change my life and my lifestyle. I'm sure you're quick to tsk-tsk me and that you get a good belly-laugh out of my awful American selfishness, but it's a serious question that too many people ignore. How much conservation (specifically, preemptive sort-of-types of conservation) is necessary? I mean, I could get dead serious about conservation, but I'd pretty much have to start a new life.
Of course, conservation can be achieved without impacting my lifestyle. As long as I can pay for it. Which then makes it NOT economically viable.
Stay with me as I make a ridiculous example, in hopes of making a point. Let's say you buy an older house. Maybe even a mansion-sized house. First of all, I'm sure some here would scold you for buying a mansion in the first place because you should be willing to live in a small apartment like the Japanese or Europeans do. (They have faster broadband, too, after all.) Anyhow, for starters, you'd need to replace all the windows (ka-ching). You'd also probably want to reinsulate the attic space (actually not too expensive). Then you'd need to buy one or two new energy efficient furnaces and air conditioning units (ka-ching ka-ching). It'd probably make the most sense to also retrofit a tankless water heater system, with additional smaller tankless units at the points of use (KA-ching). Then you'd want to add solar panels and utilize some kind of net metering setup with the power company. Uh oh - it's actually a historic mansion actually, so first you have to deal with the municipal government to add an aesthetically-pleasing, non-obtrusive solar setup (waiting...waiting...finally, ka-ching). Then you want to add some wind turbines or even a simple windmill. But you can't because zoning doesn't allow such a structure in your neighborhood (no ka-ching). Then you can do the simple stuff like caulking, foam insulating, etc (mini-ching) and getting all new energy efficient appliances (ka-ching).
Now I know I'm being a bit silly, but if you scale it down to a smaller home, you're also dealing with a smaller budget. It's easy to say "Just use less", but to get to the point where you can use less sometimes requires some economically UNviable steps, like those I mentioned above.
Just my 2 cents.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Fantastic post. You're exactly right.
Interestingly, while NIMBYs are stopping a lot of alternative energy sources, it's also the existing energy industry. For example, North Dakota is so rich with the right kind of wind for wind power (strong, steady) that you can build very profitable wind farms. It's considered the Middle East of wind power.
Unfortunately, the state government is in the pocket of the coal industry, which is also very big in ND. Wind farms put coal workers out of jobs. So they don't let many wind farms get built and they don't give the infrastructure necessary to do so (such as a way to tap in to the power grid).
Right now, if you have the cash, the location, and the government allows it, you can make a lot of money (passive income, even) building and running wind turbines. The key is getting the government to cooperate.
rm -rf
I think the ideal power source is an underground wire going to your house, with all the electrons you need, and that costs you very little. Fusion power would be just like that: Massive, industrial, pointless on a small scale, and awesome.
Let's use our rooftops for gardens!