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.'"

Comments

What about???

[Creepy Crawler]

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).

Re:What about???

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

There was talk about building one over the Senate but it's believed the upward rushing hot air would cause a massive drop in air pressure for the surrounding neighborhoods endangering public health. The current system of not requiring Senators to attend most sessions seems to be working.

Re:What about???

[maackey]

Where do you think wind comes from ... magic? No. The sun heats up the atmosphere which causes a temperature (and thus pressure) differentiation which balances itself out by mixing with the surrounding atmosphere, thus producing wind.

So by your definition, ALL wind power is really solar power, which makes your statement kind of contradictory. Not that it really matters, but since you were being a semantic pedantic, I might as well be too.

Re:What about???

[mixmatch]

Not that it really matters, but since you were being a semantic pedantic, I might as well be too.

You can't be a pedantic, because pedantic is an adjective. The noun form is pedant.

Re:What about???

[mcrbids]

I think you are referring to a solar tower. They are neat, in that if built right, they could last damned near forever, potentially generating energy at very low operational cost.

Additionally, since they operate on top of a heat sink with several days of thermal mass, they could easily be used as a 24x7 "base load" alternative energy power plant.

However, they aren't particularly efficient, they haven't been well tested at larger scales, and present a number of fairly serious engineering challenges. The taller the central tower, the more efficient, but building a mile-high tower isn't cheap. And while the "several days" of base load could be turned into a week or more with the correct engineering, that raises construction costs significantly...

Before solar towers can reach the critical mass of economic viability, other technology that's more (downward) scalable will probably win out first. Quite easily, IMHO.

Re:What about???

[Anonymous Coward]

'Pedantic' isn't an adjective; the word 'pedantic' is an adjective.

You give us pedants a bad name.

Get off his nuts

[hdon]

It could *EASILY* turn out that Pickens is just another participant in the public relations campaign that big oil is putting on to convince Americans that big oil isn't out to get them.

People are angry at the pump, and the more people who identify oil companies as enemies, the more people are exploring alternative fuels.

While his emphasis on America's trade deficit and, apparently, the economy seems to be a new tune for an oil man, he has plenty of others with whom to share the oil-going-green spotlight with.

Re:Get off his nuts

[volcanopele]

I don't think it is so much a plow to make oil look more "green," but for the oil companies to position themselves to be the ones who provide the alternative energy sources. If we switch to wind energy, they will run the turbines. If we switch to solar, they will run the solar panel farms. Why get rich off just one energy source, when you can monopolize others.

Re:Get off his nuts

[hairyfeet]

I don't think so,I just think he is going where the money is. Yes,he made his money in oil,but anyone with a brain can see that the oil money is headed out of the country like a black hole on our economy. Mr. Pickens knows that domestic production of energy will not only help out our economy,but put more cash in his pocket as well. This is the kind of capitalism we need to see more of. The man sees we have a problem and develops ways to help us out of that problem while increasing jobs domestically and making a nice profit for himself. I think it is a great idea. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Get off his nuts

[zippthorne]

We all know a silver-bullet is unlikely for the energy "crisis"

Incorrect. A silver bullet is exactly what we need.

The problem at the moment (i.e. timescales of at least 10,000 years) is NOT a lack of energy sources. We've got the means to tap the water cycle, air currents, hot rocks, fissionable metals, trapped hydrocarbons, coal, extra-planetary radiation, ocean currents, angular momentum, and probably a dozen things I can't think of off the top of my head.

The problem is that nearly every time we try to exploit one of those resources, the project is stymied by bureaucratic regulators more concerned with placating NIMBYs and BANANAs than facilitating a responsible plan to supply our nation's ever-growing need for energy.

The silver bullet is not technological. It's political. We need only one thing: the will to start new energy projects. Nearly ANY new energy projects at the moment are an improvement.

Let me be the first to say, "Yes, I do want a Nuclear Power plant in my back yard. Or a wind farm. Or a solar farm. Or a deep hole. or a Dam. Or even a coal plant (I'm not real keen on the coal plant, for aesthetic reasons but if we must, we must). And turn those ugly condos that replaced the tank farm into a refinery."

Conservation is good too. It's just another angle, but it's not sufficient on it's own.

Re: motorcycle parking, you don't even need to subsidize it, just splitting some spaces to allow more motorcycle parking closer to places is probably enough. But ban "cruisers" from the spaces. No bike that weighs as much as, costs more than, and gets worse gas mileage than a jeep wrangler ought to be treated like a bike.

Re:Get off his nuts

[MikTheUser]

That is why people should realize that renewable energies are best run independently. Solar panels on rooftops or a small wind farm can easily be paid for and operated by households or small communities and make them more independent of the energy corporations.

Re:Get off his nuts

[Rostin]

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.

Re:Get off his nuts

[h4rm0ny]

I am amazed that you missed out public transport. One day, the people of the USA are going to have to get used to sitting next to strangers again. :)

Re:Get off his nuts

[lancejjj]

but anyone with a brain can see that the oil money is headed out of the country like a black hole on our economy

Excellent point. And it doesn't stop with oil. In fact, nearly all manufactured products are now in that same condition. Margins on such products are super-low; in the end, a huge proportion of the money you spend on your iPod, car, or even tooth brush is basically money that is leaving the country permanently.

Oh, and it doesn't stop there. Food? Don't kid yourself - although the US has many farms, a huge proportion of our food comes from overseas. And most food grown here goes to migrant workers who send the money back home. Again, slim margins and foreign connections mean that the US is retaining a very tiny amount of the money spent on a product.

And it gets worse. Many of the largest, fastest growing companies are now overseas, in China and India and other third world countries. The investment banks aren't stupid - they're investing more into overseas corporations than in US startups. If you're an American startup, you're at a gross disadvantage versus having your operations in India or China or Taiwan. And yes, even that mutual fund that your 401k is invested in is primarily about pumping the value of companies with foreign assets or foreign operations. Why invest in a US company that gets 5% return when you can invest in a Chinese company that is more likely get a 25% return? The only answer is "diversification", which is more of a self-insurance strategy versus a way to maximize return.

At the end of the day, Pickens should invest wherever he wants to invest - its his money. But he is looking out for himself, as he is an investor looking for a money-maker in energy or any other sector. If he needs to convince the market that wind is a good investment, then he has already made his investment and is looking to pump its value for his own profit.

Re:Get off his nuts

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

. My blue-collar neighbors still have 2 - 3 vehicles in their driveways...Lots of SUVs are still carting fat asses to work at various non-union machine shops and department stores on the other side of town.
Well I don't know where you live but in my neck of the woods one of those SUVs in the driveway has a for sale sign on it. And is it your supposition that only non-union workers drive SUVs?
  But, if you're going to subsidize low-energy travel don't forget us poor bastards on bicycles.
Only if you promise to remember that stop signs apply to you as well.

Re:Get off his nuts

[Socguy]

You forgot the most economical viable but somewhat paradoxically unpopular course of action: Get serious about efficiency and simply use less energy.

Good to see

[Slimee]

Good to see someone up top speaking out for a change. I don't understand why more dont follow suit.... If you're a rich billionaire oil tycoon, you could invest in windpower and become a rich billionaire wind tycoon...There's no need to be so hell bent on oil

Re:Good to see

[runningduck]

The reason why the entrenched oil industry is uninterested in alternative energy is because with oil they control the supply chain. Many alternative forms of energy are difficult to control. Without this firm grip of control on the industry any investment will ultimately lead to a net loss for these powerful few and a chaotic reorganization for all others in the energy industry.

Re:Good to see

[Yold]

He is already a rich hedge-fund manager. He wants recognition for philanthropy, not money.

I saw that commercial too

[Dunbal]

In 10 years we'll be broke if we continue that.

      There are some that would argue that the US is already broke. The creditors just hadn't started calling yet. But they are now. Take a look at the S&P 500 over the past couple months, then zoom out and compare it to 2001. Yes, friend, right here is the abyss. Not later - right now. 1250 is where it stopped a few months ago. 1250ish is where we are now. After that it's 800 and we're back to the low point of the dot-com crash, and after that there's only the floor. It goes all the way down.

      No, America doesn't have 10 years. Oil is going to break America long before that. Europeans are paying $9 US or more per gallon of gas and although they don't like it, they manage. What happens to the US economy when gas doubles again? You're having trouble at $4/gallon.

Re:I saw that commercial too

[doC15 '-_-']

Remember that many Europeans also have access to free healthcare and higher education. They also have much better public transportation systems in Europe, so they are not as dependable on gas as Americans. Also, cars in Europe are much smaller and much more fuel efficient than cars driven in America. Therefore, Americans are absolutely in trouble as the the gas prices keep rising.

Re:I saw that commercial too

[Dunbal]

Not only that, but America has been DESIGNED for the automobile. It's almost impossible to live in the US without a car - at least if you want any quality of life. The scale of the towns, the distances to supermarkets, restaurants, schools, workplaces boggle the mind. In Europe everything is fairly close unless you live way out in the country, public transport is, with few exceptions, excellent, etc. In the US you have to wait for buses that come every half hour instead of every 5 minutes, you have to walk 1km or so to the bus stop (unless you're lucky and live near a major route), and everything you need it at least 3 or 4 km away. It's amazing how you don't notice the distances in the US until you try to walk it.

Yes it makes for nice, clean, tidy towns, with beautiful roads, ample living space, etc. But take away the automobiles and people are screwed.

Re:I saw that commercial too

[rcw-home]

Take a look at the S&P 500 over the past couple months, then zoom out and compare it to 2001. Yes, friend, right here is the abyss. Not later - right now. 1250 is where it stopped a few months ago. 1250ish is where we are now. After that it's 800 and we're back to the low point of the dot-com crash, and after that there's only the floor. It goes all the way down.

Stocks are cyclical.

1974 brought the S&P down to 1962 values - off 25% in less than a year too - and it was back up 25% in 18 months.

The fun part is that at any point in time, no one really knows where the top and bottom of the market will actually be. Sure, you can cry wolf, and once in a while you might actually be right, but to come out ahead in such a situation you not only need to know that it's inevitable but know when. For example, many saw the dot-com bubble popping years before it did - but those who sold right then missed out on a lot of market gain.

I think it's far more likely that our inability /unwillingness to pay off our national debt will cause further devaluation of the dollar (or increased inflation, however you want to look at it) over a long period of time - decades perhaps. I don't think anyone will call it hyperinflation, but it will be a period of relative economic stagnation. This devaluation will discourage foreign investors from using dollars or buying US bonds, which will eventually forcefully curb federal spending.

It won't be a good time to sock away dollars under the bed, but it will be a good time to have a fixed-rate mortgage.

Re:I saw that commercial too

[Solandri]

There are some that would argue that the US is already broke. The creditors just hadn't started calling yet. But they are now.

As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as Germany, France, and Canada, and is considerably better than Japan and Italy's. It's a common misconception that the U.S. is badly in debt. For some reason people keep looking at the raw dollar values. In raw dollars, the U.S. has huge economic figures because its population is significantly larger than all the other G8 nations, and its per worker productivity is the highest in the world. Once you account for this (by dividing by GDP), its debt load is pretty much in the middle of the other G8 nations.

Take a look at the S&P 500 over the past couple months, then zoom out and compare it to 2001. Yes, friend, right here is the abyss. Not later - right now.

While you're doing that, you might want to look at the FTSE 100 (UK), the DAX (Germany), and the CAC 40 (France). They all do pretty much the same thing as the S&P 500.

Do It.

[LoudMusic]

It's really simple. Build windmill farms. Build solar collecting power plants. Build the variety of hydro electric generators.

Run everything from electricity including water heaters, building heaters, and cars.

Stop sending money to the other side of the world.

Before the FUD hits the fan.

[copponex]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/doe_study_offpe.html

Someone, somewhere, will claim that this does not help solve the gasoline problem. Please read the above link, which states that current off-peak electricity could power nearly 200 million PHEVs, according to the DOE. Adding green energy sources will greatly reduce pollution in urban areas when combined with ultra low or zero emission transit.

We'd still have somewhat of an oil problem, but commuting can be covered by existing electric infrastructure.

Re:Um

[volcanopele]

His point is to use wind to replace natural gas power plants, then use natural gas to fuel our vehicles.

20% wind is about right.

[Animats]

20% wind is about right. More than that, and there are problems during periods of no wind. There's a study on wide area wind averaging (need source) which has a table of percent of installed wind capacity vs. percentage of time available. Even averaging over the entire midwestern US only gets something like 80-90% uptime.

Base load should be nuclear, since that's all fixed cost. Peak air conditioning load should be solar. In between, whatever works.

California needs a major effort to install enough solar panels to power the Southern California air conditioning load. The numbers actually work for this. The nice thing about solar is that you get the power during peak hours. You're guaranteed that bright sun and peak air conditioning load come at the same time. Wind is somewhat random on an hourly scale, and hydro is somewhat random on a seasonal scale.

Alternative Energy... hmm...

[Evets]

Generating electricity isn't that difficult. Generating enough electricity to keep an average american home electric-bill free is. I started looking into solar and found it was too expensive for too little of a return. Maybe a few years down the road it will be better.

I'm sure a lot of people have done the same, and I'm sure a lot of people have also taken the next step as well and started looking into less expensive ways to generate energy. It seems odd, but very little attention has been paid to the home-electricity arena and there are huge opportunities for engineers and innovators. Building a radial flux generator is well within the capabilities of most do-it-your-selfers for less then a few hundred dollars and the only problem is how to turn it.

Should it really have taken until 2007 before flutter belts came along? Is it really that hard to engineer a device that would take advantage of rooftop wind energy? I bet some products hit the market soon and some DIY projects start showing up online as well.

But wind energy isn't the only thing out there. PV isn't the only way to extract energy from the sun. Gravity can be harnessed pretty easily. And there are plenty of other sources as well.

If there's one good thing to come out of the gas price situation we are dealing with, it's that a lot of smart people will be looking at energy generation all over again.

Re:Um

[RealGene]

You really have a severe case of ADD, if you can't get past my first line.
It takes 5.6 pounds of natural gas to provide the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of gasoline (GGE).
(1 gallon of gasoline weighs between 5 and 6 pounds, depending on temperature).
According to the Green Car Congress, a gasoline Honda Civic SE consumes 6.9 liters of gasoline for every 100 kilometers driven (34 mpg); the CNG Civic GX requires 7.4 liters gasoline equivalent (31.7 mpg), making it 7% less efficient. The GX carries 8.0 GGE, for a range of about 200 miles.
In Massachusetts, CNG is selling for $2.96 GGE, vs. $4.09 for gasoline, making it 28% less expensive.
There are approximately 120,000 CNG vehicles on the road in the US. [Gene]

"only people with enough money... "

[RustinHWright]

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.

Re:Um

[afidel]

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.

ExxonMobil as an "energy company"

[sjbe]

ExxonMobil doesn't consider itself to be an oil company. As the parent suggests, ExxonMobil is in the energy business.

All the major oil companies started giving lip service to this about 20 years ago in response to a fairly famous critique of the industry. It's mostly talk however. 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.

...but the presenter claimed that ExxonMobil is the second largest holder of mineral rights to uranium ore in the world.

I'm deeply dubious of this claim. One would expect to find some mention of it in the footnotes of their financial statements as it would be a material asset. While it's possible I've overlooked something I can find no mention of such mineral rights in their 2007 financial statements or annual report.

Re:ExxonMobil as an "energy company"

[mcrbids]

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.

Re:HUH?

[RustinHWright]

Ya see, I *thought* that might have been it but since wind turbines have been working and turning profits for years now, utterly unlike cold fusion, I thought perhaps you had something a bit more reasonable in mind. By what standard has wind power "failed to deliver"?

Re:"only people with enough money... "

[RustinHWright]

Of course. Earthberming a building could cause the end of all life on earth and requires at least six years of specialized training. Yeah, right.

I wrote as long a list as I did precisely because people's skills and resources vary. Are you telling me that "most people" have neither the skills not the money to buy a solar powered battery charger? I mean, hey, twenty-five bucks is serious money and it's hard work getting those little suction cups to stick to the window. Converting a car to biodiesel? If something that low on risk wasn't viable, half the projects posted on this site would be even less so.

solar panels . . .burn buildings down and electrocute people to death.
Unlike, say, using a backyard barbeque grill? C'mon, how frequently do homes get burnt down by solar panels? Especially since most put out 24 volts of power or even less. You're seriously pushing it here. I gave a bit of thought to the things that I suggested before I posted and not a one is limited to people with any more money or skill than is required to build a nice gaming-optimized PC. In fact, you could start with a little unit from thinkgeek, about as /.-friendly a site as there could possibly be.
I'm not claiming that the average American should put up a dozen terawatts of photovoltaics on their garage. I'm saying that most people, certainly most /.ers, are capable of taking at least small steps to reduce the need for megaprojects in the first place.
Looking again, I should have put more emphasis on small starts, on things like battery chargers. As it happens, I just finished writing a blog post in which I did just that. But as for your concern about "the masses" not being able to handle something as simple as a wind turbine, dude, you're on the wrong site. What do you think "free as in speech" is all about? I posted on a site that's all about taking control of the technology around us, about not just curling up and waiting for some huge corporation, whether Microsoft or General Motors or General Electric, to tell us how they are going to run our lives.
We stop paying attention, stop keeping involved in "the means of production", and we're all screwed.