Pickens Plans On Wind Power 587
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.'"
Get off his nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I saw that commercial too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Do It. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
20% wind is about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I saw that commercial too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
"We're going to build a 4,000-megawatt farm in Pampa, and we've already bought the turbines for the first 1,000 megawatts".
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah.... Pickens is already set for life, I doubt he is looking to financially profit from this campaign. He is a respected philanthropist, but he is old, and I think he is just throwing his money around trying to secure his legacy, much like Rockafeller did at the end of his life, and like Gore did at the end of his political career.
We all know a silver-bullet is unlikely for the energy "crisis". It is a looming inevitability, but media scare-mongering has the average american thinking that something has to be done NOW (but how many are willing to trade those SUVs?). Changing the world takes time...
The best short-term solution is government regulation of automobiles, through taxation and incentives. Offer an incentive to drive ULEVs, put additional sales tax on anything that averages less than 22 mpg on the highway. Offering subsidized motorcycle/SmartCar parking in urban centers would be a wise incentive as well.
Re:I saw that commercial too (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Good to see (Score:5, Insightful)
He is already a rich hedge-fund manager. He wants recognition for philanthropy, not money.
Re:Capitalisim at its best... (Score:1, Insightful)
You say it like a business interest ought normally be interpreted a bad thing.
Re:20% wind is about right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I saw that commercial too (Score:5, Insightful)
Stocks are cyclical [yahoo.com].
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This is such a popular thing to throw around, especially when US gas prices rise, but it's a completely bogus argument.
The only reason Europeans pay $9 a gallon of gas because their government taxes it to that point [1]. In the UK, there is a road duty tax of almost GBP£ 2 on each US gallon. Additionally there is a VAT tax of about GBP£ 1.2 for each US gallon. That works out to be around a $6 USD tax on every gallon of gas sold in the UK. Percentage wise, this tax is greater than 100%.
$9 - $6 = around $3/gallon. Europeans pay so much because they allow their government to financially restrict fuel consumption. This might work in most Europe, but as others have pointed out, it's not feasible in significant parts of the US. If you're tired of paying this ridiculous tax, do something about it, or don't. In either case, stop playing the martyr; it's getting old.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
Re:I saw that commercial too (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW I doubt America will "go broke" since there is so much fat out there, but they probably will have to tighten the purse strings for a few years.
Re:Do It. (Score:4, Insightful)
As well, we once we start distancing ourselves from the middle east and their oil, they wont be pleased. We do not have the coordination, drive, or will-power to start a massive reorganization of what the united states runs on.
Apparently we run on doubt and a weak backbone.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What about??? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Incomplete plan (Score:3, Insightful)
These schemes always go something like, "Renewable, blah blah blah, then a miracle occurs and everyone lives happily ever after." Let's all sing the monorail song now.
Natural gas is already a dead end. There's a reason why licenses for liquid natural gas ports have exploded and that is because domestic natural gas supplies are dwindling. Changing the transportation infrastructure to a fuel already in high demand at power plants is dumber than dumb.
Wind is awesome. It's cheap. It's safe and there's plenty of it. With DC transmission lines, you can even alleviate the peak demand to peak supply gap. The main problem is that the energy density isn't there. You have to put up a lot of capital up front to get the capacity you need. Wind doesn't need subsidies but until fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies dry up, there isn't enough market incentive to get it going on a scale that's more than a science project.
Hydro has already been overbuilt. There's no more energy to get out of that other than efficiency improvements at existing sites.
This leaves us with various solar technologies. The problem here is that there's a lot of manufacturing to be done before you start to see solar contribute significant energy to the grid. It's too late to make the transition painless. That should have gotten under way with Carter's energy plan. We would already be the beneficiaries of a new energy infrastructure today, but Reagan had to go and rip out working solar panels powering the Whitehouse as a sign to the oil hooligans that the party's on. So no, the transition won't be painless. It won't even be bearable. It will hurt. My only hope is that the pain produces some real political change, hopefully within the framework of the constitution since I'd rather not see Americans shed blood however gratuitous the initial outbreak may be. That always turns ugly. From Tsar to General Secretary or King to Emperor, revolutions have little chance of settling on the median most people want.
A good start would be to actually uphold the existing constitution by impeaching the evil doers. At least then, you're guaranteed not to have to endure some asshole on a "bring em on" trip ever again.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Although subsidies tend to get the specific effect you ask for, like genie wishes, they also tend to come with unintended consequences.
I just think it's better, in general, to go for solutions which don't involve direct subsidies. After all, you can always escalate to subsidies later, but it's very difficult to get government spending off the books if it turns out it wasn't necessary, or was actually harmful.
And my point on the silver bullet is that it's not only necessary, it's inevitable. Eventually, energy prices are going to get to high, and we're not going to be able to conserve our way out of it that people will get fed up with the NIMBYs and override their concerns.
Re:I saw that commercial too (Score:3, Insightful)
Works for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Will a dozen kinds of regulators, many of them paid for by guys like him, come in and make it more expensive and complex to become a vendor? Duh; of course. But worst case scenario, nothing keeps you from "rolling your own", a thing that you can't say about gasoline.
All looks good to me, I've gotta say.
Show us some facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Show us some facts. If you can.
Global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Would this system not capture a large amount of radiant heat which would otherwise be reflected back into space (genuine question)?
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:1, Insightful)
The best short-term solution is government regulation of automobiles, through taxation and incentives. Offer an incentive to drive ULEVs, put additional sales tax on anything that averages less than 22 mpg on the highway. Offering subsidized motorcycle/SmartCar parking in urban centers would be a wise incentive as well.
Apparently we need no solution because, despite the incessant bitching, there is no problem. Gasoline consumption has fallen a lousy 2% since costs doubled. My blue-collar neighbors still have 2 - 3 vehicles in their driveways, not including boats and ATVs. 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.
Anecdotal data indicates Americans are more willing to eat out one less night/week rather than sell their beloved SUVs. I suspect we are at the faux tipping-point - where everyone starts squealing about prices but few are actually willing to change their behavior. For the oil industry this must be about the sweetest spot possible for pricing their product.
But, if you're going to subsidize low-energy travel don't forget us poor bastards on bicycles.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:2, Insightful)
Go T. Boone!
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh screw that, I'll walk first. :-)
Re:HUH? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I saw that commercial too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you think that nuclear material came from? Exploding stars, thus solar.
And while its not entirely understood why the core of the Earth is still hot, nuclear decay is one theory which would make geothermal solar as well.
Lets all play six-degrees-of-solar-energy!
Re:What about??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course as I post this, I realize I should've pointed out that solar energy is really nuclear fusion, so we really have a fusion economy already.
We just need to reduce our degrees-of-separation!
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
. 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
A huge proportion of the money I spend on groceries goes to Kroger, money I spend on computers goes to Intel & others, money I spend on healthcare goes to doctors - that money leaves my family permanently.
Maybe I should grow my own crops, make my own microprocessors and perform my own surgery.
It is sad to see that many people don't have the slightest understanding of economic principles that were discovered over 200 years ago.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's more likely that, as Mr. Pickens is a wealthy man, as opposed to a wealthy corporation, he's facing the reality that all humans face: he no longer cares about acquisition of wealth, he cares about being remembered after he's dead.
This fundamental drive of human nature (for most people) is one of the ways that corporations will never be like humans, and is one of the reasons that corporations should never be given the rights of humans, since they can't face all the responsibilities.
Why Wind Farms are Bad for Birds. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything good enough??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the "Slashdot Community" ever thinks ANY idea is a good idea? No matter the topic, most posters to this site will put it down and bloviate about how they know all.
It would be interesting if anybody, ever, had an idea that this self-righteous group would find worthy.
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good to see (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the [theory|party line]. Reality however is quite different, as any effective form of alternate energy will have have to be deployed on a large scale rather than as individual installations. (Either local or personal.) Guess who has the capital to fund those large scale deployment?
The simple fact is that until recently it simply wasn't profitable to operate those large installations.
Re:Citilink buses do not operate on Sundays (Score:2, Insightful)
Public transport being piss-poor is not a law of nature, it's a choice americans have made.
It would be nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get off his nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
the USA is the world's largest food exporter, but there is a problem here, it's the net value of food imported vs food exported. IF we export cheap corn, wheat, rice etc, but import expensive produce fresh fruit and vegetables, the dollar value of our surplus drops... it's not like we're exporting less food each year, it's more like, if it requires manual labor to pick it from the field, America is increasingly becoming a place that can't compete on price with foreign countries.
so cheap staples like wheat can be mass produced in america, and exported in mass, but every orange and apple we import from Brazil is costing us more than every bushel of wheat we sell on the world market.
worse still, is meat processing, America has plenty of meat processing facilities, but do you know any that actually hire Americans for the 'nasty' jobs like evisceration? nope i didn't think you did, because they all import illegals to fill those jobs, because illegals can be manipulated into provided 'perfect' OSHA score cards year after year, so OSHA doesn't investigate them, so those plants don't have to do anything about worker safety. oh yeah, and foreigners don't understand unions, either so they're not a chance in hell they'll unionize to get better working conditions.
but your worries are pretty unfounded today, because of the weakness of the dollar, we've been able to gain some ground on foreign competition, in the ag business. weak dollars mean that even if we pay workers more dollars it's worth less and less, on a global scale, so we're making more money exporting to asia and europe relatively speaking.