Inspired by T Boone Pickens

Harvey

Administrator
Staff member
You may or may not know that T Boone Pickens is a billionaire who has made his money in oil. I saw a commercial tonight featuring his message – we send $700 billion each year overseas to pay for oil. That’s 4x what the Iraq was costs us (in dollars anyway).

He’s convinced that the only way to solve our problem is with renewables at home. He’s got a plan for wind/natural gas that I think is inspired. It turns out that the midwestern US has the most constant, reliable wind on the planet. He’s putting his money up front and not asking for yours. He’s pledged to work with, or lobby the hell out of the next president and congress – to get them to build the distribution system for the massive wind farms he wants to build and for natural gas for cars.

If you want to know more check it out:

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Thanks.
 
I've been aware (as most who know weather/geography in North America) for some time of the obvious wind energy potential of the western Great Plains. Clearly no land use issue, as it's nearly all farms or ranches; owners should be happy to lease the small footprint of a wind tower. My understanding is that the major issue is distance to the metro areas. We need to build special transmission lines to prevent the juice from dissipating. I don't know the precise economics, but given both the energy independence and ecological aspects, I suspect it's worth the investment.

The other part, switching vehicles to natural gas, sounds more problematic. The greenest vehicle you can buy today is the Civic natural gas. But it costs ~$3,000 to buy a device to refuel it from the natural gas line in your home, slowly over 5-6 hours I think. So a new infrastructure of natural gas filling stations (high pressure, thus faster than the home units) needs to be built. And I suspect it's not trivial to convert an old car from gasoline to natural gas.

It does occur to me that building that much wind electricity capacity would allow us to take some coal plants off line. Then we could make gasoline out of the coal, as Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa did.
 
I think there is some debate over the extent of natural gas supplies. After all, there has been some pressure to build LNG port terminals to import it. Natural gas tends to be in the same places as oil, and often it's unused or burned off. As yet no pipeline has been built to utilize the natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska.

Another reason to consider coal gasification for transportation fuel.

Within California most power plants are natural gas to minimize air pollution. We only use coal for power if it's burned in another state and then import the electricity. Which bring up the question: If we have transmission lines to bring coal power from southern Utah to SoCal, we should be able to send wind power from the Great Plains at least to places like Denver, Dallas, Chicago, etc.

So I think we want to keep using natural gas as is, for power and heat. Expand the latter to get rid of home heating oil. Use the big expansion in wind power to take down some of the coal. Let economic considerations drive increased oil supply among: more domestic exploration, coal gasification, Canadian tar sands and maybe the western oil shale.

One would think a political compromise could be fashioned here. The traditional business types will get fewer restrictions on domestic oil production. The greens will get a massive increase in clean wind power plus some reduction in dirty coal power. Everyone should agree with Pickens to stop enriching the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
 
Tony Crocker":ls2g5plc said:
Within California most power plants are natural gas to minimize air pollution. We only use coal for power if it's burned in another state and then import the electricity. Which bring up the question: If we have transmission lines to bring coal power from southern Utah to SoCal, we should be able to send wind power from the Great Plains at least to places like Denver, Dallas, Chicago, etc..

This shouldn't be an issue, Quebec has power lines in remote areas going as far as James Bay and Labrador, anything is better than coal.

Tony Crocker":ls2g5plc said:
Use the big expansion in wind power to take down some of the coal.

Agree.

Tony Crocker":ls2g5plc said:
Let economic considerations drive increased oil supply among: more domestic exploration, coal gasification, Canadian tar sands and maybe the western oil shale.(...)The traditional business types will get fewer restrictions on domestic oil production. The greens will get a massive increase in clean wind power plus some reduction in dirty coal power.

Not a specialist on the matter, but not all domestic oil is better than imported. Thinking of a specific example: the Alberta Tar Sands. The amount of energy and WATER to get the oil is CRAZY. This is pretty bad environmental policy.

Tony Crocker":ls2g5plc said:
Everyone should agree with Pickens to stop enriching the likes of Hugo Chavez.

What's wrong with Hugo? :wink:

Sorry...I would like to continue the discussion (this one and the climate change one too, but I've been under the gun of late). :oops:
 
Once again I like Tony's energy policy. Even the link that Jason provide indicated that estimating natural gas reserves is a crap shoot. To me it makes the most sense to cut down on the burning of coal and home heating oil. I also agree that some political compromise is necessary. Like on the off shore drilling...if we are willing to burn oil found off the shores of others, what is the difference if we drill off our own shores? It's all the same planet.

What really appealed to me about the PickensPlan is the commitment to build the wind infrastructure. No matter what happens with the oil we save, those towers would really come in handy this century.
 
As a Californian I can appreciate the paranoia about offshore drilling. It took 9 months to stop the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969. But at some point we have to move on. I suspect oil technology has become safer, as over 100 wells were knocked out by Katrina and I don't recall hearing of a big mess like Santa Barbara.
It's all the same planet.
Yes, and the spill risk is probably greater from tankers traveling thousands of miles than from an offshore well with a pipeline to land. But it's always a battle to overcome NIMBYism.

The environmentalists need to make some choices.
1) They don't want offshore drilling.
2) They don't want the natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwest.
3) I know they don't want the Colorado oil shale.
4) And Patrick doesn't want the tar sands.
5) Coal gasification will generate carbon-based opposition like shale and tar sands.
6) Don't forget that ever-present political symbol, ANWR.

All of the above need a cost/benefit analysis, on both economic and environmental grounds.
Patrick":opuniy2k said:
anything is better than coal.
We're adopting a policy that reduces the dirtiest fossil fuel, burning coal. Oil and particuarly natural gas are lesser evils.
not all domestic oil is better than imported.
Don't forget the potential environmental cost of moving all that oil around by tanker. Besides, the national security argument is:
1) legitimate, and
2) will help build the political consensus to get those wind farms built.
 
Tony Crocker":uwij7fwj said:
not all domestic oil is better than imported.
Don't forget the potential environmental cost of moving all that oil around by tanker.
Agree, but not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Importing with tankers or the great cost in energy/factors to produce oil from the tarsands. You would understand about how water isn't an unlimited ressource. Alberta farmers are hurting because of all the water used up by the Alberta Oil industry. Not an expert, but my understanding is that you need a lot of water for the Tarsands.

There is even a movement in Congress/US government that is considering not getting Alberta due to environmental cost much to the chagrin on our Prime Minister (from Alberta) and Alberta government.
 
Our political ,foreign and economic policy's are being dictated by foreign oil. I think the future of this nation is riding on us becoming energy independent..The oil producing nations of the world have us by our short hairs. I'm not saying lets throw up oil rigs everywhere, but we need to look at this with open eyes and realize we can't have it both ways.

if you have time . read the link bellow . a company has been trying for the last 5 years to put a wind farm up on Nantucket Sound. People are up in arms. The not in my back yard mentality has to stop..
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs. ... =SPECIAL01
 
Here's a similar project being disputed right in our neighborhood next to Gore in the old garnet mine which currently looks like a complete waste land. Because the mine was there - there is already everything in place to put the electric into the grid. And the Inn that was operated there was called "Highwinds." This project (4 turbines) would power half the county. But you'll be able to see the props from Sugarbush. The "locals" are seem to be in general in favor of the cheap electricity. It's the flatlanders who don't want to look at the props while they are hiking.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:vK ... cd=1&gl=us

One thing I like about the idea of putting this in the midwest....it's just a guess but I'm betting that wheat farmers may welcome the revenue, and not mind the sight of the turbines.
 
How far away (as the crow flies) is Sugarbush? :?

I've brought this up before, but after going on about the need for renewable/non-polluting energy, I always wonder how skiers would react to this on their favorite mountain.
 

Attachments

  • ge1.5-wind-turbine.jpg
    ge1.5-wind-turbine.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 9,800
jamesdeluxe":2ni360ha said:
I always wonder how skiers would react to this.

From what I hear, it's get a ton of snow and powder takes days to get tracked up. However terrain and vertical is limited and it's really remote. :shock: :shock: :shock:

OH, you're talking about the windmills... :roll: Didn't notice and skiing was my primary focus, I don't have anything against them.

jasoncapecod":2ni360ha said:
is that a real pic??

These are HUGE, you don't get that feeling from James' link. Those windmills are real and the skiing isn't bad either. :wink:

2 weeks in Gaspesia from Lucky Luke
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2971

Zoneski link that I've put inside Lucky's TR.
http://forums.zoneski.com/index.php?showtopic=5511

2008-01-19 Gaspésie - Mont Miller/Chics Chocs
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6267
 
I live near (22 miles) the first ski area in North America (Jiminy Peak in Massachusetts) to install its own wind turbine to generate electricity for its operations. Before installation, there was quite a bit of opposition from a variety of people and environmental groups about the installation of this tall and large turbine (250 feet tall) on a ridge adjacent to the ski area. Many people thought it would despoil the view, would ruin the "look" of the mountains, etc. I myself was somewhat skeptical as to how it would look, sticking up from the top of the mountain. However, after the turbine was installed last summer, there has almost universal praise for the tower. It is definitely within eyesight for dozens of miles around, but there is a certain "elegance" to seeing the white turbine with its blades slowly turning, knowing that it is generating clean electricity for the ski area. It almost looks like a piece of sculpture and is certainly less obnoxious than cell phone or TV towers. It is a 1.5 MW turbine, and the ski area estimates that it will be able to generate about 50% of its winter electricity needs (they spend almost $1,500,000 per year on electricity, mostly for snowmaking). They estimate the payback will be approximately 7 years, after the tax credits and other incentives they received. Admittedly, maybe it would be more obtrusive if they had put 4 or 5 turbines on the ridge, but the one tower is not a problem at all (IMHO). You can view the turbine at http://www.jiminypeak.com. As part of a long-term solution to diversifying our energy sources, I don't have a problem at all with installing wind turbines in high wind areas (and the top of mountains can be ideal). I wouldn't be surprised to see other ski areas follow suit and begin to install turbines in the future.
 
One might wonder about Mammoth in this regard. Is power generated proportional to average wind speed? Or only up to a certain point? Is it is safe to put them someplace like the Sierra Crest where it blows 100+MPH a few times each winter? I'm guessing they have solved the materials issues in terms of not breaking down from ice storms etc.
 
These wind farms are popping up like wildflowers all over the Intermountain West. Southwestern Wyoming in particular, with its high average elevation and treeless prairies and buttes seem to have literally hundreds of the things. And yes, they are positively massive -- check out the attached photo taken in May of four of about a half-dozen turbines that recently went in at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon south of Provo, and compare these structures to the full-size trailers at their base:
 

Attachments

  • Spanish Fork UT wind farm.jpg
    Spanish Fork UT wind farm.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 8,806
Is power generated proportional to average wind speed? Or only up to a certain point? Is it is safe to put them someplace like the Sierra Crest where it blows 100+MPH a few times each winter?

Average wind speed is critical for good wind power locations, but not getting to that average via huge deviation you refer to above. With wind less than 5-7mph the turbines don't spin at all and top efficiency/production production is usually somewhere in the 25-30mph range (every turbine/design being slightly different). By the time you hit extremely high wind speeds (long before your 100MPH - maybe ~50-60mph) the turbines either lock themselves down (some actually stop spinning)or feather the blades to protect themselves. So the key is to be in places with highly regular 20-40mph winds.

Power generated is not directly proportional to wind speed. It is close to a bell curve with much of the total power output for a year during only optimal days/periods. Not fun for grid managers to deal with really.
 
Mammoth has a lot of that 20-40MPH. So it could be good if they are safe in the more extreme weather. I guess we should not expect to see any in the Presidentials :lol:
 
Back
Top