DescentBB

I was watching an interview with the oil mogul the other day, where he claimed he was going to invest gazillions (billions) in wind farms all up and down the wind corridor. What do you think, do you think he’s good for his word. This kind of thing if true would be a very good thing…yes? no?

Good question. I know it's supposed to be clean energy and all. But to maintain those things when they break takes a crane and bucket truck to fix them. How often do they need service?

Maintenance is a normal part of just about all electricity generating technology, I doubt if wind farming is any worse than diesel/gas generation, but if it is that would be a minus.


EDIT: I’ll keep the possible negatives here:
One possible minus, duly noted. (maintenance problems)
#2 possible harm to wildlife.

The more wind generators the more the technology will improve and the lower the cost per KW will become so more is better. They are a risk to birds so some locations should be avoided. (add that to your negative list) You don't want your night migrating endangered species getting whacked by giant blades but it should be manageable.
As an example of how technology can improve reliability SKF has developed a planetary gear set specifically for wind generators that avoids some of the stress issues that previous planetary gears experienced in them.
http://evolution.skf.com/zino.aspx?articleID=14855
When there is a big enough market to justify the investment in research and design \"they will come\"

Is Pickens going to dump his own money into it without expecting a return, or is he posturing for subsidies? I'll be curious to see if he follows through.

Posturing for subsidies? What red blooded capitalist ever did that. Shame!

Lothar wrote:Is Pickens going to dump his own money into it without expecting a return, or is he posturing for subsidies? I'll be curious to see if he follows through.

No he's in it for the money, and I don't believe he wants any subsidies. He is going to build the plants and sell the electricity, or some such.

Windpower is a good thing. However, it does nothing to curb the use of oil/gas to power our vehicles.

He made his money by selling oil. Oil isn't what we use to get electricity. Even if he wasn't retired, he'd really have nothing to lose with this.

Windpower is a good thing. However, it does nothing to curb the use of oil/gas to power our vehicles.

With the advent of plug-in electric cars the source of domestic electric power will actually have an effect on the consumption of fossil fuel. Plug-in rechargeable cars are a long way from being a significant force but it is not beyond the realm to believe that the convenience of a car you recharge at home overnight might have a chance to make a mark one day. If that happens then the source of domestic electric power will become a big issue.
True it is all in the future but then it takes a long time to put up a wind farm too.

The guy is indeed filthy rich... I know his name from back in Oklahoma. He effectively put his name all over the Oklahoma State University campus (buildings, scholarships, the new football stadium, etc.) by virtue of massive donations.

I don't doubt he'd really do it, even if it was just to get his name associated with 'alternative energy'.

TechPro wrote:Windpower is a good thing. However, it does nothing to curb the use of oil/gas to power our vehicles.

He made his money by selling oil. Oil isn't what we use to get electricity. Even if he wasn't retired, he'd really have nothing to lose with this.

I don’t think the point here is to find a solution to the oil problem, more like creating clean sources for generating electricity, so we don’t have to burn more coal etc. but it could provide clean electricity for electric cars.

Foil, I did point out he expects to make money on this, “not leave his mark”.

Has anyone considered water turbines? I mean, they're already being used, but there are other, newer forms of water energy harnessing technology. I've had my eye on wave power for several years now, and I think it's a viable energy source.

Have you guys seen his ads on TV? Something smells here. There's an operative phrase in it besides 'wind power' that he touts. He also refers to 'natural gas', that he claims we have an abundance of in the U.S. and I'm guessing that he's got an inside connection to make A LOT money off of that natural resource. And it won't reduce our carbon footprint.

Actually tunnel, he would be right. We have an immense amount of natural gas and wind for turbines. The real problem is harvest. It cost money; and typically a lot of it. And where natural gas is concerned, there is a potential danger as well. Then you have the hazards of radical \"tree huggers\" who don't want to spoil the land with drilling or kill birds with wind mills (yeah, right) buts some how expect to be able to buy gas to get in their luv bugs to go to where their protests are and then be able to use a microwave when they get home to eat their hotpockets.

... gotta love America ...

by the way. the cost of natural gas here in the Northwest is growing by leaps and bounds. Not because of a lack of it, but because we have big energy companies running things around here. We have just about Every conceivable power source here in Oregon (minus nuclear now that the Trojan plant is gone) and our power is continuing to go up at a rate of something like 30% in the last years and will continue to do so. Don't believe for a moment that more options will drive down costs. Granted, our power in the NW is the cheapest in the country (mostly due to hydro power) but the corporate mind as it were is not interested in the customer, but their shareholders and how the Feds will be twisting their arms next...thus deferring their costs back to us.

Duper wrote:or kill birds with wind mills (yeah, right)

Duper, that is one heck of a ridiculous strawman you made there. Especially as those "tree huggers" specifically WANT more windmills as the alternative to fossil fuel-powered electricity.

You should feel bad.

yea... birds can fly.. so they can go HIGHER than windmills.

TIGERassault wrote:

Duper wrote:or kill birds with wind mills (yeah, right)

Duper, that is one heck of a ridiculous strawman you made there. Especially as those "tree huggers" specifically WANT more windmills as the alternative to fossil fuel-powered electricity.

You should feel bad.

Tiger.

Not here. We've had a number or rallys and the like by activist trying to stop wind mill farms for various reasons. ie. visually polluting the landscape, killing birds. you name it. I've lived in the northwest nearly ALL of my 43+ years. And quite frankly I'm more than ready to send everyone of these Druid wannabes back to you folk in Brittan. and I'm being dead serious there. Also, just fyi, "tree hugger" is an accepted term here. While it may be used derogatorily, it's also worn as a badge of honor. (not that you were saying otherwise.)

These same damn 'tree huggers' are the ones who have managed to stop any salvage logging of fire damaged trees in many areas. You can see the ugly mess whenever you drive over highway 22 to Central Oregon. They've even prevented the logging of pine beetle damaged trees in this same area, which is now a HUGE fire hazard! However, on Newberry Crater, where they had a fire several years ago, it was cleared of the dead and burned trees, except for some that were left standing interspersed in the fire area for birds to nest in and it looks a whole lot better with many new trees growing. Stupid idiot tree huggers!

Duper, I just saw the Pickens TV ad again and also noticed he mentioned coal as well. I know the U.S. has a considerable amount of this resource. But is it worth the land destruction and pollution to mine it and burn it for power? As for using natural gas, it may be a cleaner alternative, but since I heat my home and water with it here in Oregon, as do a large percentage of people in this state, do I want to see the price skyrocket when demand increases for power generation and hydrogen production around the country? Not really. It's already getting expensive.

Wind is still a viable, clean alternative for generating electricity and we're going to have to decide on the tradeoff between our power needs and wildlife preservation. Frankly, we'll probably kill more wildlife with coal plants (air pollution, acid rain) than with wind turbines. The 'tree huggers' need to either help come up with a viable, clean power source or shut up. We can't all live like Luddites, there's not enough land to go around to support us all.

???

Tunnel, I'm not arguing against alternative power sources. In fact, it's WAY over due. (maybe I'm misinterpreting your post?) I grew up during the \"energy crisis\" of the 70's. It was just before that, that all this kinda talk about new energy sources started and was relatively \"swept under the rug\" by 1985.
What I'm expressing is my exasperation by the amount of crazies that surround this topic on every side. Thus, completely gridlocking any kind of expeditious implementation / invention of sources more benevolent. ... and that's about as PC as it gets.

Over all i have some conflicting feelings where conservation and harvest of energy resources. I would like to think that there is a sane compromise, but my 1970's \"energy training\" (brainwashing) makes it difficult to reason through this without a certain amount of emotion. So, I kinda doubt one will ever be reached.

We only have about 22 years till we get hit by a spacerock so lets use what we can till then!

Duper wrote:Tiger.

Not here. We've had a number or rallys and the like by activist trying to stop wind mill farms for various reasons. ie. visually polluting the landscape, killing birds. you name it. I've lived in the northwest nearly ALL of my 43+ years. And quite frankly I'm more than ready to send everyone of these Druid wannabes back to you folk in Brittan. and I'm being dead serious there. Also, just fyi, "tree hugger" is an accepted term here. While it may be used derogatorily, it's also worn as a badge of honor. (not that you were saying otherwise.)

That... that's just messed up! As in, really messed up! In fact, I'm beginning to wonder why you haven't already moved to a different State yet!

I don't see those people complaining that cities 'visually pollute the landscape'.

seems they love having it both ways.

Sorry Duper. I was just ranting at environmentalists, as you were. I also support alternative power sources but tend get frustrated when some environmental group immediately comes up with some caveat (birds getting killed by wind turbines, visual pollution, etc.) that slows down or stops the research or implementation of the new technology. I agree that compromise will be part of the solution, although not all people will be happy any solution that humans come up with. There is always some down side to any technology.

I also grew up during the 'energy crisis' of the 1970's, even had to wait in gas lines to fill my car just to get to school and work. It was frustrating to see all the hype and hoopla over the need to develop new sources of energy fade out as fuel supplies became plentiful again at a HIGHER price. Americans won't change their ways until it really crimps their lifestyle permanently.

And it's going to really crimp me personally. Natural gas prices are going to go up 35 to 40% in the Northwest this winter and I heat my house and water with the stuff. Solar is really starting to look like a viable alternative right now and I have a large south facing section of roof. When the prices for a solar installation and natural gas rates converge.....

Oh Spidey, you could start another thread from something Pickens said in his commercial that is really frightening to think about. I believe he said something like: \"the greatest transfer of wealth in history\" and I think he was referring to the Saudis and all the money and wealth they are making from their oil revenues. From our pockets to theirs.

Tunnel. Yeah, solar is looking pretty good to augment power. If I were in a house and not an apartment, I would be looking into that.

For those not in the NW, natural gas used to be dirt cheap; so naturally many many homes have it. 20 years later the price has skyrocketed as Tunnelcat pointed out and now all those people are stuck using it. ...unless they want to refit for electricity and buy all new or most appliances.

Ferno, hehe yeah. I'd like to frame my comment there with a little more detail for reference. Not too far to the east of us here in Portland, there is something called the Columbia Gorge. It's where the Columbia river passed through the Cascade mountain range and forms a mini Grand Canyon. (about what.. 80 miles long?) It's really pretty cool. Any rate there are a couple of special interest groups that are dedicated to \"maintaining its natural beauty\". Like most environmental things, it has a good side and an extreme/bad side.

The Gorge is known internationally for it's wind. It's there 24/7/365. So naturally, its a hot spot for wind surfing. .. big time. Also,all the trees there have been denuded of branches on one side because of the constant wind. And... it's an ideal spot for a \"wind farm\". That being said, do the math and you get a quadratic equation for environmental nut jobs that want their cake and to eat it too.

I'm all for conservation and preserving our wilderness and stuff, but there must be a balance. Wilderness does no good to enjoy, if there is no one to enjoy it. .. which incidentally is the goal of some of the more radical groups here. Fortunately, there aren't many of them.

I think I may have figured out what Pickens is up to. If you'll look at the map of the U.S. electric grid, notice that Texas is set off all by itself from the rest of the nation.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/us_power_grids.html

Now if I were paranoid, I might just think that Texas and Pickens were conspiring to build wind farms and natural gas power plants, using my taxpayer dollars, then keep all that energy within their own grid all for themselves. Or worse, charge an inflated rate to pipe it out to the rest of the nation. Remember the Enron fiasco? Texas sure didn't have any problem with electrical shortages then, did they? They were able to isolate themselves from the rest of the nation. Why does such a small area need it's own power grid anyway? I'm I missing how something works here?

tunnelcat wrote:...They were able to isolate themselves from the rest of the nation. Why does such a small area need it's own power grid anyway? I'm I missing how something works here?

Did you know that, as part of the agreement to join the Union, Texas is the only State that has the right to succeed from the Union and return to being independent if it chooses to and when flying both the Texas state flag and the U.S. flag together it is the only state that can fly it own flag at the same height as the U.S. flag?

Hmmmm. A little nugget of U.S. history that I didn't know. Thanks Will, that explains a few things. My question is how does this Texas 'independent mindset' affect NATIONAL energy policy when so many of our leaders have come from there? Any Texans here care to comment?

I knew that.

(I can has a cookie?)

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...They were able to isolate themselves from the rest of the nation. Why does such a small area need it's own power grid anyway? I'm I missing how something works here?

Did you know that, as part of the agreement to join the Union, Texas is the only State that has the right to succeed from the Union and return to being independent if it chooses to and when flying both the Texas state flag and the U.S. flag together it is the only state that can fly it own flag at the same height as the U.S. flag?

I had no idea. That's quite intriguing. :: Moves to Texas :: =P

Still, I think it's a little greedy of a state, whether by public opinion or otherwise, to care for itself and basically give the finger to the rest of the states. Not that Texas is doing that, but technically they could, right? I think it's screwed up that one state gets that privilege and none of the others do. Maybe it's poor judgment on the individual states' parts, or maybe it's just the government trying to assure the integrity of the nation. :: shrug ::

If someone could link me to a copy of the aforementioned agreement between Texas and the US, I'd much appreciate it. In the meantime, I'm off to Wiki.

EDIT: After a little browsing, I found this. Apparently, any state can secede as long as they have permission, or as long as they can enforce said secession through revolution. Also, apparently Texas is a "conquered province", which I suppose translates to "not a state", which in turn would mean that - aha! - Texas can't secede. Interesting, very interesting indeed.

What frosts me is that Texas has their own little self-controlling chunk of the nation's electrical grid that can be separate and under their own control and now they want to use taxpayer dollars to benefit their own grid by building wind farms and natural gas power plants. If they were really interested in upgrading the national electrical grid, they should become part of the entire western grid and quit being self serving and independent.

kinda \"odd\" then, isn't it TC, that a Texas company owns PGE now? hmmm

TC, Please show me where the man plans to use taxpayer money, cause I must have missed something.

TC, Please show me where the man plans to use taxpayer money, cause I must have missed something.

Nowhere have I seen any specific plan put forward by him asking for public funds to build his plants. However...

Neither has he pledged to refuse them. Last week I saw an article where Mr. Pickins thought Al Gore would make a great addition to a possible Obama administration as the \"Green Energy Czar\" or something. Being ever suspicious, my first thought was \"Of course, because as long as he's gonna build this stuff, it'd be nice to have government subsidies. Lots and lots of them.\" Far more likely to happen where Gore has influence.

Picken's pitch is more than business. Pickens is trying to turn his plan into a politial issue, and in doing that, I can only think that such would involve public dollars. He's not running those commercials to attract investors. He didn't speak before Congress recently pitching alternative energies for no reason. He was arguing that government should be encouraging the developement of alternative energy. And that means grants, subsidies, and tax breaks. And I'm sure T. Boone will get a nice portion.

Is there something wrong with someone...anyone... making a profit on the inevitable alternative energy that so many people think must come sooner rather than later?

If it is the right idea who cares if the guy makes money off of it! Can you name anything that important that isn't profitable for someone? You don't really think a McCain or an Obama and their administrations are going to bring it to market do you?!?

The government is constantly handing out billions of dollars every year for crap that isn't nearly as important, if Pickens can get them to help bring about an alternative energy source then more power to him!!

Will Robinson wrote:Is there something wrong with someone...anyone... making a profit on the inevitable alternative energy that so many people think must come sooner rather than later?

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. That kind of innovation and initiative is what drives our economy.

I just find it amusing that T. Boone Pickens (who I have known about for years, because I did my graduate work at Oklahoma State) is now being portrayed as some kind of humanitarian philanthropist savior of the energy crisis. My grandparents have met the guy, and they'll tell you the same... he's a good guy, but he's in it for the $$ and the acclaim. (Again, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[RIP]Machete_Bug wrote: Neither has he pledged to refuse them. Last week I saw an article where Mr. Pickins thought Al Gore would make a great addition to a possible Obama administration as the "Green Energy Czar" or something. Being ever suspicious, my first thought was "Of course, because as long as he's gonna build this stuff, it'd be nice to have government subsidies. Lots and lots of them." Far more likely to happen where Gore has influence

Nice supposition…

Foil wrote: ....I just find it amusing that T. Boone Pickens .... is now being portrayed as some kind of humanitarian philanthropist savior of the energy crisis.....

I must have missed that commercial, the one I saw made him look like an oil man who wants people to consider his plan for alternative energy sources, primarily natural gas with the token appeal to the tree huggers in the form of solar and wind...

I took it as a profit making endeavor from the start without any attempt to hide that aspect of it.

I figured he wants us to believe he's a get 'er done kind of guy with experience in the energy field.
Considering his background and success I'd say he's worth a listen but he could be just another guy trying to steer us toward a product after he's positioned himself to be able to broker it at a high profit margin. He's offering an alternative course but I don't know if it's the best course. I do believe it's better by far than the leftwing course of....uh....did they ever come up with one??
Oh yea, "Change"....

Spidey wrote:TC, Please show me where the man plans to use taxpayer money, cause I must have missed something.

No proof, just a hunch. There's nothing wrong with Pickens making money and using taxpayer dollars to get it done, especially to create alternative energy sources for the nation. What my concern here is that the Texas electrical grid is a separate entity from the rest of the nation's main grids and a potential tool that makes it tempting for price manipulation of the electrical market if those sources were to be located in Texas. If Pickens wants to make money for Texas, I say let him use his own money for making profit. But if he wants to use taxpayer dollars to fund his projects, the rest of the nation needs to be protected from the Enron-style price fixing that Texan energy moguls seem so fond of. Take us for a ride once.......

Will Robinson wrote:I took it as a profit making endeavor from the start without any attempt to hide that aspect of it.

All well and good, as long as the profits he's making are due to consumers wanting to buy his product, rather than the government sending him taxpayer dollars to make themselves look like they're doing something for the environment.