Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Public Choice Economics of T. Boone Pickens
Via blogger, writer, and critic extraordinaire Alan Vanneman comes this bit from Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum on T. Boone Pickens and the Texas bazillionaire's newfound enthusiasm for wind power (not to be confused with Psi Power, the vastly more interesting ability, at least according to the environmentally unconscious band Hawkwind, to "read your mind like a magazine"):
Pickens wants to build his electricity transmission facilities on a strip of land 250 feet wide and 250 miles long that starts at his farm in Roberts County, Texas, and terminates in Dallas. Why that particular strip? Because Pickens has been buying up massive water rights from the Ogallala Aquifer and he wants to pipe that water to Dallas at huge profit. Unfortunately, pipeline right-of-way is pretty hard to acquire, so Pickens figured out a way to get some help: he formed a little water district headed by his wife and a friend and then convinced the Texas legislature that water plus wind electricity was a good reason to use its power of eminent domain to hand over the land to him for a song. Wind power wasn't really the motivation for this land snatch, it was just a sweetener for a water deal.
Clever—and typically Texan, no? Still, why not just sell the electricity? Why the natural gas switcheroo [part of Pickens' plan is to fuel cars with natural gas after making conventional gas stations friendly to the new energy]? Turns out Pickens has a vested interest there too:
Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backer of the stealthy Proposition 10 on California's November ballot.
Prop. 10 would kick $5 billion in public money toward incentives to switch toward alternative fuels for trucks and automobilies, the likely biggest winner being natural gas.
As reason's Ron Bailey has pointed out, Pickens has rarely met a subsidy he didn't like, as long as he was on the gettin' end.
The larger lesson? Always check ostensibly environmentally friendly plans for hidden agendas, regardless of who is pushing the plan, whether it's Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens or Jack London, for that matter.
|8.7.08 @ 9:17AM|#
Another example of Reason ignoring corporate welfare and just picking on the poor. Damn elitest libertarians.
Nigel Watt|8.7.08 @ 9:21AM|#
It's a damn good thing the Texas legislature only meets once every other year.
Episiarch|8.7.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Does this make Nick the first reason contributor to link to a Hawkwind video? I don't recall Mr. Prog himself, Weigel, ever linking to Hawkwind.
|8.7.08 @ 9:30AM|#
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a billionaire with a well functioning PR bracket would seek out subsidies and government favor!
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 9:35AM|#
I have some news for Mr. Pickens (who I used to appreciate).
Both of my 'hybrids' already run on 'natural gas'. Mostly C8H18,
which is organic, solar and renewable, btw.
Exxon/Mobil and other energy firms were kind enough to help out
with a distribution system for the fuel I use, but for some reason
they are under attack by Big Corn and Big Wind.
db|8.7.08 @ 9:36AM|#
Wind energy is notoriously unreliable. In West Texas, one of the
very very few areas in the U.S. that has relatively continuous
winds, there are wind farms that total about 3000 MW of generation
capacity. There have been incidents in which all 3000 MW drop out
of service at once due to failure of the wind to blow. This has
been such a problem that the system operator in that area has had
to curtail load, shedding load for large numbers of industrial and
commercial customers.
3000 MW of generation is a lot of power to lose at once. The
largest single unit generators in the country are only about 1400
MW, and most are much smaller. Loss of that much generation
instantaneously can be a very bad situation.
Add to that the fact that most of the rest of the country has even
less reliable winds, without enormous, expensive energy storage
facilities (pumped water storage, etc.), wind becomes hard to
manage. The wind blows in the middle of the night, most places, and
load is heaviest in the daytime. Not that the storage facilities
couldn't be built, but the capital investments required are
huge.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Always check ostensibly environmentally friendly plans for
hidden agendas, regardless of who is pushing the plan, whether it's
Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens or Jack London, for that
matter.
Wouldn't a bunch of those folksy song writers fit in here too?
|8.7.08 @ 9:43AM|#
The larger lesson? Always check ostensibly environmentally
friendly plans for hidden agendas, regardless of who is pushing the
plan, whether it's Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens or Jack London, for
that matter.
The most reasonable thing I have read on reason in a long time.
BakedPenguin|8.7.08 @ 9:50AM|#
To be fair, Episiarch, Hawkwind isn't really prog. They have a lot of the same sonic elements as prog bands, but their song structures are too simple.
|8.7.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Both of my 'hybrids' already run on 'natural
gas'.
Please come up with another joke. Please.
|8.7.08 @ 9:56AM|#
And thanks for the link to the Jack London piece - I didn't see that when it originally went up.
Episiarch|8.7.08 @ 9:57AM|#
BP, they are technically prog. "Space rock" is a subgenre of
prog.
But I don't really care, I was just noting the appearance of the
band.
|8.7.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Pickens is a great American hero, you libertarian
nuts:
Well, boys, I reckon this is it-nuclear combat toe to toe with the Rooskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin.' Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump-we got some flyin' to do.
Brings a tear to my eye.
|8.7.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Pro,
That would be Slim Pickens and what in the wide world of sports is
going on here?
You don't get to be a billionaire by caring about the society or
much beyond your own wallet. Anytime some billionaire shows up to
save the world, rest assured it will involve him taking some of
your money.
|8.7.08 @ 10:06AM|#
What??! You mean T. Boone Pickens was not in Dr.
Strangeglove or Blazing Saddles? Then why are we
talking about him?
Whoa, I think I just had a sargasm
☺
|8.7.08 @ 10:08AM|#
The larger lesson? Always check ostensibly environmentally
friendly plans for hidden agendas
Whereas chacking ostensibly environmentally harmful plans for
hidden agenda is a disreputable ad homenim, worthy only of
mockery.
|8.7.08 @ 10:12AM|#
joe,
There is something more annoying about people claiming
higher purposes when they really are just acting with the same
motives as their opponents. In politics, we see similar hypocrisy
when people act for God®, the Flag™, or The Children® but really
are just lining their pockets with their thirty pieces of
silver.
Episiarch|8.7.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Whereas chacking ostensibly environmentally harmful plans
for hidden agenda is a disreputable ad homenim, worthy only of
mockery.
joe, did you hit your head on something?
|8.7.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Pro Lib,
There is something more annoying about people claiming higher
purposes when they really are just acting with the same motives as
their opponents.
Yes, people makes claims of serving a noble purpose as they pursue
a purely mercenery agenda are the most annoying of all.
|8.7.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Must be a real good feeling to have Guy Montag chiming in about
how clever you are.
That's when you know you're really getting somewhere.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Maybe Pickens can get a federal methane subsidy, while he's
at it.
Can they make that from government cheese?
Ah, new study required.
|8.7.08 @ 10:21AM|#
To quote another Texas oil bidness millionaire, H.L. Hunt, "If
the world's worth saving, then it's worth saving at a
profit."
However, that's without subsidies, eminent domain shenanigans,
backroom boolyahs with your bought legislators, and the like. I
think some of them 150+ Texas Libertarian candidates should be
tackling this Boone-doggle issue full time.
|8.7.08 @ 10:23AM|#
You know you've really achieved a wordly, above-it-all skepticism when the observation that it's wise to look for a hidden agenda on all sides offends your sensibilities.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 10:23AM|#
I think some of them 150+ Texas Libertarian candidates
should be tackling this Boone-doggle issue full time.
Is that number greater or equal to the number of Libertarians in
TX?
But I do support the idea.
TallDave|8.7.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Most people claiming to do good are also trying to do well, esp
when their plans involve gov't action; even the Communists weren't
really communists.
Al Gore's made some $100M on his enviro-messianism. He just had a
yacht built, which I'm sure reduces his carbon footprint.
I don't mind seeing someone else get rich, as long as they're not
simultaneously telling me why I need to reduce my own living
standards.
T|8.7.08 @ 10:24AM|#
I'm just amazed that anybody thought for any length of time, even a nanosecond, that T. Boone gave a damn about anything other than T. Boone. It flies in the face of his entire career.
|8.7.08 @ 10:25AM|#
joe,
WTF is your problem this fine AM? This is a scam dressed up as
environmerntal/public works do goodism. Rational environmentalists
despise crap like this.
|8.7.08 @ 10:28AM|#
ostensibly environmentally harmful plans for hidden
agenda
What's the hidden agenda in an environmentally harmful plan? If
it's ostensibly harmful, to have a hidden agenda that agenda would
have to be beneficial to the environment, and that they would need
to hide it in the first place.
And if the hidden agenda is money... how many "ostensibly
environmentally harmful plans" are not upfront about their profit
motive? And how many prima facie "environmentally harmful
plans" are presented as some sort of philanthropic endeavor?
OK, sure. Look at all sides. Cui bono is always a good
idea. But when, say, a company wants to clear-cut a mountain, I
doubt there are many hidden agendas there.
Episiarch|8.7.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Must be a real good feeling to have Guy Montag chiming in
about how clever you are.
That's when you know you're really getting somewhere.
Unlike you, joe, I don't base my appreciation of my humor on who
chimes in about it. I do it for the lulz, not the lolz.
You should put some ice on that, by the way.
Nigel Watt|8.7.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Is that number greater or equal to the number of Libertarians in TX?
I'm not running, so no.
|8.7.08 @ 10:31AM|#
So I'm guessing that this is just plain old graft, as opposed to
honest graft*?
*honest graft is when people skim a little off of projects that are
actually useful and/or needed.
|8.7.08 @ 10:37AM|#
J sub D,
WTF is your problem this fine AM? You should probably ask
that of the people who decided to pick a fight with me over
nothing.
PS: I didn't write anything about Pickens. Perhaps your
observations about him, and what rational environmentalists think
about him, was intended for someone else?
|8.7.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Wind power won't be viable until they find a way to store the
energy generated by it so it can be tapped when the wind isn't
blowing.
Whether this is via batteries, ultra-capacitors, or the
aforementioned water storage will remain to be seen.
But as it stands right now, the dirty secret behind wind energy is
that for it to work, you have to have a coal-fired power plant
running in standby mode on a continuous basis.
|8.7.08 @ 10:39AM|#
SugarFree,
Good point.
OK, sure. Look at all sides. Cui bono is always a good idea.
But when, say, a company wants to clear-cut a mountain, I doubt
there are many hidden agendas there.
You're right, of course. I was thinking more along the lines of
plans which look remarkably similar to what people opposed to
environmental protection put out, but which are cloaked in
environmentalist language.
|8.7.08 @ 10:41AM|#
mediageek,
Wind power won't be viable until they find a way to store the
energy generated by it so it can be tapped when the wind isn't
blowing.
Wouldn't the distribution of wind turbines throughout a region,
combined with a regional grid, solve that problem? The wind's going
to be blowing somewhere.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Seems the documentry had some catchy tunes. Perhaps this deserves a little repackaging?
|8.7.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Al Gore's made some $100M on his enviro-messianism. He just
had a yacht built, which I'm sure reduces his carbon
footprint.
What if it's a carbon-fibre sailboat?
Judges, can we have a ruling?
|8.7.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Only if your grid didn't have many transmission losses and you were willing to seriously derate output to consumers. I think there needs to be a combined cycle type system, where the wind turbine can do work, like compress gas and that compressed gas in turn turns a power turbine.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 10:50AM|#
P Brooks,
As long as someone else was doing the polluting when the boat was
built, he is in the clear, as it were.
Just like when you move the pollution from a car to a power
grid.
|8.7.08 @ 10:54AM|#
L.I.T.,
Iceland is the process of developing a system of geothermal-powered
hydrogen plants. I wonder if it's possible to build
hydrogen-producing plants at a small enough scale - perhaps even
down to the household level - to be practicable for the
distributed, small-scale pattern that makes the most sense for
wind.
|8.7.08 @ 10:56AM|#
the wind turbine can do work, like compress gas and that
compressed gas in turn turns a power turbine.
The windmills can pump the water into water towers, and then the
water can power turbines as it is released. Simple.
Send me a check.
|8.7.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Mankind will not be truly free until we have fusion power in
each and every home.
To amplify my previous comment, I don't mind profit motives or
other motives tinged with self-interest; I just mind people
pretending that they don't have such motives.
|8.7.08 @ 10:57AM|#
He just had a yacht built....
I thought he just bought Thor Heyerdahls old boat.
|8.7.08 @ 11:02AM|#
P Brooks,
The water using people of drought prone west Texas, Colorado and
Wyoming might be very unhappy with that arrangement.
|8.7.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Pro L,
Mankind will not be truly free until we have a Mr.
fusion power in each and every home.
fixed
|8.7.08 @ 11:05AM|#
"Whether this is via batteries, ultra-capacitors, or the
aforementioned water storage will remain to be seen."
Ultra capacitors? Can't we just use flux capacitors? Those have
been around since 1985.
Wind isn't a viable alternative for the reasons cited above. You
can't lose 3000 mw of generating capacity when the wind decides not
to blow. Further, you can only push power about 1000 miles down the
line. There is not a lot withing a 1000 miles of West Texas.
Pickens is selling a snake oil sollution that is going to do
nothing but get him richer. Worse still, he is giving aid and
comfort to people who want to live in a fantasy land whereby there
are all of these magical sollutions out there for replacing
oil.
|8.7.08 @ 11:06AM|#
To amplify my previous comment, I don't mind profit motives
or other motives tinged with self-interest; I just mind people
pretending that they don't have such motives.
To amplify this comment, I don't like it when people's profit
motives result in forcibly taking money from me.
|8.7.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Joe, it's a step in the right direction, and I'm certainly not
against the development of alternative forms of energy
generation.
You may very well be correct that a large enough network of wind
farms would allow energy to be substituted from other areas when
the wind fails in your neck of the woods. I'd be curious to see the
studies that have been done to show if that is feasible.
|8.7.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Iceland is the process of developing a system of geothermal-powered hydrogen plants. I wonder if it's possible to build hydrogen-producing plants at a small enough scale - perhaps even down to the household level - to be practicable for the distributed, small-scale pattern that makes the most sense for wind.
A couple of years ago, I recall seeing a proposal from Honda that
involved having an in-house system used to generate hydrogen for
use in fuel cell vehicles.
It was kind of pie-in-the-sky, but thus far they've been able to
build a couple of refueling stations for the handful testbed of FCX
Clarity vehicles that are in California.
|8.7.08 @ 11:17AM|#
PS: I didn't write anything about Pickens. Perhaps your
observations about him, and what rational environmentalists think
about him, was intended for someone else?
And the thread is about? Oh yeah, "The Public Choice Economics of
T. Boone Pickens". Sorry I misinterpreted your threadjack attempt
and assumed that your initial comment was somehow related to the
topic at hand.
My bad.
TallDave|8.7.08 @ 11:17AM|#
I thought he just bought Thor Heyerdahls old
boat.
I think his first choice was Noah's...
Nigel Watt|8.7.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Iceland is the process of developing a system of geothermal-powered hydrogen plants. I wonder if it's possible to build hydrogen-producing plants at a small enough scale - perhaps even down to the household level - to be practicable for the distributed, small-scale pattern that makes the most sense for wind.
Yes, but they will be far less efficient.
|8.7.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Worse still, he is giving aid and comfort to people who want to live in a fantasy land whereby there are all of these magical sollutions out there for replacing oil.
If alternative energy solutions are all nothing more than "magical"
then we're well and truly fucked.
FWIW, the Air Force currently have to bases that derive their power
from wind generation.
|8.7.08 @ 11:21AM|#
"If alternative energy solutions are all nothing more than
"magical" then we're well and truly fucked."
Right now they are "magical". Maybe in a few years if fusion comes
around or they develop so super fantasic solar cell they won't be,
but right now they are. But we are not fucked because the world is
swimming in oil. We just have to be smart enough to drill for it.
Sadly, I am starting to wonder if we are. There seems to be a case
of mass insanity going on in this country regarding oil.
|8.7.08 @ 11:22AM|#
On one hand, if Pickens doesn't have any investment in wind or
gas or whatever, people will say, "why don't you put your money
where your mouth is." On the other hand, if he has substantial
investments in those areas, people will cry, "hidden agenda."
I think we can all agree that T. Boone Pickens needs a swift boat
in the ass.
bill|8.7.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Oh I' Illuminati!
Yes I'm Illuminati!
I can be nice or naughty!
'Cause I'm Illuminati!
robc|8.7.08 @ 11:25AM|#
If the world's worth saving, then it's worth saving at a
profit.
This has always been my thought on recycling. You want to pay me
for my aluminum cans? Hell yes I will separate them out. You want
them for free? Screw you, Im thowing them in with the rest of the
garbage.
I always figure mining landfills for aluminum could be big business
some day.
|8.7.08 @ 11:27AM|#
John, "magical" implies "nonexistent" which would be correct if
these energy generation technologies weren't actually being used by
people here and now.
There are no less than a half-dozen companies in or near my small
city that specialize in rooftop solar photovoltaic electricity
systems. And that's not counting the off-the-shelf
Solar Photovoltaic system you can buy from Home Depot.
EESTOR Ultracapacitors are already being used by the military for
some applications where dense energy is needed in places where you
can't just plug your shit into a wall outlet.
And I've seen no less than a half-dozen homes in the mountains that
quite obviously generate at least a portion of their electricity
from small-scale wind turbines.
Are these technologies somewhat primitive compared to what they
could be?
Yes.
Are they totally ready for Prime Time?
Not quuiiiiiite yet, but we're getting there.
But your statements betray what I will classify as utter ignorance
on the subject mired in a view of what alternative energy was circa
1985.
|8.7.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Nigel,
Yes, but they will be far less efficient.
Certainly, you'd lose out from economies of scale and the lower
elevation of the blades, but there's the transmission losses from a
centralized plant that other people brought up.
|8.7.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Wind power and solar definitely have their place in the energy
mix. To think that world energy production is somehow going to be
carbon free in our lifetime is magical thinking. I have high hopes
for large scale geothermal, I know large scale fission
works, and even have fantasies about room temperature
superconductors in my less lucid moments.
The fact is, we will still be burning (hopefully less) fossil fuels
into the foreseeable future. Sometimes reality sucks.
|8.7.08 @ 11:37AM|#
And the thread is about?
The hidden agendas of people who claim their ideas about the
environment and energy are efforts to advance the public
good.
This is confusing to you?
|8.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
But we are not fucked because the world is swimming in oil. We just have to be smart enough to drill for it.
Oddly enough, the people I know in the oil industry are not nearly
so optimistic.
|8.7.08 @ 11:55AM|#
And the thread is about?
The hidden agendas of people who claim their ideas about the
environment and energy are efforts to advance the public
good.
This is confusing to you?
Go read your first post, joe. After that you've contributed
positively to the discussion, but that was just some sort of
whine.
You may now return to T. Boone Pickens' (and others) environmental
perfidy and public teat sucking.
|8.7.08 @ 12:01PM|#
media geek,
If all of these wonderful cheap sources of energy really exist,
then people will start using them.
"And I've seen no less than a half-dozen homes in the mountains
that quite obviously generate at least a portion of their
electricity from small-scale wind turbines."
First, what proportion? They still need to be on the grid. Second,
it is in the moutains where solar works better than other places.
Lastly, there is a big difference between rich people playing
around gadgets on the edges and actually replacing hydrocarbons and
nuclear. Electric companies operate for profit. If there were a
cheap way to use solar to replace hydro carbons they would be doing
it on a mass scale, not just in your back yard.
|8.7.08 @ 12:01PM|#
But we are not fucked because the world is swimming in
oil.
While we are not fucked, the world is most assuredlt not
"swimming in oil". But you knew that easily recoverable petroleum
is running out, didn't you?
|8.7.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Go read your first post, joe.
You mean, the one about looking at the hidden agendas of people who
make declarations about environmantal plans?
Um...ok.
There. Done. How about you stop whining at me now?
|8.7.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Wouldn't the distribution of wind turbines throughout a
region, combined with a regional grid, solve that problem? The
wind's going to be blowing somewhere.
I don't think wind works that way. There are surprisingly few areas
where the wind is strong and consistent enough for wind turbines to
make sense, and you have to run major transmission lines to your
wind farms.
Even in the best wind areas, periodically the wind just doesn't
blow. I don't think there's a way around that.
|8.7.08 @ 12:07PM|#
And I would say that, given his past record in the energy business, if T. Boone Pickens is betting on alternative energy, then its a likely a pretty good bet that alternative energy is going to grow significantly in the very near future.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:10PM|#
JsubD,
I know large scale fission works
Sure it works, but it is not as cost effective as a number of other
energy sources currently available...including wind. If it was a
money maker, T. Boone would be pushing to get public money to help
him build a string of nuclear plants.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
|8.7.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Oddly enough, the people I know in the oil industry are not
nearly so optimistic.
so very true.
www.theoildrum.com
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:14PM|#
John,
You are operating under the false assumption that the way people
are doing things is the best possible way to do things.
People do things largely because it is the way they did it before.
Breaking a system out of a historical rut to a better solution
often takes deliberate prodding.
PNM is actively adding solar and wind to their coal and
nuclear...
The best way to do this is to have on-site generation of power and
send excess generation into the grid. With widespread adoption,
this takes care of many of the reliability issues raised above.
|8.7.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Well we certainly shouldn't support anything that might make someone a profit, even if its good for the country. Better to send our money to the middle east than to do anything to help dirty capitalists. Thanks for pointing out that billionaires are motivated by profit. As surprising as this is it's something we need to know. Profit motives have never done anything good for anyone.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:18PM|#
I would suggest that a utility company should invest in the solar and wind units much like a satellite tv company invests in dishes...and install the distributed power sources as part of the service they provide.
|8.7.08 @ 12:18PM|#
LIT,
Now that is not what I meant. I was just clarifying that I wasn't
objecting so much to a profit motive than to hypocrisy. Sucking on
the public teat pisses me off most of the time, too.
To John's point above, we really need to improve the efficiency of
energy storage, on top of everything else.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:19PM|#
lib,
I believe the beef is the eminent domain/public money grab, not the
profit motive.
|8.7.08 @ 12:22PM|#
If all of these wonderful cheap sources of energy really exist, then people will start using them.
I never said they were cheap. They aren't, yet. Nor have I made any
claims about them being perfect. Regardless, solar PV systems are
projected to reach grid parity within a few years.
First, what proportion? They still need to be on the grid.
In the case of most of these systems, yes, they do. But that only
results in cost savings since you don't need a bank of batteries to
run your household off of.
My parents, who are in the midst of planning their retirement home,
have some friends who discovered that it was cheaper to install an
off-grid Solar PV system than to run the wire to plug into the
electric grid, so, as I said, it can and is being done.
Second, it is in the moutains where solar works better than other places.
First off, I was referring to the small-scale wind turbines I've
seen. But I have no idea why solar would work better in the
mountains vs. not mountains. Plainly, if you live in a state like
Colorado which has 300+ days of sunshine a year solar will make
more sense than if you live in, say, Washington State.
Lastly, there is a big difference between rich people playing around gadgets on the edges and actually replacing hydrocarbons and nuclear.
I would hardly describe most of the people undertaking these things
as being rich. Most of them are comfortably middle class or
upper-middle class, at least judging by the appearance of their
homes.
Nor did I ever claim these things are a replacement for coal or
nuclear. You might try scrolling upthread and reading my first post
about wind generated electricity after you remove those Team Red
Tinted shades of yours.
I'm all for coal-fired power plants and nuclear energy. In fact, if
I could find an Alternative Energy mutual fund that invested in
solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, and related technologies, I do believe
I would cream myself.
Electric companies operate for profit. If there were a cheap way to use solar to replace hydro carbons they would be doing it on a mass scale, not just in your back yard.
Again with the straw man argument.
|8.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#
NM,
Massachusetts just passed a bill that, among other things,
eliminated a regulation that forbade utility companies from owning
commercial solar facilities.
I haven't the foggiest idea why banning utility companies from
owning solar facilities was once considered a good idea.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 12:26PM|#
mediageek,
A couple of years ago, I recall seeing a proposal from Honda
that involved having an in-house system used to generate hydrogen
for use in fuel cell vehicles.
I remember about 8 or 10 years ago, GE was talking about a home
fuel cell, powered by natural gas, that created electricity through
a catalyst IIRC.
Have not seen much on that since.
|8.7.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Whereas chacking ostensibly environmentally harmful plans
for hidden agenda is a disreputable ad homenim, worthy only of
mockery.
joe, sometimes people say, "I'm doing this because it's good for
the environment." It makes sense to check and see if they might
have a less respectable reason for their action.
If someone says, "I'm doing this to destroy the environment," how
likely is it they've seized that rationale as a fig leaf to cover
their true motive?
|8.7.08 @ 12:30PM|#
joe,
Because the Sun God, Ra, objects to the misuse of his divine rays
for such mundane purposes as powering appliances. Cower in fear,
Monkey Boy!
|8.7.08 @ 12:30PM|#
FWIW, I view T. Boone Pickens' plan with a bit of a jaundiced
eye.
For all the advancements in alternative energy in the last ten
years, the big challenge won't be keeping the lights on so much as
it will be getting from point A to points B and beyond.
db|8.7.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Guys, if you don't have at least a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, indicating that you have at least taken and passed a thermo coruse or two, please refrain from commenting on the technical viability of any, repeat, ANY, energy production technology.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:34PM|#
joe,
I haven't the foggiest idea why banning utility companies from
owning solar facilities was once considered a good idea.
Sounds like the primary bane of sound environmental policy, one
industry convincing government to squash the competition from
another industry.
One of the reasons I think libertarians and greens are more natural
allies than it would appear on the surface is because both are
interested in eliminating government regulations and subsidies that
create barriers to innovation.
They may disagree on a lot of other issues, but there is a lot of
overlap in their goals.
|8.7.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Have not seen much on that since.
The Honda proposal also used natural gas.
I think that alt-energy powered motive transportation will be much
more prevalent twenty years from now, but the stuff we're seeing
right now, such as the Toyota Prius, etc. constitute just the baby
steps in that direction.
I don't think hybrids or electric-powered cars will be quite so
excellent until batteries are either improved, or been supplanted
with another form of power storage.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 12:35PM|#
db,
Aren't those the guys who keep trying to convince us Finance guys
to keep filling their little theoretical black holes with real
money?
Nigel Watt|8.7.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Geothermal's not simple, easily maintained technology, joe. Individualized geothermal production is not, from what I've seen, a workable idea.
db|8.7.08 @ 12:37PM|#
If you have at least completed an English course or two, feel free to correct my sepelinh.
|8.7.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Neu, count me as a extreme skeptic of household level distibuted
energy production systems (especially solar and wind). The storage
problems already cited by many, coupled with huge seasonal swings
in household demand are considerale obstacles.
If reliable small generation wind and solar systems (power whenever
you throw the switch) become cheap enough that they pay for
themseves in ten - fifteen years, banks will gladly lend us the
money to buy them and we'll be glad to take out the loans. Then the
power companise can sell their suburban and rural distribution
systems for scrap and concentrate on urban and and industrial/large
commerxial users.
I reemain skeptical that that is going to happen in my lifetime and
would be happy to be proven wrong.
|8.7.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Pickens has rarely met a subsidy he didn't like, as long as
he was on the gettin' end.
Horrifyingly, a savvy investor will consider all returns, and
gladly accept government subsidies in the mix. You don't get as
rich as Pickens by leaving money on the table.
I don't like it, but it's not, strictly speaking, his fault; if the
government would desist from their attempts to impose indutrial
policy, the efficiency and economic merits of these projects would
be more evident.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 12:38PM|#
mediageek,
Sorry man, I have been hearing this one for over 30 years: I
think that alt-energy powered motive transportation will be much
more prevalent twenty years from now, . . .
The fad energy source of choice, of course, does change from time
to time.
|8.7.08 @ 12:40PM|#
db,
Until you produce flying cars, Mr. Fusion, and a space elevator,
bite me (but only with cyborg teeth). People here have opinions in
my discipline all the time. I just mock them secretly in sargasmic
glee.
Too bad we can't tap into libertarian angst--we could power a new
sun with that.
|8.7.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Guys, if you don't have at least a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, indicating that you have at least taken and passed a thermo coruse or two, please refrain from commenting on the technical viability of any, repeat, ANY, energy production technology.
Why?
If anything I've posted is in need of correction from an engineer,
I'm fully open to being educated.
I'd like to think I'm generally smart enough to avoid falling for
things like overunity drives, cars powered by water,
room-temperature nuclear fusion, or other nonsense.
But if you just want to be a dick and flaunt your superiority, then
you can certainly feel free to STFU.
|8.7.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Sorry man, I have been hearing this one for over 30 years: I think that alt-energy powered motive transportation will be much more prevalent twenty years from now, . . .
The fad energy source of choice, of course, does change from time to time.
And you'd be right, if not for the fact that there are average
people doing this stuff right now.
Toyota, Nissan, and Ford all offer hybrid vehicles for sale that
the average person can afford. Chevy plans to offer the Volt hybrid
for sale to the public shortly.
Tesla Motors has delivered the first of their all-electric sports
car that is capable of doing 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and has a range of
over 200 miles.
In principle I would agree with you if the technology announcements
were just some nerd in a lab coat at the NREL issuing a
press-release.
But it isn't. This stuff is for sale or coming on line NOW. For
fuck's sake all you have to do is use Google once in awhile.
db|8.7.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Fine. Just don't come whining to me when your public energy policy, informed more by politics than sound engineering, causes you to have to choose between using your computer or keeping your food cold.
|8.7.08 @ 12:50PM|#
To sum up my posts:
The price of oil is climbing for *insert reason(s) here* and we are
now entering the point in time in which technologies that make
better use of oil or supplant it completely are becoming
economically viable.
Nothing I've advocated is of the "go live in a cave without
electrcity or a fast car and eat worms" view.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 12:51PM|#
JsubD,
Neu, count me as a extreme skeptic of household level
distibuted energy production systems
You have been added to the skeptic column.
On-site energy generation is being aggressively pursued at the
commercial level currently by many industries. Utilities that
pursue it along the lines I suggest above will install their solar
panels and other site specific generators at commercial sites
first. Once that system is up and running, it will move into
home-based units.
It will not happen overnight, but there is no technical reason to
delay the start of the project. As I said, at least one utility,
PNM, is already working to incorporate distributed generation into
the mix. This sector will expand more quickly if regulatory
barriers are removed.
I expect to see it in my lifetime.
I ain't that much younger than you.
|8.7.08 @ 12:53PM|#
db-
If you have insights to offer to the discussion, from an
engineering perspective please feel free to share them as such
information is of great interest to me as a layman.
Otherwise, you're just being a douche.
|8.7.08 @ 12:54PM|#
I daresay that few here advocate making technical decisions--or most other decisions, for that matter--based on politics. We're like libertarians and stuff.
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 12:56PM|#
But it isn't. This stuff is for sale or coming on line NOW.
For fuck's sake all you have to do is use Google once in
awhile.
I am fully aware of the toy cars that you list.
You are trying to present them as some sort of revolution in energy
usage?
Plenty of federal alternative energy fad money went into most of
those vehicles. Some more of it goes into bribing people to buy the
things.
Looks more like a 'false' market to me. One artificially created by
various government do-gooders.
|8.7.08 @ 1:04PM|#
You are trying to present them as some sort of revolution in energy usage?
I'm presenting them as the first step in what may be a new
direction in transportation.
I hardly see the development of an electric sports car as something
the feds would throw money at.
They're more interested in throwing piles of money at Iowa corn
farmers under the guise of energy independence, thereby driving up
the price of both food and fuel.
|8.7.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Al Gore vs T. Boone Pickens
The difference being that Pickens will cost tax payers less money
and might actually work at improving environmental quality.
Not to say that what Pickens is doing is all that great but it is
important to quantify these things.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Guy Montag,
The Prius is a toy car?
Really?
It seems your 1970's Charger would fit the definition of toy much
better.
Owned and driven for fun more than utility.
Tesla Motors money comes from these people
http://www.teslamotors.com/media/investors.php
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:26PM|#
FWIW,
I think hybrid technology was funded more by Japanese tax payers
and American car consumers, than it was by American Federal
funds.
But I haven't researched it too carefully.
|8.7.08 @ 1:27PM|#
I just got back from a vacation that involved some lengthy driving, and I must say that the Prius looks particularly vulnerable on the interstates. It's not alone in that, but my wife and I specifically noted its apparent fragility. Naturally, with our near-Brady Bunch quantities of passengers, we were running small cars off the road in our massive, gas-sucking mini-van.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:28PM|#
db | August 7, 2008, 12:50pm | #
Fine. Just don't come whining to me when your public energy policy,
informed more by politics than sound engineering, causes you to
have to choose between using your computer or keeping your food
cold.
For an engineer, you seem to have little understanding of how
systems work.
Strange.
|8.7.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Wouldn't the distribution of wind turbines throughout a
region, combined with a regional grid, solve that
problem?
No.
The amount of money and environmental degradation that would be
incurred from constructing such a system massively swamps any
possible gains.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Joshua Corning,
Do tell.
Details?
Harms include?
How do these compare to the harms of coal energy?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/coal-vs-wind-power-you-be-the-judge.html
|8.7.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Just don't come whining to me when your public energy policy, informed more by politics than sound engineering,...
WTF are you talking about.
You keep spouting off as though everyone's wrong or something but
as near as I can tell there are several people disagreeing omong
themselves. this leaves open the possibility that someone migh be
right. As it is, I have no idea what your know-it-allness has to
say about the topic.
So, as mdiageek has pointed out, if you have some great
qualification in this area, how about actually taking issue with a
particular comment and set all of us straight. Otherwise just fuck
off.
Paul|8.7.08 @ 1:35PM|#
I have it on 'good' authority that eminent domain transfers to private parties aren't [always] about the money.
|8.7.08 @ 1:36PM|#
The Prius is a toy car?
Yes
Really?
Yes really.
A Prius, because of owner habits, life span, and manufacture the
Prius is more damaging to the environment then a Hummer is.
Why people people find spending money for a false sense of
righteous indignation fun is not for me to explain.
|8.7.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Pro Libertate
As I understand it the Prius' advantage exists primarily in city
driving.
On high speed interstate driving it has no perceptible advantage
over an equivalent sized and powered conventional car.
Paul|8.7.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Whereas chacking ostensibly environmentally harmful plans
for hidden agenda is a disreputable ad homenim, worthy only of
mockery.
Joe, in most cases that spring to mine, most environmentally
harmful plans don't have a hidden agenda. Their agenda is usually
out in front: money.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Joshua Corning,
You're pulling out the Prius/Hummer canard?
Really?
Are you being willfully ignorant or do you not know that analysis
has been shown to be seriously flawed?
Paul|8.7.08 @ 1:39PM|#
erh, spring to mind.
I will use the preview button.
I will use the preview button.
I will use the preview button.
|8.7.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Isaac,
Fair enough. Our comments were more focused on the death-in-a-box
feature of the Prius than on anything else.
|8.7.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Details?
Harms include?
How do these compare to the harms of coal energy?
Pretty simple really.
The wind farms and conduit and wire have to be manufactured and
then installed...the coal plants and transmission lines already
exist.
Your study completely ignores these costs.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Isaac,
The Prius gets about 45mpg on the highway.
I think that beats any other mid-sized vehicle other than a Honda
hybrid.
|8.7.08 @ 1:42PM|#
parse,
We covered that downthread.
Nigel,
I think we might be talking past each other - I was refering to
distributed, household-scale wind power. Did you mean "hydrogen"
instead of "geothermal?"
J sub D, you're talking about replacing in toto electricity from
the grid, without even having it as a backup, but most of the
household solar and wind are meant to compliment power from the
grid.
joshua, you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do
you? The amount of money and environmental degradation that
would be incurred from constructing such a system massively swamps
any possible gains. The massive enviornmental damage
from...building an electrical grid...linking power lines
together...which is what we have now...is going to cause more
environmental damage - massively more - than removing coal plants
from the power mix.
Sure it will. You can tell, because joshua corning says so.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Joshua Corning,
Sorry, not buying that as an argument against wind. Short term
costs are not really the deciding factor when choosing between
infrastructure options.
|8.7.08 @ 1:45PM|#
You're pulling out the Prius/Hummer canard?
Really?
Are you being willfully ignorant or do you not know that analysis
has been shown to be seriously flawed?
Actually it isn't...it is really weird how environmentalists
completely ignore the costs of replacing functioning existing
infrastructure...they only look at cost benefit analysis that
compares the two as if they are both already built.
This is not exactly what is happening with the prius but similar.
Hummers last longer and owners tend to not replace them as quickly
as a prius owner does.
I admit that trend could change...but the facts of today are that
Prius owners are not the stewards they claim to be.
|8.7.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Safety ratings for the Prius:
http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota_prius_4_door_liftback-safety/
Four and five stars on every measure.
People make a lot of assumptions about the Prius based on its
appearance. It looks a bit like an econobox from the early 80s, so
a lot of people assume it's smaller than it actually is, and isn't
safe.
|8.7.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Forgot to add:
Though given the fact that a hogh proportion of driving is in town
most drivers would, in fact, benefit from a hybrid.
I'm not all that familiar with the Prius but a friend (serious
lefty Democrat enviro) has a Civic hybrid. It strikes me as a
remarkably solid little car. My friend is very happy with it
(although a significant part of that is due to the extraordinary
sense of moral superiority she gets from it).
I have another friend who's Dad owns a Camry hypbrid. In his case
it's not an enviro sense that motivates him but the fact that he's
a fairly well-to-do old dude (retired Navy/NASA doubledipper) who
loves to try every new gadget that comes out. He likes his car too.
It was from him that I first heard of the lack of advantage for
hybrids in interstate driving.
Paul|8.7.08 @ 1:50PM|#
db:
Guys, if you don't have at least a bachelor's degree in an
engineering discipline, indicating that you have at least taken and
passed a thermo coruse or two, please refrain from commenting on
the technical viability of any, repeat, ANY, energy production
technology.
One needs no degree to comment. One need only understand
thermodynamics to have a sense of which crackpot 'renewable' energy
schemes are viable, and which aren't. I have never "passed a course
in thermodynamics", but yet I know that this won't
work.
For the record, I'm very skeptical of the viability of wind
power.
|8.7.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Neu Mejican | August 7, 2008, 1:41pm
Maybe you're right.
I'm just repeating what I have heard from several sources.
On the other hand, like many H&R commenters, my sources may
very well be full of shit.
Unlike many H&R commenters I'm usually willing to admit when
I've been shown to be full of shit.
:)
|8.7.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Civic hybrid safety ratings.
http://autos.yahoo.com/honda_civic_hybrid_cvt_at_pzev-safety/
About the same as the Prius.
Both of which, of course, are going to be vastly safer than your
standard, outmoded 70s-era muscle car.
|8.7.08 @ 1:53PM|#
In case anyone interpretted anything I said as critical of the Prius, you'd be wrong.
|8.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#
I expect to see it in my lifetime.
I ain't that much younger than you.
You've likely lived a less chemically demanding life though.
;-)
|8.7.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Short term costs are not really the deciding factor when
choosing between infrastructure options.
So under that analysis we can destroy the planet to replace all our
infrastructure so long as after it is built it is marginally less
environmentally costly.
"Short term costs" is not a measure of impact of those costs.
Under your scenario we could be replacing our infrastructure every
few years with the best new thing and sure each best new thing is
marginally less destructive but unless the last old thing is
allowed to run its full working life span and gain all its benefits
over time you will be encouraging "short term costs" that swamp an
gains.
To be honest it is sort of sad that you are blind sided by
this.
If your proposal was a phased replacement as old infrastructure
wears out then sure i can go along with a distributed wind power
network. But that is not your proposal.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Joshua Corning,
Actually it isn't...it is really weird how environmentalists
completely ignore the costs of replacing functioning existing
infrastructure...they only look at cost benefit analysis that
compares the two as if they are both already built.
You are wrong on that for the most part.
Environmentalists came up with the concept of lifetime
environmental impact to cover, well, the lifetime environmental
impact that includes replacing the existing infrastructure.
This is not exactly what is happening with the prius but
similar. Hummers last longer and owners tend to not replace them as
quickly as a prius owner does.
Nope. Not demonstrated. Given that both Hummers and Prius are new
enough models that we haven't reached anywhere near their lifespan,
it is unknown how long they last.
And, as for replacing an old Prius with a newer car, what, do you
think that Prius ends up in the junk yard?
I would guess it ends up on a used car lot and replaces someone's
old VW.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf
http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
|8.7.08 @ 1:59PM|#
One point about all of this crap about the oil companies not agreeing that we are swimming in oil. What makes anyone think that the oil companies have any motivation to tell the full truth about their reserves? A large component of the price of oil is based on future expectations of the supply of oil. By downplaying the extent of the known reserves, the oil companies lower the expectations of future supply and drive up the current price. The oil companies are amazing at playing their advasaries in the Green Movement for useful idiots. The Green Movement is always looking to buy into the idea of dwindling oil supplies in order to justify the next crank alternative energy project. This perception in turn helps to prop up oil prices and make the oil companies money. Further, everytime the Greens shut off an area to drilling, that just makes the existing reserves that much more valuable which also makes the oil companies money. The oil companies know the oil is not going anywhere. The oil in ANWAR and off shore will be there 20 years from now. Why pump it all now and drive the price down? Why not wait and let the greens stop development and preach the "end of oil" driving the price sky high making the oil companies billions and then drill later when the public pressure to drill finally becomes too much to stop? More importantly, why would anyone in the oil industry want to debunk the myth of peak oil?
Guy Montag|8.7.08 @ 1:59PM|#
[screeching envirofundie voice]
Won't anybody think about the birds? This crazy proposal from Mr.
Oil is going to make Silent Spring look like an ant
farm!
[/screeching envirofundie voice]
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Under your scenario we could be replacing our infrastructure
every few years with the best new thing and sure each best new
thing is marginally less destructive but unless the last old thing
is allowed to run its full working life span and gain all its
benefits over time you will be encouraging "short term costs" that
swamp an gains.
This is just nonsense. What makes you think I am ignoring this
issue?
To be honest it is sort of sad that you are blind sided by
this.
You are arguing with some mythical creature in your head on
this.
If your proposal was a phased replacement as old infrastructure
wears out then sure i can go along with a distributed wind power
network. But that is not your proposal.
Phased replacement, yes, but "wears out" may not be the best
criteria...the criteria is "replacing now has better results than
waiting."
|8.7.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Environmentalists came up with the concept of lifetime
environmental impact to cover, well, the lifetime environmental
impact that includes replacing the existing
infrastructure.
The study you linked to did not.
|8.7.08 @ 2:06PM|#
db | August 7, 2008, 12:50pm | #
Fine. Just don't come whining to me when your public energy policy,
informed more by politics than sound engineering, causes you to
have to choose between using your computer or keeping your food
cold.
For an engineer, you seem to have little understanding of how
systems work.
Strange.
Since db doesn't have at least a bachelor's degree* in economics, I
do wish he'd refrain from making comments.
* I am going to save this comment
Guys, if you don't have at least a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, indicating that you have at least taken and passed a thermo coruse or two, please refrain from commenting on the technical viability of any, repeat, ANY, energy production technology.
to use on later threads. The arrogance is astounding.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Joshua Corning,
The study you linked to did not.
I didn't link to a study.
I linked to a website that included some very basic
information.
|8.7.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Phased replacement, yes, but "wears out" may not be the best
criteria...the criteria is "replacing now has better results than
waiting."
In the case of replacing with wind power and the network necessary
to transmit "wears out" and "replacing now has better results than
waiting." are synonymous.
The manufacture of copper wire and the mining and smelting and
casting of generators have huge environmental costs. Costs, I would
like to once again remind you, that are not accounted for in the
study you linked to.
|8.7.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I didn't link to a study.
I linked to a website that included some very basic
information.
Basic information which does not account for replacement costs.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Joshua,
In the case of replacing with wind power and the network
necessary to transmit "wears out" and "replacing now has better
results than waiting." are synonymous.
Because you say so?
Why are utilities phasing wind into their grids now then? Why are
they currently building new infrastructure to support wind and
other distributed generation?
Wire from the old infrastructure, of course, can be recycled/reused
(see joe's comment above), reducing some of the harms you are
worried about. Don't act like this requires the old power grid to
end up in a landfill somewhere.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Basic information which does not account for replacement
costs.
I haven't read everything on the site, but I seem to recall
discussion of this very issue.
Dig around some more.
|8.7.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Wind power is great - where it's cost effective. To be cost
effective, you need to be in a location that is A) reasonably close
to the people who will consume it, and B) gets a constant wind over
about 8 mph. Super high winds don't help - most turbines are
designed to generate peak power between 10 and 15 mph of wind, and
if the wind is higher they just don't do any more than that. And if
the wind goes below 10, the power starts to drop off dramatically
and costs skyrocket because a wind turbine costs the same to buy
and operate regardless of whether you are operating at 80%
efficiency or 20% effciency. If your average is 5 mph, wind power
is very expensive.
T-Boone's map of the midwest makes it look like the whole area
could be filled with wind turbines. It just isn't so. If you drill
into the DOE's maps of wind resource availability, you'll see that
even the best states for wind power only have high wind zones in
relatively few places - and most of those places already have wind
power stations under construction.
Wind power can work - here in Alberta we're producing about 7000 MW
of wind power. But then we have an excellent region of high wind in
Southern Alberta due to a natural venturi effect coming from the
mountains. The wind power is cost-effective, too.
You don't have to have batteries to make it work, because you can
use other power sources as a buffer. For example, you can have a
natural gas plant scaling up and down as wind comes online and
offline. If there's no wind, all your power comes from traditional
sources. As the wind picks up, the traditional sources throttle
back and burn less fuel and wind takes over some of the load. There
are technical glitches, and issues regarding the efficiency of
running other plants at less than optimum power levels, but they
can be managed.
Wind can be cost effective, but if you add up all the areas of
excellent wind, you find that you can't really supply more than
maybe 10-20% of our power from wind, and that would require
enormous investment and major changes to the infrastructure. More
reasonably, we might be able to get 5-10% of our power from wind,
in areas that have good wind resources.
|8.7.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Something that needs to be reiterated:
If you want to save the planet from fossil fuels you will not do it
by opting for a cleaner, but more expensive energy source. Because
if you choose to do that, you will simply take your demand for oil
away from the oil markets, which will lower the price and stimulate
demand for it elsewhere.
This is the cold logic of a global, fungible resource. So long as
it is cheaper to make energy with oil, oil will be used. Unless you
can get the entire world to voluntarily stop using oil, all you can
do is change the distribution of who burns it. Cut U.S. consumption
in half, and consumption in China and India will increase until a
new equilibrium is reached.
Either way, every drop of oil in the ground is coming out of the
ground and being burned, until it's no longer in anyone's economic
interest to do so. Any 'energy policy' or 'green policy' that
doesn't take this hard fact into account is worse than useless -
it's counter-productive. It's counter-productive because it shifts
the dirtiest energy source away from the people who at least use it
as cleanly as possible and increases the use of it by people who
don't give a rat's ass about pollution.
If you learn to accept this simple fact, the only possible answer
is staring you in the face - you have to come up with a source of
energy that is cheaper than oil. Nothing else matters. Conserving
it doesn't matter. Putting carbon taxes on it at home doesn't
matter.
Now, other energy sources can become cheaper than oil in two ways -
one is to work to improve the energy sources so the price comes
down. The other is to wait until oil becomes scarcer and prices
itself out of the market. Or do both. That's where the future
is.
In the meantime, any restrictions on output you put on your own
country will simply hurt the local economy, which will inhibit the
ability to invest in the research to lower the price of other
energy sources.
And by the way, the market is doing just fine in this regard.
Energy sources that weren't viable when oil was $14/bbl are viable
now, and being implemented in quite large scale. Wind and
Geothermal today. Solar will be there in a few years. Work hard to
lower the cost on those - every time you lower the price of
alternative energy, you drop lower the point where its cost
intersects that of oil. The lower you make that intersection, the
more oil will stay in the ground unburned because no one wants to
pay to burn it.
Neu Mejican|8.7.08 @ 7:10PM|#
it's counter-productive. It's counter-productive because it
shifts the dirtiest energy source away from the people who at least
use it as cleanly as possible and increases the use of it by people
who don't give a rat's ass about pollution.
Ironically, as far as global warming goes, unless you capture the
C02 from the fossil fuels, you may want the more polluting
countries using the stuff as the pollution contributes to global
dimming and slows the warming. The worst scenario is "clean"
burning not including C02 capture.
NOVA discussed this issue nicely.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
|8.7.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Mandates to buy wind (renewable portfolio standards) is one of the
primary drivers for the utilities addition of wind to their
systems.
The biofuels debacle provides a lesson we should all remember. The
bulk of the damage they occurred when biofuel usage was
mandated.
The fact that wind usage is being driven by mandates and subsidies
should be a red flag of caution.
|8.8.08 @ 1:08AM|#
Via blogger, writer, and critic extraordinaire Alan
Vanneman
What? Are you guys fucking dating?
Neu Mejican|8.8.08 @ 12:38PM|#
TJIT,
Re: mandates for renewables do no, I think, specify "buy
wind."
Among the alternative tech currently available to fulfill the
mandates, wind is being chosen due to the perception by the
utilities that it shows the best potential.
Nuclear also has subsidies and no one is choosing nuclear.
FWIW, I am not advocating an all-wind system.
If wind can create a 5-10% reduction in c02, then why would we
ignore that potential. If solar can create another 10-20%
reduction, why would we ignore that potential. A mix of solutions
will replace fossil fuels and those options will be somewhat
regionally dependent, based on what works where.
Texas is one place that wind makes some good sense. SW states and
solar also make sense. Coastal states and wave-power, etc....
Mandates that set a goals of x% with renewables do not determine
the form those renewables will take nor stifle innovation since any
renewable tech you can come up with helps meet the mandate.
That is an important difference compared to a mandate to use X
amount of ethanol.
|8.10.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Energy source mandates are very risky and potentially destructive
policy tools, WRT the environment, technology deveolpment, and
economics.
The massive environmental destruction caused by the biofuels
mandates are the best example of this.
People can choose to ignore the very real risk renewable portfolio
standards will at best do nothing to reduce carbon emissions and at
worst cause substantial environmental destruction while
increasing carbon emissions.
People who choose to ignore the risks aren't serious about energy
policy and can't make rational decisions about it.
Mostly because they don't understand the technical issues.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245