OT T Boone Pickens

Page 2 of 6  

snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

The point was that it isn't as much a major solution as the other poster seems to think...and the need for maintaining alternate generation capacity when either solar or wind _aren't_ available as they simply are not reliable sources makes them expensive. They're a piece, yes, but not nearly the panacea many wish them to be.

Did that almost 15 years ago. As compared to solar/wind, it's a very effective solution as it doesn't suffer the vagaries of wind nor does it go away at night when the sun goes down.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At current oil prices, it may be essentially a zero out of pocket solution for me from day one. I could even borrow the money to do it, and the payments would be no more than what I'm now paying for oil. I may even be able to add enough PV on my roof to cover some or all of the electricity to run it.
My house is already pretty efficient in other respects. Another nice feature of geothermal, once the initial work is complete, will be in 10 years or so, when I'm ready to re-do my driveway, I can add coils to heat it in winter. I plan to have them figure that in when sizing the installation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It seems it's T Boone Pickens major solution. He wants to install what he estimates to cost $1 trillion in wind power, plus billions more in distribution infrastructure to replace natural gas used for electricity production. That would then allow the natural gas to be used to power cars. And after all that, if you read far enough, it eliminates 1/3 of our oil imports?
IMO, it's a pretty hair brained scheme, even assuming the facts and costs as Pickens states them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

The use of natural gas for automobile propulsion is as short-sighted as was the Clinton/Gore push against coal/nuclear which caused the profligate rise in gas-fired electricity production. It's too valuable as a chemical feedstock and other uses to waste on automobiles.
Wind can never be more than roughly 20-30% of a grid as beyond that point voltage regulation owing to the variability becomes a real issue. We're already seeing that here w/ smaller grids; it will gradually become an issue for more and more grids as the supply grows.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So far, he seems to have a good idea. Is your plan better?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: ...

For central electricity generation, yes, I think my plan _is_ better. :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: ...

Actually, I really don't see anything new or novel or different other than he has enough money to get media attention. They've been building wind generation here on the High Plains (which includes TX, particularly the panhandle) in large numbers for 10 years or so. I see on average probably 20/week semi's w/ new towers/rotor blades going through town on way to various erection sites in the area.
KS, for example, passed legislation to aid in the construction of new transmission lines a year ago; that has had the effect of beginning construction probably within the year on new lines to aid in the distribution. Any other state can do the same; all it takes is getting off their duff and doing it.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not every state can do it. In MA they want to put them out in the water around Cape Cod. It may spoil Teddy Kennedy's view so it is not allowed. Complaints in the Litchfield Hills of CT too, that the view won't be as pretty.
Wind just makes a lot of sense. I'd consider one too, but it is too high of a structure in my town so again, not allowed.
There must be a practical way to harness the tides too. More research should be done on using the oceans to provide power. With global warming, there will even be ocean in KS soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: ...

They _can_, they simply don't have the will...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some people have the will, but we have idiots for politicians
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just anywhere. While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green solutions, I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view. Here in NJ there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of land. To me, that is unacceptable. The last thing we need to do is turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. We spend a huge amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural and from being developed. To then turn around and destroy one of the most priceless views makes no sense.
If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with that. But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. I'd also seriously question the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other alternatives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ....

But, of course, it's just fine to put them in KS... :(
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 24, 7:26am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I hope those damn things are never near me either in the midwest, farmland views are beautiful too.
I say go nuclear, then develop battery plug in cars with a STANDARD BATTERY FORMAT so gas stations can keep a stock of fully charged battery packs that can be slid in and out of the vehicles in seconds. By backing up to a puller winch than slides out the old battery and slides in a new one. the battery pack can be long and tubular and run the length of the car and slides in/out a hatch in the back under the license plate. Then gas stations just recharge batteries all day with nuclear generated power. Having automotive transport on nuclear (via batteries), now frees up all the natural gas needed for power generation and frees up all the crude needed for automotive gasoline. Electric vehicles can develop more than enough torque to still make driving fun. Windmills are not the future, I hope. Trucking and medium/sever service vehicles will still need to be diesel but moving a family of 4 around really does not need a 3 or 4 ton car. Full containment nuclear plants with built-in 200 years of spent-fuel storage space are not dangerous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote:

Hydrogen produced by nuclear power and used in a fuel cell works as well as batteries and instead of having to haul battery packs in and out and design around a standard battery you just pump hydrogen into a fuel tank and drive off.
And with hydrogen you can have a choice between an efficient fuel cell electric car or a high performance internal combustion engine that's expensive to run. Also no problem with long-haul trucks.
As for moving a family of 4 around not needing a 3 or 4 ton car, a 3 or 4 ton car is a _damned_ big car. There are very few passenger vehicles on the US market that even weigh 3 tons, let alone 4. A Honda Accord weighs about 1-3/4 tons, a new Cadillac 4-door weighs 2. Hell, my Dad's '76 Lincoln didn't weigh 3 tons.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote: ...

Give the man a prize... :)

But that's simply a silly waste. Reprocess to close the fuel cycle.
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Bullshit. There are plenty of printine views, but few places windmills are practical.

Trust me. There are NO pristine views in New Jersey.

Without the energy-producing apparatus, for twelve hours a day you won't be able to see ANYTHING.

You may be sensible. Others will be upset. Just knowing they are out there (somewhere) gets some folks all exercised.

That's a good point. Windmills are horribly expensive when compared to hydrocarbon-based energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote: ...

Not so much, really. The initial cost is somewhat higher per MW generated, true (but far less a penalty than solar), but it does get amortized out by the lack of continuing fuel cost w/ time. And, costs are coming down as the volume of installed units continues to rise.
The problem w/ the cost isn't the cost of the wind generation itself some much , it's (as previously noted) the need to have the reserve for when the wind isn't that is a sunk cost that much of the wind can't overcome. If it's that secondary cost you're complaining of, then I'm in full agreement.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have made a point of going to see wind plants whenever I was near one. From watching them I am guessing they use the wind plant as a load leveling source. When you witch them for a while you will see them get feathered and speeded back up when there was no apparent change in the wind. Usually it is only a few that get feathered. I bet they do it because it is easier to adjust the output of these wind generators than the bigger plants. They can keep the fossil plants tuned for maximum efficiency (not a bad idea) and "waste" the free wind. These new ones are centrally controlled from miles away. The ones I saw in Ontario were scattered all over, a couple here, couple there with no apparent local supervision.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It's possible but afaik not a normal operation in most of the larger wind farms. There's enough variability in the wind to effect their output w/o it being apparent on the ground w/o actual instrumentation (and, of course, the business end is 200-ft in the air, not at ground level). There's more difficulty here when the full complement is generating that the output variability causes voltage fluctuations on the grid.
In the TX panhandle last summer they nearly had a grid loss incident when generating at full capacity on a 100+F day and an unforecasted wind shift line passed across one of the wind farms and caused it to go to near zero output almost instantly. W/O it being planned they nearly lost the whole system before reserve could catch up.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it was a wind change they would all act in a similar way. I am talking about 3 windmills and one or two just stop. You can see the blades pitch to feather. I bet that once they have a lot of these scattered around and sending data to the central site they can do a better job of seeing wind changes. Couple that with doppler radars and you can do a great job of tracking the wind.
I do agree with the critics who say all of these wind and solar plants need to be backed up at nearly 100% so the only real saving is fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.