OT T Boone Pickens

[dpb]

Edwin Pawlowski wrote: ...

For central electricity generation, yes, I think my plan _is_ better. :)

--

[trader4]

Solar for electricity isn't being deployed to any significant extent because it's economically unviable. It is being deployed in small amounts by govt heavily subsidizing it. Here in NJ, they levied a tax on all electric bills to generate a fund. Part of that is being used so that people can buy a $50K, 5KW home system for $15K, which then makes it viable.

Oil drilling in new areas with high potential, ie ANWR and offshore, is blocked by the environmental extremists.

Wind is the more interesting. That one is always put forward by the environmentalists as a great solution. Yet, when it comes down to actually building them, the usual environmental extremists shoot many of them down.

[HeyBub]

Um, you're right. There are a few physical connections. Still, Texas, which uses 40% more electricity than California (peak demand in excess of 75GW), is not really a player in the national grid. 85% of the power generation companies in Texas have agreed to neither buy nor sell their power outside the state. The state, therefore, is largely exempt from federal regulatory oversight.

There are four interconnections to points outside the state (including Mexico).* Together they have a capacity of about 500 megawatts. There is one

600 megawatt line that connects the Texas grid to points in east Texas that are part of the "Eastern" U.S. grid, but the service is still designed for Texans.

---------

• A 220 MW line to Oklahoma, A 36 MW line to Mexico in El Paso, Two lines, totaling 250 MW, also to Mexico, near McAllen.

[salty]

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.

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

The problem w/ wind is still one of inconsistency. I've posted before results of a sizable wind farm in W KS (Gray County) which in seven years operation has overall average of

[dpb]

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.

--

[willshak]

As are oil wells, cell phone towers, telephone microwave relay towers, and those giant high voltage electric towers crisscrossing the nation. He probably doesn't have any of those on his ranch either, but they are essential to our needs. I must have missed that quote attributed to him, though.

[gfretwell]

Newsweek Periscope, Daniel Gross July 21, 2008 The actual quote is "No I think they are ugly"

[jmeehan]

For now I only have one question:

Why is he spending all this money on commercials rather than just going ahead and, as he has indicated, spend his own money and just do it.

So far it is all talk and no action. Sounds like Congress or he is up to something. Let's wait until the other shoe drops

[trader4]

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.

[dpb]

[e-mail] 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.

--

[SteveB]

It's a conspiracy, I tell you. A God damned conspiracy. Why, there's a fellow in Missouri that can get 425 mpg in an 11 mph wind, using no fossil fuel, but the government won't give him a patent. And then, there's the fellow ..................

What?

Wait, the nurse is here.

Time for meds? Time for painting class?

Woohoo!

I'll see ya later ....................

Is Rita giving massages tonight behind the water heater in the utility room? Put me down for twenty bucks.

Steve

[Edwin Pawlowski]

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.

[dpb]

Edwin Pawlowski wrote: ...

They _can_, they simply don't have the will...

--

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Some people have the will, but we have idiots for politicians

[Kurt Ullman]

The trouble with that is it seems to filet a fairly large number of fish when the schools wander into the generator area. At least that was the argument I saw against it last year. If global warming doesn't do it, maybe KS can use tidal forces after the West Coast falls off the continent following The Big One.

Kurt (Better get ready to tie-up de boat in Idaho) Ullman

[trader4]

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.

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ....

But, of course, it's just fine to put them in KS... :(

--

[RickH]

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.

[J. Clarke]

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.