Picken's Plan - Brilliance or BS

plasticbathmonki

plasticbathmonki

CAGiversary!
Howdy all,

Here is a link to Boone Picken's (billionaire oil tycoon) plan to ween America off of foreign oil. I give him credit of actually put a substantial chunk of his own money where his mouth is.

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

While grossly impractical in some respects, I like the idea of private enterprise stepping in thanks to government inaction; however, his push for more eminent domain to enact his plan scares the heck out of me.
 
I was wondering when somebody would post this.

Here's what I don't get:

"The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country."

Now, which is it? Can wind across the entire country provide 20% of America's electricity needs or can wind in 1 state provide over 25% of America's electricity needs?
 
He knows his days are numbered as an Oil man. I see this an act of a man who has to adapt in order to survive...
 
A guy on Bloomberg today pointed out that the last time Pickens made a couple bold oil claims, the complete opposite happened. Wouldn't put much stock into anything he has to say.

Plus, the hippies would shit a brick if America was littered with those ugly fucking wind turbines. Actually, they probably wouldn't, since all of them would be in the midwest, and not within the view they have from their hip, studio apartment window.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I was wondering when somebody would post this.

Here's what I don't get:

"The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country."

Now, which is it? Can wind across the entire country provide 20% of America's electricity needs or can wind in 1 state provide over 25% of America's electricity needs?[/QUOTE]

25% of the country doesn't necessarily use 20% of the electricity the US needs. You might be able to (I don't know this for a fact, or have any basis for it) power most/all of the midwest farm states with the amount of power you'd need for California or New England, for example.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']"we have more wind than anyone else does" couldn't have said it better myself[/quote]
:applause::roll:
 
Some aspects of his plan are really interesting, others not so much.

However, I do agree with his basic opinion that if we wait for a government solution to our energy problem that we will be waiting a LONG time. We need private enterprise to step up while Washington endlessly debates the issues for years to come.
 
What is all the land for these turbines currently being used for? Oh yeah, mostly farming which makes for a fair portion of the US GDP.
What would you rather depend on, foreign oil or foreign produce?

Also, to see what a collassal failure a wind farm is just look at Germany. They spent huge amounts of cash on the infrastructure for thousands of acres of wind farms and they're getting almost zero return on the whole ordeal.
 
We actually have a very large amount of land in the US that is not being used for anything right now. I'm not saying wind power is a solution to our problems just that we do have plently of basically useless land thoughout the middle of the country that we could slap wind farms on and we certainly have plently of barren wasteland in the southwest that could be used for solar farms.

Finding space for these solar and wind farms isn't really the problem.
 
An acre given up to a wind turbine will net ~$10,000 of revenue, whereas an acre of farmland will net ~$300.

Sounds pretty good to me.
 
Why couldn't you grow crops around a wind turbine?

The blades are dozens of feet off of the ground.

The base of the wind turbine's poll doesn't require hundreds of square feet at ground level.

The wind turbines have to be placed a significant distance from each other.

Annual maintenance could be performed when crops weren't being grown.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Annual maintenance could be performed when crops weren't being grown.[/quote]
Yeah I am sure winter maintenance would be just lovely for those working on it.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']
Finding space for these solar and wind farms isn't really the problem.[/QUOTE]

The problem is NIMBY.

People bitch about high electric bills yet complain about having "ugly" windmills in their area. Happening in WV around my parents with an uproar over placing windmills on hills there. Though part of the bitching there is the electric would be going mostly to another state's grid, but a lot of it is just people not wanting them where they can see them.

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Yeah I am sure winter maintenance would be just lovely for those working on it.[/QUOTE]

Mining coal in the winter sucks too. They just circulate outside air in so it's cold as fuck in the mines in the winter--and of course hot as hell in the summer. What can be said. It takes shitty jobs to make the world run.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']However, I do agree with his basic opinion that if we wait for a government solution to our energy problem that we will be waiting a LONG time. We need private enterprise to step up while Washington endlessly debates the issues for years to come.[/QUOTE]

That's circular. Private enterprise is going to save the government ... from private enterprise? The whole reason the government is bogged down with this in the first place is because of decades of oil industry lobbying and influence.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Yeah I am sure winter maintenance would be just lovely for those working on it.[/quote]

I'm sure there are plenty of winter days with a high greater than 40 Degrees F in this area. Unless a blade snaps off, there is no emergency maintenance.

If they go for the type of turbine linked below, the work would have to be done outside. The turbine is simply too heavy.

http://www.mpsutility.com/TurbineStats.htm

If the turbine lasts for 20 years like other turbines, it would produce 40,000,000 kWh.

Even if maintenance cost was $333,000 over the course of 20 years, each kWH would cost 2.5 cents.

I pay about 8 cents per kWh.
 
You're ignoring the initial cost of the turbine, caitlyn. As things are right now, it's still cheaper to get electricity from coal/natural gas.

Not to mention wind power is as fleeting as, well, the wind.
 
[quote name='trq']That's circular. Private enterprise is going to save the government ... from private enterprise? The whole reason the government is bogged down with this in the first place is because of decades of oil industry lobbying and influence.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately that is the case. The government failing to move forward on an energy policy for the past 30+ years gives me little faith in their ability to do so now. They will just spend years "debating" the issue while energy continues to kill the economy......just like they have done for the past 20 years with Healthcare.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']You're ignoring the initial cost of the turbine, caitlyn. As things are right now, it's still cheaper to get electricity from coal/natural gas.

Not to mention wind power is as fleeting as, well, the wind.[/quote]

Construction on the Zephyr started on 12/16/1998. It started generating on 5/14/1999. That's 5 months from the start of construction to start of production. Coal and natural gas plants take years to construct.

http://www.mpsutility.com/tour.htm
http://www.mpsutility.com/TurbineStats.htm

Based on the first 3.5 years of operation, they're getting about 70% of expected output. IF there were no maintenance costs and the tower was scrapped immediately on 1/1/2003, each kWh would cost less than 13 cents.

Of course, there are maintenance costs and the turbine appears to have been generating in 2003 and 2004.

I'd like to know the maintenance costs of the turbine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top