Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's really scary is that Saudia Arabia says it costs them 2 dollars to produce a barrel of oil, but that it takes 55 dollars a barrel for them to make it worth their effort. Now doesn't anyone find it disgusting that their standard of living requires $53 dollars a barrel in profit?
More importantly, what if America got that $53 dollars a barrel to increase OUR standard of living?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the real cost of a gallon of gas to society (air pollution clean up, health care costs, etc) figures out to 15 dollars a gallon. Gasoline also consumes 3 gallons of fuel for every gallon that is burned on US soil. So suddenly you see that wind is about as free as can be obtained.
One other point that is confusing is that coal fired power plants produce the cheapest KW. That is just not true. Natural Gas is actually the cheapest form of power produced because the low cost of pollution controls. In that sense, Pickens is right for promoting NG powerplants.
The truth is powerplants like natural gas, coal and oil are economically operated 24/7/365. The problem is the grid load goes up and down with the days times and schedules. To combat this, hydroelectric power works well because with a simple switch, a valve opens and water flows through the penstocks and adds power to the grid. When everyone goes to bed, the valve is closed and power is stopped. It helps iron out the ups and downs on the grid. Unfortantely here in Maine we are rippingout hydro dams left andright.
One way a MA utility beat this whole problem was to use nuclear power. During heavy demands they let water down from a resevoir that powers turbines and is cauight in another resvoir. When the load demaind is light, a nuclear power plant diverts its power to pump that water back up the mountain so that the water can be run down through the penstocks again at high peak demands. Its been in operation for 30 years!!
Personally I enjoy nuclear power. I calculated that 50 miners were killed last year mining coal in this country. Not a single life was lost because of nuclear power though. I think its greenier power then what people think. They are basing their dislike on fear not reality.
^^^^^^^^^^
1) gas and wind are not comparable energy sources they are both used for different things...
2) I'll kiss your butt in the middle street if coal isn'nt cheaper the NG. Control or no control. NG is not normally used as a base load resource. The only groups who repower from coal to NG are typically Investor own utilitys who get to directly pass on the added cost to customers i.e. exell
Just as I thought his "caring" for the environment and high oil prices was all fake, he comes out and says natural gas prices are too low for him to do the wind farm project... Ahh... I see becuase those turbines run on natural gas? No? Okay, it must be because the wind energy it generates is transferred to homes using natural gas... No? Okay then I guess it was just a bunch of greed and lies as I said earlier... He wants natural gas prices to DOUBLE before he commits to wind energy (as well as asking billions of FREE MONEY from the government)... wind energy was bunk and always has been bunk... I am all for alternative energy but wind energy was a "liar cure" and a lot people bought it hook, line, and sinker... there are much better alternative energies available... none of which will make Pickens HEIRS any money...
Of course it was bunk. Did we really think he was suddenly going to turn into a philanthropist?
What's really scary is that Saudia Arabia says it costs them 2 dollars to produce a barrel of oil, but that it takes 55 dollars a barrel for them to make it worth their effort. Now doesn't anyone find it disgusting that their standard of living requires $53 dollars a barrel in profit?
More importantly, what if America got that $53 dollars a barrel to increase OUR standard of living?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the real cost of a gallon of gas to society (air pollution clean up, health care costs, etc) figures out to 15 dollars a gallon. Gasoline also consumes 3 gallons of fuel for every gallon that is burned on US soil. So suddenly you see that wind is about as free as can be obtained.
Don't forget that they have to pipelie it and then ship it around the world. It the same for all products.Getting it to refineries is a huge cost.
I lile the idea of wind power; always have, even before I moved to one of the windiest areas of the country. We discussed putting up wind generators on our property, for not only our own personal use but perhaps even large ones for our small town, when we moved here.
Holy Crap what a bunch of hooey we have run into!!!
The turbine folk- associated with the power companies (Who's surprised? Hands?) have cute little plans to make the turbnes pay - for THEM - counting on the hype and hopes of folks who WANT to do the right thing.
Here's the scams.
1) They will NOT lease your property (not even for $1 a year) to put up the wind turbines. They must BUY your property. Then they can do whatever they please with it. (I thought the turbines would be awesome on the highest ridge, where the wind is the best and most constant, with my cows grazing aound them.) They can run roads, plow it up, gravel it, whatever they need to do. If they would lease it I wouldn't mind - once we no longer needed it we could come to an equitable arrangement, even writing the closing requirements into the initial agreement. But if they buy it - why, they don't have to do a thing with it. At all. Ever. Or they could sell it to a developer, or they could put up a coal or gas-fired plant, or any structures they choose. Nope. No way.
2) A lot of ranchers are selling their wind rights - for about $20,000 an acre - to scam artists talking about wind power potential, we just want the wind rights, we won't mess up your property, you can sell us the air above your land and it won't bother your crops or cattle at all. Unfortunately it is like selling your water or mineral rights - those who own those can come in and use the property whenever they choose, and there isn't a danged thing you can do about it when and if they decide to do so. Another fillip to this is that the speculators are selling the wind rights they garner from the ranchers in bulk - sometimes as low as $60,000 an acre, or as high as $120,000 an acre. The popular pronouncement around here is - "Don't sell it, Steve." So many are not getting the right info and are getting screwed out of their propertry still, though.
3) Here's the way they WILL lease the property from landowners. The landowner signs a ten-year lease with the turbine company. The Company comes in and puts up all of those great turbines. Nice. Pretty. Brannew and clean. Ahhhh. Not only that but the landowner gets the profits in a gradually increasing percentage over those 10 years. Lotta money. Sweet. But in accompaniment, the landowner gets a gradual aquisition of the property and turbines. So the first year he gets 10% of the property and profits back. By the 10th year he gets ALL of the profits and property back - and owns the turbines free and clear. Unfortunately, the turbines in 10 years have become obsolete, with steadily increasing mechanical failures. The landowner owns a large whirling (if he's still lucky) piece of equipment that has built-in obsolescence, and that will steadily cost him more and more to maintain. meanwhile the turbine folk are able (with their amassed profits) have gone on to something else, leaving tall and unworkable, deteriorating piles of steadily useless machinery standing on the property. Folks who bought property for a get rich quick scheme won't care - but folks who bought their property to make them money over time, not COST them increasingly more and more to maintain, will be screwed, and will own a pile of machinery that they wll be responsible for - and not be able to maintain. In 15 years, you will see whole fields of rusting wind turbines, falling apart, not maintained, and useless, if these people get their way. The word "sustainablilty" is a catchphrase that means nothing to these folk, eager to make their quick millions on the rising tide of hysterical faith and belief that 'green production' is the way to go.
4) Finally, the FedGov and states are disallowing public-private partnerships in turbine development. This means that if a private landowner has land near a town that he is willing to lease to the town to put turbines on - or if the town has property that is amenable for such development - the town can have NO such investment, no say in the matter, no profit in it, no way to cut its residents' utility bills by letting them use the turbine generated electricity and selling what is leftover back to the power company or to private companies to fill their coffers and take the burden off of the local taxpayer.
So T. B. Pickens is a profiteer. Not that I am surprised; it's called capitalism. And once the government gets involved with its subsidies, making it the biggest consumer and investor, it is no longer capitalism but enforced government spending, throwing taxpayers money into the pot of what should be a free-market enterprise, rising or falling solely on its own merits. There is too much political involevemnet, and for all of the wrong reasons, based solely on the hype and panting lemming-hysteria of 'going green', in turbine development, from what I've seen. And the profiteers and scam artists aren't just the ones living in Ethiopia, promising you two million for your investment of $10,000 in your last email. They are lobbying and pontificating in the halls of Congress, using everyone's greed, passion, and right-nowism to scam us all.
If I put up turbines at all, it will be after much more research - and small ones, for my own personal use. I can wait. You can bet that I won't put up anything that I cannot personally and without great expense maintain, and something that has longevity, and isn't a quick bandaid to the huge, growing, and gaping wound of need.
I generally agree that wind power has some possible applications in specific locations, but solar power has a lot more long term potential.
I don't know about that...Here in ND there is always wind, but not always sun. Many, many cloudy days, esp in spring, fall, and winter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recycled
The flaw of wind power is the long distance from the generator (wind turbine) to the majority of large population centers in the US. For the few cities that are near the prime wind power locations in the US (mostly in the western great plains from Dakotas to West Texas) I can see how wind power might enter into their options. But the idea of building a massive long haul power transmission grid to carry wind power to more populated areas defies basic laws of physics. The longer the transmission path, the less efficient it is due to resistance from the long path. So a large portion of the wind generated power simply goes to waste over the long transmission lines.
Then how does the electricity from all our coal & natural gas powered plants get to Minneapolis, Chicago, etc? What difference does it make if the electricity comes from wind, solor, or coal fired plants? It all has to go over transmission lines.
Coal fired and gas fired, even nuclear-powered plants can be built/have been built much closer to populated areas as well as the grid lines.
The problem lies in that where there is a lot of productive wind, there are not a lot of large cities and not a lot of transmission lines. Wind needs several things to be consistent; topography that promotes consistent wind production is rarely topography that promotes development. "Lows suck, Highs blow" - weather patterns that are also conducive to good wind production are not developed nor maintained over highly populated areas. By the time my 30-40 mph wind from a passing low travels over the hills and down to the flat plains where water is more prevalent and population density is more intense, the wind is dissapated and the consistency is not as regular. Aside from a few spots like Chicago and Denver, most cities do not have consistently regular wind. Sure, you could probably put up a wind generator on a house in Chicago - but to have the high-V transmission lines to carry the power from a turbine farm is a potentially costly propostion, due to the purchase of right-of-ways, the equipment, and maintenance thereof. Wind farms by their nature need space for the turbine operations, many folks do not want to live around them (NIMBY) and property in developed areas is far more expensive to purchase.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
