so far? the plays are in materials. corning and GE etc.
there aren't any public trading wind power co's worth anything YET...
AWNE (OB)is down bad this year
MKBY (OB) has has had some moves, but it's at 4 cents...
Posted by Sunnyside on :
I'm trying to find true wind energy stocks that are publicly traded. I guess the "not worth anything yet" is the trick. Like investing in the internet when it wasn't worth anything yet.
I've found a few but they're foreign and the others are only subsidiaries of larger energy companies or, as you mentioned, privately held companies.
It just seems so interesting and the possibilities.
Thanks Glass.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Sunnyside: I'm trying to find true wind energy stocks that are publicly traded. I guess the "not worth anything yet" is the trick. Like investing in the internet when it wasn't worth anything yet.
I've found a few but they're foreign and the others are only subsidiaries of larger energy companies or, as you mentioned, privately held companies.
It just seems so interesting and the possibilities.
Thanks Glass.
Keep an eye on T Boone Pickens. He has become a big wind energy supporter and you know eventually he will IPO whatever entity he has pushing it.
I actually saw a commercial the other night, paid for by T Boone Pickens, preaching the virtues of wind energy. So he is throwing his money into it. Just keep an eye on what he is doing IMO.
Posted by Sunnyside on :
I have been watching.
Pickens' Mesa Power orders GE wind turbines $2 Billion Wind Turbine Order Is Largest Ever T. Boone Pickens orders 667 GE wind turbines: NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil investor T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power LLP said on Thursday it ordered 667 wind turbines from General Electric Co as part of the $2 billion first phase of a planned Texas wind farm.
It said the turbine order was the world's largest for a single-site wind power development.
The 667 turbines are capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes, Mesa said in a release.
The four-phase Pampa Wind Project would be the world's largest wind energy generator, with more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 1.3 million homes, when completed in 2014, Mesa said.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Sunnyside: I have been watching.
Pickens' Mesa Power orders GE wind turbines $2 Billion Wind Turbine Order Is Largest Ever T. Boone Pickens orders 667 GE wind turbines: NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil investor T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power LLP said on Thursday it ordered 667 wind turbines from General Electric Co as part of the $2 billion first phase of a planned Texas wind farm.
It said the turbine order was the world's largest for a single-site wind power development.
The 667 turbines are capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes, Mesa said in a release.
The four-phase Pampa Wind Project would be the world's largest wind energy generator, with more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 1.3 million homes, when completed in 2014, Mesa said.
I'm right there with you Sunny. When someone of his stature and money starts throwing out billions, I keep a keen on on their manuevers Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I've had a question about all this excitement about the up and coming wind 'sector' that maybe somebody can clear up for me:
Why is everyone so excited about it?
Best case scenario it will reduce the overall dependence on fossil fuel energy production but it can never replace it.
It has two major flaws: one, it can't be 'ramped up.' With most grids you have to vary the amount of power coming out based on daily usage times. Sometimes you need more, sometimes less. You can't do that with wind driven grids, what mother nature chooses to give you is what you get. I guess you could 'ramp down' in essense by disconnecting some of the turbines, but you could never produce more than your nominal potential when all are online. Second flaw is obvious...you're at the mercy of nature. If it don't blow, you don't go.
As a supplement to the existing supply it's a good idea. I just don't think we should be hoping it's the silver bullet we're all looking for.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
ESLR it isn't wind but if you are thinking alternative energies this would be a good one to keep on a watchlist.
As to wind itself...I don't know how exhaustive this list is but...
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I've had a question about all this excitement about the up and coming wind 'sector' that maybe somebody can clear up for me:
Why is everyone so excited about it?
Best case scenario it will reduce the overall dependence on fossil fuel energy production but it can never replace it.
It has two major flaws: one, it can't be 'ramped up.' With most grids you have to vary the amount of power coming out based on daily usage times. Sometimes you need more, sometimes less. You can't do that with wind driven grids, what mother nature chooses to give you is what you get. I guess you could 'ramp down' in essense by disconnecting some of the turbines, but you could never produce more than your nominal potential when all are online. Second flaw is obvious...you're at the mercy of nature. If it don't blow, you don't go.
As a supplement to the existing supply it's a good idea. I just don't think we should be hoping it's the silver bullet we're all looking for.
That guy on Rush's show was pretty bright. Had quite a few very good points, and was very effective in proving wind power was a pointless en devour.
Posted by glassman on :
amazing how rush finds so many "geniuses" huh?
i guess T Boone is just an idiot... LOL...
the wind always blows in some places... i spent three years living in NE. they had a couple of trial mills there and i did see them stop moving once...
Posted by glassman on :
the ones near Hesperia CA? in the high desert? they never stopped. they were on the ridges of a huge box canyon.... a twenty mile wide one....
they are even putting more in out there cuz the other ones have been so successful:
Southern California Edison announced today that it was breaking ground on a desert wind farm that could provide power for upwards of 3 million homes by 2013, predicting that it will be the largest wind transmission project in the country.
i guess these people investing in them are just idiots Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
That guy on Rush's show was pretty bright. Had quite a few very good points, and was very effective in proving wind power was a pointless en devour.
He was just one of the most recent voices, Relentless. The reasons he mentioned are some of the draw backs to the wind alternative that have been offered against it for years. One of the things he didn't mention (because it should be obvious) is that they are very location limited. Not every state has a neat little wind tunnel that will support a massive wind farm. Solar would be a slightly better alternative because you get sunlight everywhere, but you still have at least 8 hours a day that it isn't producing. Either way, they may help...but they ain't gonna fix the problem alone.
i guess these people investing in them are just idiots
No, they're either short sighted (not likely if they're self made billionaires like T Boone) or they understand that this isn't the fix and have ulterior motives to jumping on the band wagon.
Posted by glassman on :
but they ain't gonna fix the problem alone.
hmmmm... you think that we should be able to have one single fix?
i think that's the unrealistic expectation.
we already know that there's no single fix.
i'm not even sure what your real point is here except that once again you are taking the rush limbugger poison pill.
it amazes me how wrong that guy is all the time, but all he has to say is "i toldja so" and 4 million hollow heads bob up and down while they recite the mantra "talent on loan from God"
the fact is that we'll always have serious power management issues when it comes to maintaining capability to scale the power to actual demand... there wasn't anything that any other power supply system doesn't face in there...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
hmmmm... you think that we should be able to have one single fix?
No, but I wish they would promote wind power as one fix and not THE fix.
i'm not even sure what your real point is here except that once again you are taking the rush limbugger poison pill
And I find it amusing that simply because Rush says something, an equal number of heads start shaking and saying it can't be true because he said it.
Noone can get it right OR wrong all the time, Glass.
As for the information I mentioned, all of it is true. The 'ramping up or scaling back' IS possible with other systems and they aren't limited by nature's whim or time of day. A combination approach will help us reduce demand on fossil fuels but the current push for it seems to promise that is will eliminate it. And that simply isn't possible.
Posted by glassman on :
No, but I wish they would promote wind power as one fix and not THE fix.
only a rush bobble head would even think that anybody is promoting it as THE fix. where are you getting this from besides his psychobabble broadcasts?
this is why rush is so toxic. he's leading a bunch of people around by the nose and convincing them he's the "font of truth"
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: hmmmm... you think that we should be able to have one single fix?
No, but I wish they would promote wind power as one fix and not THE fix.
i'm not even sure what your real point is here except that once again you are taking the rush limbugger poison pill
And I find it amusing that simply because Rush says something, an equal number of heads start shaking and saying it can't be true because he said it.
Noone can get it right OR wrong all the time, Glass.
As for the information I mentioned, all of it is true. The 'ramping up or scaling back' IS possible with other systems and they aren't limited by nature's whim or time of day. A combination approach will help us reduce demand on fossil fuels but the current push for it seems to promise that is will eliminate it. And that simply isn't possible.
Wind power was never said to be the single "fix" for the energy problem. Maybe you got that bit of drivel from Rushie. It is designed to be part of an amalgam of alternatives that will cure our energy ills. Among them, wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, bio-fuels, nuclear, etc. No single one is the "fix" as you say, but used in concert, they can be.
Posted by glassman on :
here's something that is realistic:
Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.
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.
Today's wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.
Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States — enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater.
A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.
Besides...currently wind is the alternative that stands closest to coal in costs per KW. It can be used just about anywhere there are high power transmittion lines. It has worked wonderfully for farmers and ranchers as a way to earn more income without effecting the land or lifestyle negatively. It is already credited with saving three dying rural communites up were I am.
And that's with it tethered to the ground.
U of M is making some good strides right now in instant energy transmition. Don't get me wrong it is still decades away, but all the ol deep ore mine in Northern MN are perfect to this kind of study. Say they figure it out. Then wind turbines wouldn't be tethered to the ground and could follow the jet stream round and round the globe. How much wind could we harvest then?
Posted by bksundar on :
OTTR is a good company in Wind energy.
Bills Gates Cascade investments is heavily into it.
Just google it..
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Best case scenario it will reduce the overall dependence on fossil fuel energy production but it can never replace it.
Who says so?
And on what basis?
Specious at best.
Maybe you need to get some better sources of information (or actually a source of information instead of just an agenda).
Posted by a surfer on :
quote:Originally posted by bksundar: OTTR is a good company in Wind energy.
Bills Gates Cascade investments is heavily into it.
The items I listed above and as Relentless mentioned were echoed by the Rush caller aren't new. They have been part of the reason why it hasn't been seriously persued until now. I'm not saying that these are insurmountable, but they do need to be addressed.
Oh, and we need you to explain something over in the "curious" thread. Posted by Sunnyside on :
I'm having a difficult time understanding the argument against wind power. It's already working.
While it may not be the one and only answer to the energy crisis, it surely appears to be at least a part of the answer.
Geez you guys, maybe we should all just sit around with our thumbs up our butts and disparage any alternative that doesn't seem to meet all the needs of an alternative energy source.
What about solar energy? Doesn't solve all the problems either. Should we just ditch that alternative too?
"It hasn't been seriously pursued"? Are you kidding? Maybe you should do some more research.
Posted by glassman on :
those two articles are weak SF... one is about England, the other about sound pollution. they do make noise, but so does wind...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: they do make noise, but so does wind...
Hmmm....I can think of several posters on this board that resemble that remark glassman! Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ok, one last ditch effort to make my point and then I'm letting this one pass...
Can anyone show me where I said 'Don't persue Wind?'
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
From the begining of this thread I have never said we shouldn't persue it. All I have said from the begining is that the apparent excitement about it seems to me to be a little beyond what the reality is going to produce.
As for my articles that Glass disparages, they are completely valid. The England link shows many of the same issues that are going to have to be addressed over here. And they will be magnified in that our energy supply needs are so far beyond theirs. The second link talks about the effect that these 'clean' sources will have on the adjacent lands. That's something that needs to be addressed in the planning phase and not as an afterthought once $2 billion is invested. Maybe T Boone already has an answer. I didn't read one in his plan but then again I'm sure alot of things aren't mentioned in a one page preview.
I really don't mind being criticized for what I say that others disagree with, but come on. At least stick to what I say and not what you think I mean.
Posted by Sunnyside on :
My apologies if I misread your intentions.
For me it seems like an exciting option that already exists and produces, etc.
I've just read something about combined solarwind technology.
Totally don't understand it but...
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Ok, one last ditch effort to make my point and then I'm letting this one pass...
Can anyone show me where I said 'Don't persue Wind?'
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
From the begining of this thread I have never said we shouldn't persue it. All I have said from the begining is that the apparent excitement about it seems to me to be a little beyond what the reality is going to produce.
As for my articles that Glass disparages, they are completely valid. The England link shows many of the same issues that are going to have to be addressed over here. And they will be magnified in that our energy supply needs are so far beyond theirs. The second link talks about the effect that these 'clean' sources will have on the adjacent lands. That's something that needs to be addressed in the planning phase and not as an afterthought once $2 billion is invested. Maybe T Boone already has an answer. I didn't read one in his plan but then again I'm sure alot of things aren't mentioned in a one page preview.
I really don't mind being criticized for what I say that others disagree with, but come on. At least stick to what I say and not what you think I mean.
Sooo... You're saying we should not pursue wind power in any shape or form. Gotcha You're gonna take some heat for that kinda position around here...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
It's not THE answer. You are right on that SF. At least...not the answer with the grid we are on. But even cutting 20% reliance on coal or oil is a big deal in my book.
Pair it up with something like hydrogen as well as a non-existent (as of yet) battery tech and perhaps we wouldn't need that grid at all.
That would be awesome. Something like 6-7% of all the energy we produce is lost during transmission.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [QUOTE] Anyway, why is it that everyone thinks that I'm pulling this out of my back pocket...or there abouts. lol
I don't see anyone suggesting that you pull stuff out of your back pocket. The certainly do suggest you pluck it out of some place close thereto, though....and with good reason....because you do. It too often carries the odor of it sources.
Take a hint: Fat Rush the Doper is NOT a reliable source of information. Neither is any denizen of Fox news or anything that can be traced to other known repeated distorter's of fact.
Win energy works and, relying on studies I conducted back in the 80s in a government financed study, on the availability of wind energy to commercially produce electricity through this country, there is no location in the country that has so little that if is infeasible or too expensive (via the equipment and state of the art as of 1980). (In that same study, the prospects for solar power were even greater.) Note carefully that that study was done well before the much more efficient equipment of today was even off the drawing boards.
Petroleum, as the primary source of most of the raw materials the modern world relies on, is far too valuable to be burned up to propel transportation or heat and cool our buildings (and for personal convenient disposable containers for water). The same can be said for coal. Dependence on that sort of 17th and 18th century infrastructure and mindset must be abandoned.
Posted by glassman on :
As for my articles that Glass disparages, they are completely valid.
"completely valid"? WTF does that mean?
my drivers license is completely valid...
I really don't mind being criticized for what I say that others disagree with, but come on. At least stick to what I say and not what you think I mean.
don't take it personal... it was posted, but not by you....
4 million rush bobble heads nodding up and down repeating the mantra "talent on loan from God" was only directed at the bobble heads... i'm surprised that any of 'em would even have the self-awreness required to know i'm making fun of 'em...
Posted by glassman on :
Petroleum, as the primary source of most of the raw materials the modern world relies on, is far too valuable to be burned up to propel transportation or heat and cool our buildings (and for personal convenient disposable containers for water).
wow, budgee, that's just too subtle for most consumers..
100 million years in th ground? 300 years thru our tailpipes... i guess pigs do have wings after all...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
"completely valid"? WTF does that mean?
my drivers license is completely valid...
LOL, that a little excessively nitpicky even for you, Glass.
Let me rephrase then...
As for my articles that Glass disparages, the concerns mentioned are completely valid.
Better?
Take a hint: Fat Rush the Doper is NOT a reliable source of information. Neither is any denizen of Fox news or anything that can be traced to other known repeated distorter's of fact.
LOL, ok, Bdgee, could you make me a list of known repeated distorter's of fact so I can avoid misinformation purveyors?
Win energy works and, relying on studies I conducted back in the 80s in a government financed study, on the availability of wind energy to commercially produce electricity through this country, there is no location in the country that has so little that if is infeasible or too expensive (via the equipment and state of the art as of 1980). (In that same study, the prospects for solar power were even greater.) Note carefully that that study was done well before the much more efficient equipment of today was even off the drawing boards.
Since I assume you used methodology more complex than driving accross the country with your arm extended holding a pinwheel...can you explain to me why these were never pursued? I mean, you proved they were commercially viable, right? Why was there no major capitalization on it in 20 years?
Petroleum, as the primary source of most of the raw materials the modern world relies on, is far too valuable to be burned up to propel transportation or heat and cool our buildings (and for personal convenient disposable containers for water).
wow, budgee, that's just too subtle for most consumers..
I prefer cans anyway. And yes, I do recycle.
Posted by glassman on :
explain to me why these were never pursued?
i can...
first off? you notice how i jump up and down and hold my breath over NS'ing? well, that's because the main targets are small caps. the "new kids on the blcok" are most vulnerable... they are easy to "kill"; now? who wants to kill small startups? their larger competitors and the investors thereof do, that's who...
the people heavily invested (the powers that be) protect their investment and teach anybody "dumb enough" to bet on a new idea who's boss....
most good ideas come up thru the private market investment programs until they are strong enough to swim with the sharks, or they fail...
the other reason is that the startups don't have lobbyists with enough power to overcome the influence on the other side...
what was it yo said? you want to prove that you or anybody else can still make it in America? you can, but you can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: can you explain to me why these were never pursued?
Because of the inertia that is humanity.
To give another example...My hometown has just gotten approval to build the second lightrail transportation line to connect the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Why is this a valid example?
My father-in-law work in committee on this project back when he worked for the DOT.
That was 30 years ago.
Posted by bdgee on :
For the same reason most of the older homes in parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. still depend at least partially on a coal fireplace for heat in the winter.
As Big puts it, inertia.
When the place was built way back when, they built in a coal fireplace and that means, to the newest generation of residents, it is to be used. Then too, they can pick up a phone and order a load of coal dumped by the back door and they can't figure out how to order hydrogen or from whom or where to tell anyone to put it.
Damn, are you really so fixed on the wonders of the modern world you can't think past what Toyota and Dupont and Exxon are doing with the economy and our health?
Posted by Pagan on :
Wind power: A reality check Plans are afoot to prod the nation into using much more renewable energy. Can it be done, and what's the cost? By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer Last Updated: July 22, 2008: 2:35 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- High-profile personalities have been telling the nation to ditch that dirty fossil fuel and turn to renewable energy.
T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire oil man, has been hitting the airwaves pitching a plan to use wind to replace all the natural gas that's used to produce electricity, then using that saved natural gas to fuel cars.
In addition to weaning the nation from foreign oil, Pickens plan is not entirely altruistic. He's investing hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle, and his hedge fund, BP Capital, is said to own stakes in several companies that equip cars to run on natural gas. If his energy efforts pan out, he could get even more rich in the process.
Then there's Al Gore. The former VP, then known as "Ozone Al" but now probably more famous for his Nobel-prize winning climate work, said last week that electricity generation should be completely fossil-fuel free in 10 years.
The question is, are these plans realistic or just dreams?
"It's not out of the realm of technical feasibility," said Chris Namovicz, a renewable energy analyst at the government's Energy Information Agency. "But they come with pretty significant price tags."
The order is indeed tall.
The nation currently relies on coal - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels - for 50% of its electricity production. Natural gas makes up about 21%, and nuclear comprises about 20%. Hydro and oil contribute a bit each as well, while traditional renewables - wind, solar, biomass and geothermal - ring in at only 3%, combined, according to EIA.
Pickens has a loosely detailed plan to replace the natural-gas produced electricity with wind energy. He says it could be done in 10 years.
"That is extremely aggressive," said Dave Hamilton, director for global warming and energy projects at the Sierra Club. "But it's in the right direction. It's a good thing we have an oilman saying we can't drill our way out of this problem."
Unpredictable wind One of the big challenges with using wind to replace natural gas is that, unlike the steady flame from natural gas, the wind doesn't blow all the time.
To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, back up generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co.
That could mean maintaining those natural gas plants in case of emergency, or implementing even more novel ideas like systems in Europe that use excess wind electricity to pump water uphill when the wind is blowing, then release it through hydro dams when the wind stops.
Either way, any type of back up system comes with a price.
"It's very costly, and very inefficient for society as a whole," said Fremont. "Policy makers will have to decide if the benefits are worth it."
The utility industry also has reservations about using wind on a large scale, again pointing to the fact that it doesn't blow all the time.
The Sierra Club's Becker downplayed the problem. While a challenge now, he said advances in the electricity grid will allow several wind farms from varying regions of the country to be tied together in the same grid, so that when some are idle others can make up the difference.
"The more we focus on how to get this done, the quicker we'll solve our problems," he said.
Another impediment to large-scale wind generation is a lack of turbines and infrastructure, said Hamilton. Companies like GE, India's Suzlon, Spain's Gamesa that make wind turbines aren't building enough wind turbines to meet demandbecause government tax credits offered to energy producers expire every two years. These tax credits are a big incentive for people to invest in wind energy - Pickens would net $60 million a year, according to Jefferies' Fremont, and is likely why he's currently pitching his plan to lawmakers.
Companies fear that if the tax credits aren't renewed they will be stuck with unwanted wind turbines if energy producers scale back their demand for wind power.
Also impeding the development of wind power is the fact that the government is unclear about how or whether it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If regulations were enacted, investments in wind energy would likely increase as utilities seek cleaner sources of power.
Wind farms could also benefit when companies or people buy carbon offsets - essentially payments to producers of clean energy and others who take steps in reducing greenhouse gasses.
Despite these challenges, wind power's ability to produce 21% of the nation's electricity needs isn't out of the question. While wind currently only makes up 0.8% of the country's total electricity production, and would need to grow well over 20 times that to replace gas, it's worth noting that wind capacity has increased 12 fold since 1990, according to EIA.
The second part of Pickens' plan - using natural gas to power vehicles - is perhaps easier.
While automakers are betting on electric cars as the vehicle of the future, those electric cars will still need back-up engines to recharge the battery on long trips, at least for the foreseeable future.
Those back up engines could run on natural gas, said Julius Pretterebner, a vehicles and alternative-fuels expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Pretterebner also pointed to a host of other reasons why natural gas in cars is a good idea: It's about half as expensive as gasoline and 30% cleaner, the infrastructure to get it to service stations already exists, it's relatively cheap to convert existing cars ($500 to $2,000 a car, he said), and natural gas can be carbon neutral, if it's made from plants, a process he says requires no new technology.
"It's maybe the best alternative fuel we have, and the quickest way to get off foreign imports," he said.
As for Gore's call, there aren't any specific measures to analyze. But if Pickens' timetable is aggressive, Gore's is like Pickens' gone wild.
"It's completely impractical to imagine that we could totally wean ourselves off fossil fuels," said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry's trade association.
Impractical, maybe. But using more renewables is certainly worth looking into. EIA estimates that by 2015, wind energy will cost 7 cents a kilowatt hour to produce, just a half cent more than coal or natural gas.
EIA says if strict greenhouse gas restrictions became law, renewables might go from 3% percent of the nation's electricity mix to around 25%. Coal, meanwhile, would likely go from over half to under a quarter. EIA said under the worst case scenario in bringing about this shift, electricity prices may double.
Given the dangers global warming may pose - U.N. scientists predict severe droughts and floods unless greenhouse gasses are drastically reduced - more expensive electricity may be a cost Americans are willing to bear.
In addition to weaning the nation from foreign oil, Pickens plan is not entirely altruistic. He's investing hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle, and his hedge fund, BP Capital, is said to own stakes in several companies that equip cars to run on natural gas. If his energy efforts pan out, he could get even more rich in the process.
this is not news to anybody that follows the market, heck, i wouldn' trust anybody who is doing it as a "favor" to US... if anything? him making money should lead other less adventurous investors to follow, and that is what we need badly.
To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, back up generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co.
absolutely true, and we already have that backup built. instead of building MORE of them to meet future demand? we need to be meeting that with renewables and maintaining our old systems (some of which are 50+years old) for a reserve that is scalable...
part of the problem i have with this analyst is that he is looking 3-4 years down the road instead of 10-15 ... remeber Pickens is in his 80's so he isn't exaclty doing it for himself, but his heirs, which is a good thing IMO...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
part of the problem i have with this analyst is that he is looking 3-4 years down the road instead of 10-15 ... remeber Pickens is in his 80's so he isn't exaclty doing it for himself, but his heirs, which is a good thing IMO...
Agreed, I think Pickens is looking for the immortality that Carnegie, Rockefeller and others have achieved.
T.Boone...Father of renewable energy...
Not criticizing him by any means, if you have 4 billion and want a legacy, there are worse ones to pick.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I personally think Gas will be back down between $60 - $70 a barrel in a year. 2 countries will fluid the market with oil.....Indonesia and Russia. hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't think that's unrealistic, but IMO 85-90 is most realistic...
Posted by Pagan on :
U.S., China lead way in tapping wind power Texas energy group launch bid to develop "renewable energy superhighway" Texas given preliminary approval for a $4.9 billion plan to build new power lines
Wind energy production in China set to overtake the U.S. experts say
By Stephanie Busari For CNN
LONDON, England (CNN) -- From Dallas, Texas to Dabancheng, China, energy companies are staking fortunes on harnessing wind power.
Several Texan transmission companies announced Monday they were forming a consortium to invest in the $5 billion cost of building new power lines to take advantage of the state's vast wind power.
The consortium, comprised of existing transmission operators, includes Dallas-based Oncor, the state's largest power delivery company, Electric Transmission Texas (ETT) and units of American Electric Power Co. among others.
Those new lines, dubbed by Oncor as a "renewable energy superhighway," will accommodate about 18,500 megawatts of wind generation by 2012-- enough energy to power 4 million homes.
Texas currently leads the nation in wind capacity at about 5,500 MW.
The companies are hoping to take advantage of a landmark ruling on Friday that gave Texas preliminary approval for a $4.9 billion plan to build transmission lines to carry wind power from West Texas to urban areas.
It is said to be the largest investment in clean, renewable energy in U.S. history. Texas citizens will have to assist with the plan's construction; paying an extra $3 to $4 per month on their bills for the next few years.
However, they stand to recoup these costs in what they will save in energy bills later.
Not surprisingly, energy companies are eager to jump on the bandwagon to build a large part of the superhighway.
Oncor Senior Vice President of Transmission Charles Jenkins said in a news release: "At Oncor we want to be an important part of the solution. Texas is already a leader in wind energy and this is the next step in maintaining that leadership position.
The wind energy industry has benefited from the support of billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, who is planning to build the world's largest wind farm on about 200,000 acres in the Texas Panhandle.
When completed, his 2,700 turbines will be capable of producing enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.
Pickens spoke to CNN about his plans to increase reliance on natural resources like wind and solar.
He said: "What I want to do is to fold in the great resource we have in the central part of this country, which is wind. And then you have resource from Texas west to California.
"You've got solar. Those two resources have to be developed. So when you develop the wind, you can then remove natural gas from power generation and put it into a transportation fuel market.
"Wind power is ... clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy. It's unbelievable that we have not done more with wind."
Meanwhile, China could well be on its way to blowing the U.S. out of the water when it comes to harnessing wind energy.
This is a rare energy success story for a country whose carbon emissions were recorded as the highest in the world last year, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
But the Chinese energy revolution has been quietly gaining strength, observers say.
Like their American counterparts, Chinese tycoons are increasingly directing their investment into renewable power.
Zhu Yuguo, ranks at 102 on the Forbes China Rich List, with a personal fortune of 5.71 billion Yuan and has invested heavily in the wind power industry.
Steve Sawyer of the Global Wind Energy Council said: "China's wind energy market is unrecognizable from two years ago."
"It is huge, huge, huge. But it is not realized yet in the outside world," Sawyer said in an interview with London's Guardian newspaper.
China's wind generation has increased by more than 100 percent per year since 2005 and 20 per cent of the power supply to the venues of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games will come from wind generators, according to the official state agency, Xinhua.
It was initially hoped the country would generate 5 gigawatts of wind by 2010, but that goal was met three years early in 2007. The 2010 goal has now been revised to 10 gigawatts but experts say this could well hit 20 gigawatts.
The Guanting Wind Farm in Beijing has installed capacity of 64.5 megawatts and has supplied 35 million kilowatts of electricity to Beijing so far.
The wind farm is estimated to supply 100 million KWH per year to Beijing, or 300,000 KWH per day, enough to satisfy the consumption of 100,000 households.
However, China still relies heavily on using coal, which supplies 70 per cent of China's energy needs.
But Junfeng Li of the China Renewable Energy Industries Association has a more optimistic outlook.
In a paper last month, he wrote: "China is witnessing the start of a golden age of wind power development and the magnitude of the growth has caught policymakers off guard.
"It is widely believed that wind power will be able to compete with coal generation by as early as 2015."
Offshore wind farms may line U.S. coast Wind-driven turbines probably will be operating offshore before oil platforms appear Delaware hopes to be the first state to construct a wind farm off its coast, by 2012 Most such projects are proposed for the Atlantic coast, where the seabed is shallow Significant obstacles to offshore wind, such as high construction costs, still remain
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Visitors to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, soon may be greeted by more than sand dunes, seagulls and beach umbrellas.
If offshore wind advocates have their way, scores of 140-foot blades will be spinning in the ocean breeze nearly a dozen miles away, barely visible to the sunbathers.
Offshore wind has taken a back seat to offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in the current energy debate. But those wind-driven turbines probably will be operating long before oil platforms appear off Atlantic Coast states.
Delaware hopes to be the first state to construct a wind farm off its coast. The project, scheduled to be completed in 2012, is one of several offshore wind proposals that have cleared significant hurdles in recent months.
Proponents say wind offers more long-term energy independence than offshore oil. Residents along the Eastern seaboard are embracing it as a stable-priced, environmentally friendly energy alternative.
"When people see the price of gas hit $4, they are very open to having discussions about alternatives," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a nonprofit group.
Wind energy today accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A May report from the Energy Department concluded wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. Projects mostly would be located along the Atlantic coast because the seabed floor elsewhere drops off too quickly to anchor turbines.
In Delaware, offshore wind has caught everyone's imagination, said Patricia Gearity, a member of Citizens for Clean Power, a grass-roots organization based in the state.
"People liked that it was homegrown wind, that we weren't going to import it from somewhere else," said Jeremy Firestone, a professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware.
Offshore wind supporters say recent proposals have not faced the same kind of opposition that previously dogged projects off Massachusetts' Cape Cod and New York's Long Island. But even on Cape Cod, attitudes are changing. Where critics once held a floating anti-wind farm demonstration, polls show that public opinion has swung in favor of an offshore project.
The Long Island project was scrapped last year. But fishermen in neighboring New Jersey who once opposed offshore wind power have banded together to submit one of five bids for a 350-megawatt wind farm that would produce enough electricity for up to 100,000 households. Rhode Island may select a developer this fall for a wind energy project.
Delaware residents took to the ****osphere, called their legislators and turned out in droves at public hearings to push for the proposed project off Rehoboth Beach. It stalled last year, but months of negotiations and strong grass-roots organizing resulted in its approval by the Delaware Legislature in June.
"During that period of time, you saw headline after headline roll out about the increase in prices, not only in oil, not only in gas, but the big spike in natural gas and propane costs," said Gearity, a 58-year-old retired lawyer.
The project, proposed by Bluewater Wind, would include between 60 and 200 wind turbines spaced about a half mile apart. Delmarva Power has agreed to buy electricity from the project for 25 years. Bluewater is owned by the global investment firm Babcock & Brown, which operates wind farms in several states.
For each turbine, a pole would be hammered about 90 feet below the seabed floor. Another pole would rise above the water with three 140-foot spinning blades at the top. At the highest point, the turbines would reach up about 400 feet; by comparison, the Washington Monument is about 555 feet.
Unlike its mid-Atlantic neighbor, the Cape Cod project has faced vocal and well-funded opponents who complained it would mar the ocean vista. Rising energy prices have made that argument less persuasive, said Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now, an independent Hyannis, Massachusetts-based organization that favors the project.
The 130-turbine project has now cleared most of the regulatory hurdles and proponents are hopeful it will be in operation within four years.
Cape Wind Associates, a subsidiary of the New England power company Energy Management Inc., has spent more than $30 million on the Massachusetts project, investing profits from its natural gas-fired power plants, said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers.
In New Jersey, Daniel Cohen, the president of the offshore wind developer Fishermen's Energy, said the organization reassessed its opposition, deciding to view offshore wind as an opportunity, not a threat.
"The public has a heightened interest to finding solutions in what it sees as a growing problem in our dependence on fossil fuels," said Cohen, who owns Atlantic Capes Fisheries in Cape May, New Jersey. Fishing company owners have put up the money for the project's development stage.
Significant obstacles to offshore wind still remain.
Policymakers and utility companies need to commit to long-term contracts, said Firestone, the University of Delaware professor. He pointed out that New Jersey and Rhode Island still do not have buyers for the power from the proposed projects.
There also needs to be more stability in the federal government's support for wind power, said Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association.
When Congress allowed a renewable energy tax credit to expire in the past -- in 2000, 2002 and 2004 -- wind capacity installation dropped 93 percent, 73 percent and 77 percent respectively from the previous year. A current tax credit is set to expire Dec. 31.
Proponents point out that most of the technology hurdles have been cleared, though costs remain high. They look at the almost 1,100 megawatts of offshore wind farms in European waters and say the Cape Cod and projects could jump-start offshore wind energy in the United States.
"This will be a game-changer once this project is built," said Hill, the Cape Wind advocate. "We are going to be dancing on Craigsville Beach someday, looking out and seeing the turbines spinning."
Posted by bond006 on :
Put a windmill on the front steps of the white house and you would have enough wind to power the country
Posted by bdgee on :
Do better putting it INside Congress or in any major TV news studio.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)