Pickens' wind plan hits a snag

[techs]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/1...nomy/pickens/index.htm

Pickens' wind plan hits a snag
Credit crunch and falling natural gas prices delay plans for giant Texas farm

Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is delaying his massive Texas wind project, citing a drop in natural gas prices and the tightening credit market.

"With natural gas prices where they are, you can't kick off a wind project, you're not economical." Pickens said Tuesday at a news conference in Arizona.



So, I guess when I posted that the fall in energy prices would actually be a bad thing in the long run in that it will postpone or cancel newer energy development, I was right.

Thanks, T.

 

[dphantom]

supply and demand /shrug

 

[Capt Caveman]

He can't make any profit it from it now.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: dphantom
supply and demand /shrug

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: techs

So, I guess when I posted that the fall in energy prices would actually be a bad thing in the long run in that it will postpone or cancel newer energy development, I was right.

Uhm, are you implying people don't believe lower oil prices would hurt alternative energies or that it was something hard to reason out if your IQ is below 50?

Now with regards to the argument if it overall is "bad".. eh, killing inflation will help us if the recession gets bad. The recession (if there is one) would be a shitload worse and really hurt people if oil stayed above 100. Getting out of the recession more quickly could very well lead to alternative energies being pursued faster than if the world's economy ground to a halt with high energy prices.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Wind is too expensive right now anyways ....
Solar still has HUGE breakthroughs being made on almost a weekly basis, Mini Nuke reactors are right around the corner, and they'll produce electricity a lot cheaper than NG ...

 

[JS80]

I hope he gets burned and loses all his money. He's a despicable human.

 

[ayabe]

There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Wind is too expensive right now anyways ....
Solar still has HUGE breakthroughs being made on almost a weekly basis, Mini Nuke reactors are right around the corner, and they'll produce electricity a lot cheaper than NG ...

Well I apologize I now feel obliged to hijack this thread.

With transmission inefficiencies along with storage limitations I don't see even 200 years from now wind/solar/tidal ever being more than 10% of our power generation. You will always need a 100% producing workhorse to provide the backbone of the electrical grid. My personal belief is that nuclear power with an effective use of waste fuel recycling methods is going to be our powerhorse (France already recycles 100% of it's waste). Fusion is also making good strides forward with the ITER reactor being constructed in France, the first reactor to produce more energy than it takes to run. Of course this isn't usuable energy yet, just excess heat generation.

/rant & hijack off

 

[SagaLore]

Why can't they do both?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Wind is too expensive right now anyways ....
Solar still has HUGE breakthroughs being made on almost a weekly basis, Mini Nuke reactors are right around the corner, and they'll produce electricity a lot cheaper than NG ...

I read about the mini-nukes and how orders are now being taken. Sounds very intriguing, I had no idea the tech was that advanced. I know the basic non-moving nuke reactor has been around for a long time, but that was amazing...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Wind is too expensive right now anyways ....
Solar still has HUGE breakthroughs being made on almost a weekly basis, Mini Nuke reactors are right around the corner, and they'll produce electricity a lot cheaper than NG ...

I read about the mini-nukes and how orders are now being taken. Sounds very intriguing, I had no idea the tech was that advanced. I know the basic non-moving nuke reactor has been around for a long time, but that was amazing...

One of the best aspects of the mini-nuke is integrating them into small remote town's steam heating networks. Mini-nuke reactors main contribution is their heat, they were envisioned for remote Alaskian-like environments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

You're ignoring the fact that our system is entirely regionally based, there is no way to get power from AZ to the East Coast for example.

Shit, there are windfarms in upstate NY that are turned off most of the time because having them on overloads the system.

In order to make these huge farms practical our entire system would have to be redesigned with this in mind, and that will take billions maybe even a trillion dollars.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Wind is too expensive right now anyways ....
Solar still has HUGE breakthroughs being made on almost a weekly basis, Mini Nuke reactors are right around the corner, and they'll produce electricity a lot cheaper than NG ...

Well I apologize I now feel obliged to hijack this thread.

With transmission inefficiencies along with storage limitations I don't see even 200 years from now wind/solar/tidal ever being more than 10% of our power generation. You will always need a 100% producing workhorse to provide the backbone of the electrical grid. My personal belief is that nuclear power with an effective use of waste fuel recycling methods is going to be our powerhorse (France already recycles 100% of it's waste). Fusion is also making good strides forward with the ITER reactor being constructed in France, the first reactor to produce more energy than it takes to run. Of course this isn't usuable energy yet, just excess heat generation.

/rant & hijack off

You might check out KiteGen. It's a very creative idea for wind power, using kites attached to a generator on the ground. Theoretically they claim the design can scale up to 60GW (requiring a massive, 25km wide carousel, and using probably hundreds or thousands of kites), although facilities in the 1GW range, which is equivalent to a nuclear fission plant, would probably be most economical.

Also it would rely on high altitude winds, which are high speed and relatively constant.

Unfortunately, commercial fusion is probably at least a few decades away, maybe closer to five.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dphantom
supply and demand /shrug

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

I am not whining about anything. Simply pointing out logistical concerns that have to be addressed. And it is not that simple just to add a plant. In some places, the transmission capacity can absorb another power plant coming on line. In many places where wind and solar is ideal, the transmission lines are either not of sufficient capacity, have insufficient capacity or are non-existant. In all cases, infrastructure has to be upgraded.

The toy plants in Iowa and other places are of little load to existing infrastructure so the current output of such small plants can in most cases be absorbed by current infrastructure. That is not necessarily true when we are talking about power plant size operations typically in the several hundred MW to low GW range.

Wind, solar, geo, nuke the more the better. Just understand that we can't always build a plant and expect the output to get to where you want it or need it to go.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

You're ignoring the fact that our system is entirely regionally based, there is no way to get power from AZ to the East Coast for example.

Shit, there are windfarms in upstate NY that are turned off most of the time because having them on overloads the system.

In order to make these huge farms practical our entire system would have to be redesigned with this in mind, and that will take billions maybe even a trillion dollars.

No - your argument is ignoring that reality. There is not massive need to "transport" it that far as wind/solar will likely not outstrip demand in the region anyway.
:roll: whoever is running the power up there in NY is a moron then if they have to turn then "off" due to "overloads".

I don't think you understand how windfarms work nor do you seem to understand how the electrical grid works. There would NEVER be a need for there to be A line from AZ to the east coast. If there is an area that has excess capacity they will sell the excess capacity regionally just as they do today.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

I am not whining about anything. Simply pointing out logistical concerns that have to be addressed. And it is not that simple just to add a plant. In some places, the transmission capacity can absorb another power plant coming on line. In many places where wind and solar is ideal, the transmission lines are either not of sufficient capacity, have insufficient capacity or are non-existant. In all cases, infrastructure has to be upgraded.

The toy plants in Iowa and other places are of little load to existing infrastructure so the current output of such small plants can in most cases be absorbed by current infrastructure. That is not necessarily true when we are talking about power plant size operations typically in the several hundred MW to low GW range.

Wind, solar, geo, nuke the more the better. Just understand that we can't always build a plant and expect the output to get to where you want it or need it to go.

lol, Iowa has the 3 most wind generation in the US next to Texas and Cali. You people are hilarious. Do you understand how this all works? Read my reply to Ayabe. Sheesh.

BTW, if you added a "several hundred MW to low GW range" anything - anywhere you'd have to upgrade the transmission.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

I am not whining about anything. Simply pointing out logistical concerns that have to be addressed. And it is not that simple just to add a plant. In some places, the transmission capacity can absorb another power plant coming on line. In many places where wind and solar is ideal, the transmission lines are either not of sufficient capacity, have insufficient capacity or are non-existant. In all cases, infrastructure has to be upgraded.

The toy plants in Iowa and other places are of little load to existing infrastructure so the current output of such small plants can in most cases be absorbed by current infrastructure. That is not necessarily true when we are talking about power plant size operations typically in the several hundred MW to low GW range.

Wind, solar, geo, nuke the more the better. Just understand that we can't always build a plant and expect the output to get to where you want it or need it to go.

lol, Iowa has the 3 most wind generation in the US next to Texas and Cali. You people are hilarious. Do you understand how this all works? Read my reply to Ayabe. Sheesh.

BTW, if you added a "several hundred MW to low GW range" anything - anywhere you'd have to upgrade the transmission.

Today, yes, our power grid is stretched so tight we would have to in many cases upgrade to fit in another power plant regardless of location. But a power plant in say Boston would be cheaper to upgrade infrastructure than one say in the UP of Michigan where transmission capacity could never handle a large expansion of power generation.

I do know very well how the power grid works. And yes Iowa may be third, but all those wind farms are tiny compared to a typical coal, nuke or gas power plant. And the total output is a drop in the bucket today.

I do agree with you that no one is going to move power from AZ to the east coast or of similar distance. Losses in the transmission lines alone make that prohibitive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

ND was for illustrative purposes. There are transmission lines all over. What we are talking about is the capacity of the transmission lines in certain locales having the capacity to carry loads from very large scale wind or solar farms.

So far as I know, there are no gigawatt size wind farms in the US. I am not even sure a single wind farm is in the 250+ MW range yet except for the one in TX rated at ~750MW. And thereabouts is the size where infrastructure capacity needs to be seriously looked at.

Sure, you'd have those concerns no matter what so I don't see where the whining about infrastructure comes in. If they put up a new windfarm or a new power plant they have to add transmission lines based on estimated load.

I am not whining about anything. Simply pointing out logistical concerns that have to be addressed. And it is not that simple just to add a plant. In some places, the transmission capacity can absorb another power plant coming on line. In many places where wind and solar is ideal, the transmission lines are either not of sufficient capacity, have insufficient capacity or are non-existant. In all cases, infrastructure has to be upgraded.

The toy plants in Iowa and other places are of little load to existing infrastructure so the current output of such small plants can in most cases be absorbed by current infrastructure. That is not necessarily true when we are talking about power plant size operations typically in the several hundred MW to low GW range.

Wind, solar, geo, nuke the more the better. Just understand that we can't always build a plant and expect the output to get to where you want it or need it to go.

lol, Iowa has the 3 most wind generation in the US next to Texas and Cali. You people are hilarious. Do you understand how this all works? Read my reply to Ayabe. Sheesh.

BTW, if you added a "several hundred MW to low GW range" anything - anywhere you'd have to upgrade the transmission.

Today, yes, our power grid is stretched so tight we would have to in many cases upgrade to fit in another power plant regardless of location. But a power plant in say Boston would be cheaper to upgrade infrastructure than one say in the UP of Michigan where transmission capacity could never handle a large expansion of power generation.

I do know very well how the power grid works. And yes Iowa may be third, but all those wind farms are tiny compared to a typical coal, nuke or gas power plant. And the total output is a drop in the bucket today.

I do agree with you that no one is going to move power from AZ to the east coast or of similar distance. Losses in the transmission lines alone make that prohibitive.

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: techsBillionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is delaying his massive Texas wind project, citing a drop in natural gas prices and the tightening credit market.

"With natural gas prices where they are, you can't kick off a wind project, you're not economical." Pickens said Tuesday at a news conference in Arizona.

i don't buy it. venture capitalists & oil industry execs. know that
oil is up 100%, down 50%, routinely. so oil hit $150 or close to
it, & and is now at $60.

for projects that have a multi-year timeline, 3 years for a pilot
project, 7 years for a larger project that has to make it through
a lot of zoning work, in addition to design, analysis, fab, assembly,
installation, testing, etc. ... T Boone et al know these things have
a long timeline.

i do buy, that it's harder to do the project with OPM (other people's
money). harder to get financing for.