|
Real Name: Member Since: June 11, 2008 Last Signed In: December 04, 2008 Profile Views: 180 Blog Views: 314 Uranium Mining Safety Study ??? Nuclear Power, is There an Alternative ??? T. Boone Pickens Has an Idea ??? June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
T. Boone Pickens Has an Idea ???
T. Boone Pickens is not stupid; I mean we should be so smart. So when he says he wants to replace all the natural gas (NG) used to produce electricity with wind energy, there must be money to be made, in both wind and NG. But before we all go running out to build wind turbines we should first take a look at the facts and ask a few questions, with Mr. T. Bone’s permission of course. First let’s look at the size and extent of what is being proposed. The table shows the installed capacity for generating electricity and the amount of that capacity that is actually utilized; this information is from the Department of Energy. 2006
Three things stand out, the low capacity utilization for NG and wind, and the high utilization for nuclear energy. This high utilization is for all our domestic nuclear reactors (104 of them), this belies the myth they require a lot of maintenance. The low utilization for NG is intentional. NG is expensive; these generators can rapidly come on line and provide surge capacity when there are power failures or sudden load increases. This capacity is therefore intentionally held in reserve. The low utilization for wind generation is not intentional, Mother Nature did that and there’s not much to be done about it, although they are trying. The average NG electrical generating capacity that Mr. T. Bone wants to displace is about 94,450 megawatts (MW). To replace this generating capacity with wind will require about 144,000 wind turbines, each rated at two MW. This is about the biggest turbine they use on land. Bigger turbines are installed off shore because it is easier to get large construction equipment in place. To replace NG with nuclear energy would require about 110 reactors each rated at 1000 MW. Some questions: First of all we should be trying to get rid of coal as soon as possible. The NG used for electrical generation would only be enough to displace about 40% of the current gasoline consumption. We are already importing NG. So either we will have to find a lot more NG or there will be a shortage and rising prices just like we have for gasoline or there will be see-saw price swings between NG and gasoline. Having two fuel sources will make buying a car interesting. Also there is no infrastructure for supplying NG to automobiles. This would require a considerable investment. In addition I have this mental image of parking my leaking NG car at night in the garage and waking up later about a quarter mile away in someone’s yard. This will be an issue. Using NG for cars would compete with using “plug in hybrid” cars, that require little if any new infrastructure. But they may require further development in battery technology. The proposed wind turbines will cover an area of 22,500 square miles. Actually they will be clustered in many wind farms from Then there is the problem with “penetration” by wind energy. Penetration is the percent of the total generating load attributable to wind energy. The maximum penetration is about 10 percent. At higher penetrations the supply of power to the grid cannot be controlled. In fact to get to 10 percent penetration NG backup generation is required to help steady the system. Mr. T. Bone is removing this NG backup. He is gambling that spreading all the wind turbines out over the country will steady the generation. If one area has low wind speed then another area will have high, etc. But for this to be possible there will have to be a huge investment in new transmission lines. The transmission lines will have to be about three times bigger than they would ordinarily need to be. The overall investment required for Mr. T. Bone’s idea will take trillions of dollars. He would like to get most of this money from the government and the consumer. I am not against wind energy, if someone wants to invest their money in them, that’s fine. But I don’t…and I object to using my tax dollars for this foolishness. This is a prime example why we don’t want politicians, lobbyists and goofy activists deciding our energy future. Wasting time and money on wind energy will insure the continued and expanded use of coal. An easier and more direct approach would be to remove all subsidies, tax breaks and loan guarantees…tax carbon directly at the mine, well and terminal and let the free market figure it out. Allowing politicians to get more involved in this business will make a difficult situation almost impossible to resolve. They will do to energy what they are now doing to our currency, financial institutions, home mortgages, social security, medical care, public education, deficit spending, domestic energy supply, and almost everything else they touch…it should give us pause. 2 comments from 2 users
1
posted by
thewaywardwind
on Jul 17, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Boone Pickens ain't no fool. While I hate the man the way a Baptist preacher hates sin, he does know what he's talking about. Wind farms should be built in those areas where the wind is predictably constant. Wind, by itself, isn't a cure-all, though. It should be included in the mix of power sources along with nuclear, coal, geothermal, hydro-electric, hydrogen fuel cells, and gerbels running on their wheels. Dependable, affordable electric power is vital to the future of the nation. As much as I hate to see Pickens make a dime off it, wind power is part of that mix we need. By the way, don't believe that stuff about Pickens doing this for the "loved ones" he'll be leaving behind. That Sierra Oscar Bravo is just mean enough to live to 150 just for spite.
posted by
ErnieCash
on Jul 17, 2008 at 04:27 PM
One element of wind energy Rollingstone touched on is the fact that we can't control the wind. It only makes sense to put these wind generators in areas of the country which are notable for their "wind supply;" Oklahoma, Kansas, TX panhandle, N.& S. Dakota and perhaps a few other scattered areas. While the midwest plains states are well known for their almost constant winds it's significant to note that we simply cannot control when or how strongly the wind may blow in any given area at any given time. Connected to this issue is the fact that there are no batteries sufficient to store the capacity of electricity that will almost certainly be produced at times when it is not needed to supply those times when the energy is needed but the wind just isn't blowing in the right place at the right time. In short, these wind generators are horrendously unpredictable and even wasteful. Couple that with the shortcoming stated in the blog (high maintenance requirements, inclement weather damage, etc.) and it's obvious the wind energy may well be useful but only in a limited capacity. I agree... Let's leave the wind energy exploration and utilization to private industry and individuals and keep the government tax dollars (yours and mine) out of it. Individuals who install these things for their own use have small enough generation points that any excess electricity generated beyond their own needs can reverse the user's meter and that small amount of excess electricity transmitted out to "the grid" on existing lines. The owner saves on his electric bill, is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the unit and provides a small amount of relief to the public consumption. Everyone wins. Multiply those numbers to, say, two in a hundred households and businesses and you have a significant contribution to society without the unconscionable tax drain on every taxpayer and another huge dump on the refuse heap that is our national debt. Ernie
1
|