digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at metaefficient.com

$2 Billion Wind Turbine Order Is Largest Ever

metaefficient.com — Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has placed an the largest ever order for wind turbines: he ordered 667 wind turbines from GE, each costing $3 million dollars, making the total order $2 billion. Pickens plans to develop the world’s largest wind farm in the panhandle of Texas.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mark076h, on 05/19/2008, -2/+36http://www.metaefficient.com/wp-content/uploads/wi ... that is an awesome picture does anyone have a high-res ?
    • chanop, on 05/19/2008, -2/+11I'm scared of heights, and that picture alone gives me the creeps
    • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4That stuff is awesome. We have a lot of wind farm activity going on up here in Northern NY. Stuff is being shipped in on the St Lawrence Seaway and then being trucked to the installation sight.

      Pretty neat seeing a huge turbine blade being trucked down the road, takes some real skillful driving to navigate those trucks down the roads.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -4/+8IF you can't afford your own Megawatt installation in your back yard,
      try something smaller:

      http://www.homepower.com

      Every home using ''home-grown'' power helps free your country
      from the addiction to fossil fuels and promotes a cleaner, healthier planet.
      • birdieb23, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3GTFO hippy!
        • xptoast, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2GTFO ungreen guy!

          I don't really care but I thought I would give a jab at ya. *eats a cookie and laughs*
        • LeeSoong, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Mr. Cheney, is that you ?
  • JerryAscione, on 05/19/2008, -33/+3I'm so glad we are spending our money wisely as the dollar falls.
    • chiapet, on 05/19/2008, -10/+4Wear not T. Boone Pickens is and i hop it works well for him so he can take it to the next level
    • cypriss9, on 05/19/2008, -0/+45Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. In truth, this is very wise, any dollar we spend on renewable energy is a dollar we didn't spend on overseas oil. This project will strengthen the dollar.
      • minoss, on 05/19/2008, -8/+2Why I agree that this is great, I don't think you understand why dollar has become weak. It isn't because we buy oil.
        • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Please fill us in Mr Economist.
        • minoss, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I'm not going to go into a page long diatribe on what causes it because honestly, you don't care. But I will say, monetary policy, such as how the fed controls interest rates, has a much larger effect on the value of the dollar relative to other currencies over our current import and export amounts. But hey, I wouldn't want actual information to get in the way of some good oil trade bashing. Let me know when you have any proof for the assertions you are making because you know, that's usually who the burden of proof is usually on.
      • ahuxley, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2Yes, its game over for US paper cash.
        The printers are running overtime, but its not working.
    • Amcd33, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10I'm sure you have a better idea about how to invest your billions into renewable energy.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12It's his damn money, he can invest it in any way he sees fit.
  • RealmDown, on 05/19/2008, -16/+3"This place blows!" -- David Letterman
  • unpolloloco, on 05/19/2008, -12/+126At the cost of 700 billion, we can power the entire US - isnt that about how much we're spending in Iraq (per year)?
    • LiquidIse, on 05/19/2008, -12/+3Really? I assume you have factored in varying wind speeds and real estate costs/availability across the nation for that figure as well.
      • johnhummel, on 05/19/2008, -1/+27I'm sure you input that between wind farms, solar fields, we could then supplement the difference in nuclear and, if necessary, last holdouts of coal/oil/etc?

        Nobody says we should just power the entire US through wind only - but between wind, solar, and nuclear, then working on shifting cars from gas to battery and increasing public transportation, we could become all but oil independent.

        Or, we should just stick our heads in the sand, go "I'm powerless to do anything about it", and just go on wasting our money on pointless things like - the war in Iraq. Much better idea.

        Not.
        • ncc74656m, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Bravo, good sir, bravo.

          This is an all too common reaction. "Oh, but it's so hard," or "It's so expensive" or "Do you even know how much it would cost?"

          Well, the answers, respecively are "No" "Not really" and "Yes, and it's cheap by comparison in the long run."
    • Smurph0404, on 05/19/2008, -16/+26No, it's currently costing about 100 billion a year.
      • altgeeky1, on 05/19/2008, -6/+18That's off by HALF, at LEAST half.

        Direct appropriations for the war total 1.5 trillion from 2001-2008 so far... and the latest budget buster by Bush has the war UNDERFUNDED for the fiscal year: by underfunded I mean the money will intentionally run out in January. The cynical inspiration for this budget is to destabilize the next US administration by making the first job one of settling an additional budget expenditure for the war, instead of it being funded through the fiscal year in April (like everything else).

        The 1.5 trillion figure does NOT count additional expenditures paid by departments other than the Pentagon (not insubstantial Blackwater contracts from the State Dept., the 1 BILLION dollar embassy, etc).

        This is kind of expensive given the US public was told the "war would pay for itself" in Iraqi money. The American public was told a lot of things...

        The cynic in me thinks this was cooked up with no further goal than to bankrupt the Federal Government... the whole ultra-right slogan of "weakening the government `till you could drown it in a bathtub" quote (and killing off any dreams of 'socialized medicine').

        sources:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
        (you can get the other 200 billion from more recent articles... the point is you are wrong to say it's 100bil/year. If you voted for Bush twice, you might not care what the facts are.)
      • RomanThommassen, on 05/19/2008, -11/+1you're insane the wart cost ***** 700 a year, now gtfo dude.
        • altgeeky1, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1nice try. how's the view down there? :-P
    • pixelwerx, on 05/19/2008, -2/+55My friends and I have had this discussion many times. What is stopping the federal government from subsidizing wind farms and solar grids en-masse, thereby lowering the overall cost of green energy and reducing the demand for coal and oil?

      We should be attacking the looming energy crisis as though we we were going to war. Can anyone give me a practical reason why the entire country isn't running on sustainable energy sources? No matter how much we use, we're never going to run out of wind and sunshine.
      • bumcheekcity, on 05/19/2008, -3/+30Oil companies.
      • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -20/+2Because all the sustainable energy sources are *****.

        They're either unreliable, like wind, periodic, like solar and tidal and they're all highly diffuse meaning you need lots of that pristine wilderness greenie-weenies are always going on endlessly about. They're also all ridiculously expensive and no one would be bothering with them, certainly not a T. Boone Pickens, unless there weren't huge subsidies attached.

        The same people who think all this alternative energy horse ***** is just a cunning as can be are the people who've stood in the way of making sure there are ample conventional energy supplies and now they're offering their sovereign remedy as the solution to the problem they caused.
        • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8You miss the point on sustainable energy sources.

          It's economy of scale in many cases. Sure wind may be periodic but with enough installations you'll always ensure generation at multiple sources. And many locations, such as lake and sea shores have an almost constant wind.

          Solar is expensive. But that cost falls as you scale up the number and size of installations. The more you makes the cheaper is gets (Boston Learning Curve). And it's a one time cost. Let's not forget nuclear.

          Your never going to have a completely sustainable source solution. But if you reduce the demand on oil/coal by 25%, that's a significant buffer you've now created.
        • darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8sadly, I can only dig you down once.
        • shamanlife, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You had better sell the last of your oil quick, cause it looks like we will not have a need for it in the near future.
        • Nitrodist88, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Huh? I'm pretty sure nuclear energy isn't unreliable, periodic or diffuse.
      • NSResponder, on 05/19/2008, -6/+4" What is stopping the federal government from subsidizing wind farms and solar grids en-masse,"

        The federal government has no money.

        -jcr
        • rory2267, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4yet every year your federal government fund a war which no one really knows what for.
        • bloosteak, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1federal government actually has infinite money. so you were wrong by a a factor of infinite
      • KK22, on 05/19/2008, -11/+4Windmills have a problem in that they tend to kill a lot of birds. Even here in liberal California environmental groups are fighting to have a large wind farm shut down due to the number of birds killed each year. Also a lot of people don't want wind farms where they can see them. Ted Kennedy has been fighting an off shore wind farm near one of his beach front houses.

        The government also tends to support less than intelligent ideas. Just think of ethanol made from a food source for one example. Better to let private industry figure out the right way to do something like alternative energy LIke Bell Bio-energy http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bell_Bio-En ... which claims they can make gas out of any organic material and bacteria
        • brjndr, on 05/19/2008, -1/+20The wind farms that kill birds use shorter windmills that spin at high speeds, the birds can't see the blades. The ones from the article are massive and use huge slow spinning blades, so bird hitting them are not a problem.
        • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Who gives a ***** about killing some birds. And if I had my choice I would WANT them to be somewhere that I could see them.
        • Troy64, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8There will never be a source of energy that will satisfy environmental nuts. Can't use oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and I am sure there is something wrong with solar and hydroelectric.Oh yes I think hydroelectric keep salmon from spawning.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Put them in my front yard! If my utility bill drops eve a third of the cost then its worth looking at them.
        • bearcat8543, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3i think they're actually pretty cool looking, thats just me though.
        • Mejogid, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2@Troy64
          I'm all for nuclear, wind and solar - but mass hydroelectric power means drowning huge swathes of land, damaging ecosystems (the Three Gorges Dam in China likely resulted in the extinction of a species of river dolphin, for example), losing huge amounts of water to evaporation in hotter areas, trapping sediment (bad for farming, likely to cause erosion near the river mouth etc), can cause meandering and changes in river course downstream (not insignificant for the people who actually own that land and may well have to fight the river advancement) and is generally only cost effective when the dam serves another purpose such as flood protection. And if the dam bursts.... (rare, but were talking thousands of fatalities here).

          On the other hand, on huge rivers the available energy can be worth it, but then again the risk is that much greater
      • Awsomo6, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2"No matter how much we use, we're never going to run out of wind and sunshine."

        I believe we run out of Sunshine at least once per day... Its called night time. There is a reason that energy companies usually don't rely on getting more than 15% of their energy from renewables. Its because they are too unreliable. If all of New York was on wind power and the wind stopped blowing for 2 hours then there would be a black out.
      • altgeeky1, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Easy: the US is already bankrupt.

        The Republican's saw this coming, and instead of pushing renewable energy and higher fuel standards, they enacted $20,000 tax breaks for Hummer H1 owners, and knee-capped the hybrid tax credit for the Toyota Prius.

        It's not like the neo-cons will be LIVING here in 10 years... they'll be retired in Bermuda and Dubia, yukking it up over what a bargain the US housing market is.

        The flag pins are a ruse... these people are foreign lobbyists in disguise.
    • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -0/+22I think wind farms are great. I live in Iowa and we have some of the largest wind farms in the nation. In reply to your comment, I don't think we should power our nation with any one source. I think a good energy policy is a diverse energy policy. We should use wind, nuclear, coal, water and anything else we can come up with. Weather patterns can change and make wind farms less efficient. Lakes can dry up causing problems for hydroelectric. If a nuclear plant is having problems, it would be nice to know the coal plant down the road is still operational to take up the load.
      • sponeil, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2All we have to do to have a good steady wind supply is cut down all the trees, which we're already doing anyway. Yes, I'm joking (sort of). ;-)
        • unpolloloco, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Actually, tree cover has increased significantly in the past few decades. Our economic policies (i.e. ethanol) cause the rainforest to be cut down instead of our own forests.
      • Nitrodist88, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Shut up, ricksite! We can't have pragmatists in here! It *has* to be one or the other!
    • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -11/+2Its a $3 Trillion dollar war,
      and if you think it's only about oil,
      you need to look deeper into the geopolitics
      involved in the irrational actions
      promoted by religion and the '' Clash of Cultures ''.

      Short Hand Summary:

      There is only 1 nice livable planet in the solar system,
      and it belongs to the USA. Others can live on it too,
      but don't get in the way of the U S A.

      http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.11589640
    • warriorscot, on 05/19/2008, -5/+14The funny thing is that while the US starts wars for more oil the middle east uses the money spent on oil to make sure they themselves won't depend on it in the future.
      • timeshifter, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4So the Middle Eastern nations are ahead of the curve in developing alternative energy sources, or are you just talking out your ass because you hate W?
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1By building up tourism? O_o
        • altgeeky1, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1You can't have tourism without boobies.

          Anyone know what the penalty is in Dubai for viewing boobies?
    • BradMW, on 05/19/2008, -12/+1I don't need those eyesores in any states I frequent, thanks.
      • RuffRidr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Thanks for your opinion Ted Kennedy. Glad you're feeling better.
      • JoeKehr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2You should stop frequenting the desert. There are much nicer places in the U.S. than windfarms in the middle of nowhere...
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The pigeon and seagull corpses make for great fertilizer too !!
    • toxicityj, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Either way we're wasting money we don't have...
    • JoeKehr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1There was a report about a nice study in a german online newspaper just some weeks ago. When I read it, I basically thought the same. They proposed solar and wind energy in the American southwest and presented a very detailed plan (including how to solve the problem of en energy production during the night). The costs were about 500 Billion Euro over about 30-40 years...
      It's like: Option A: Buy weapons, finance an army and meddle with Middle East countries to get control over oil
      Option B: Give incentives for alternative energy production and make the U.S. energy policy independant.
      Well, I guess B wasn't ever an option anyway...
  • jdames1980, on 05/19/2008, -25/+53Why do these things cost so much? $3 million for a turbine, it just seems ridiculous.
    • aflaks, on 05/19/2008, -8/+24its a huge freeken thing that converts wind power to energy... 3 mil is nothing for something like that.
      • jdames1980, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4I'm not saying it's not a good investment, but what if there were smaller, more affordable turbines that residents could buy and place on their property. Making solar and wind energy available to the masses is what is going to change the world.
        • GQCarrick, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5There are such things, unfortunately a lot of communities do not allow them or you have the random neighbor who doesn't want that near his property because it MIGHT drive down the price of his house.
        • phrstbrn, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10$3 mil USD per turbine is a fair price (for a 1.5MW turbine).

          A combined cycle power plant is probably the most efficient power plant that runs on fossil fuel (almost 60% efficiency), and those have typical install price of $3.5 mil/MW. Plus, you have to fuel these things, which you don't have to do with the wind turbines. If they had bought all combined cycle gas power plants instead of wind turbines, the same project would have cost easily $3.5 billion (almost double).

          It's a very good investment, and any company who has money to invest in these is going to make a fortune. In a few years, the prices will come down even more (say half of what they cost now) once companies like GE recover their R&D costs, which will make it even more appealing. It's already cost effective NOW to buy them, in a few years it will be a no brainer.
        • burketo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12there are, but because of the physics of wind power, it is the square of the size of the rotors that determins how much power you will get from wind... i.e. if you make a turbine's blades twice as big, you will generate 4 times as much power.

          thus it is in the designer's interest to make them as big as they possibly can because it is cheaper, more efficient and uses less space to make one wind turbine that has 80 metre diameter then 4 turbines with 40 metre diameter.
        • Phearce, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2There are smaller "household" size wind turbines available. But there are practical issues, like geographic access to suitable wind, ability to install a tall enough mast, and of course cost. Additionally, most places have considerable variation in wind speed over the course of seasons, or even looking at daytime versus nighttime -- the problem being if the wind is not blowing then there's no power generated. I agree these can be a good investment, but they are not for everybody.
      • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3It's more than just a turbine. You've got the structure itself. I'm sure those prop blades aren't cheap. And you've got to have a pretty good foundation.

        Costs add up pretty quick.
      • pauleric, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Huge, yes. I saw a couple of these going by on the freeway last weekend (have no idea if it was part of this particular project). One blade per super-long and overwide semi-trailer (which requires extra cars and drivers to follow along with signs). Just driving the things to Texas has got to be pretty expensive.
    • forcedfx, on 05/19/2008, -4/+32Steel ain't cheap these days. Plus wind energy is still in it's infancy as far as its adoption. The early adopters are footing the bill for the R&D costs.
      • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Modern wind turbines are mostly made of fiberglass.
        • diggB, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Most turbines built today are made out of carbon fiber.
        • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I think we are both right. I think they use a carbon fiber and fiberglass composite. For sure they don't make them out of steel anymore.
        • N0vember, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0You mean for the WHOLE turbine ? Why would the mast be made of fiberglass and/or carbon fiber ?
        • xadhominemx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Not the columns they rest on.
        • jefferygomer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Hmm... all the turbines I've been in have had steel towers.

          I've worked on developing and constructing four wind farms in the last 2 years.

          The blades, the hub, and the nacelle are not steel, but the tower sections are.

          You essentially have a sail in the air, and you don't want it to move.
    • beargrylls, on 05/19/2008, -2/+76Because it's ***** enormous.
    • mfc5200, on 05/19/2008, -0/+46A lot of the money goes into R&D which has already been spent. GE usually doesn't make any money on their engine/turbine until 15-20 years after a product has been launched. They make all their profit on providing maintenance services and spare parts.

      Also, in the case of the GE-90 when it first launched, each fan turbine blade cost about $100k. I'm not as familiar with wind turbines, but stuff like this isn't cheap.
    • uptwolait, on 05/19/2008, -0/+23Just look at the picture, you'll understand ... http://metaefficient.com/wp-content/uploads/ge1.5- ...
      • r3s0p, on 05/19/2008, -5/+0Or this vid of a blade being transported.
    • archlich, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6There's a few things to consider. The blades of the turbine have to be perfectly balanced, or they will vibrate. You have to pay the engineers that design the turbine, pay the transport fees, pay to have it constructed, etc.

      Remember that these are an investment, they are expecting to pay it off with the profits from the electricity.
    • jefferygomer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13$3 million/turbine is actually not that expensive. But one thing you guys seam to miss is that wind farms of this magnitude require some serious construction costs. Multiple large cranes, large crews working 60-70 hours a week (Major overtime costs), about seventy 30' steel bolts, blasting bed rock (Most likely), high voltage cable...

      This list can go on and on.
      • jefferygomer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Seventy 30' bolts each turbine...
        Sorry.
    • yunus, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2total profit is Unit profit * Units sold
      When they start producing these like they do cars. Prices will drop drastically.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Not really. They produce houses like they do cars now, but it will still cost you $100K for one.
        • munkyxtc, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I'd like to see one of these $100K houses you speak of.
        • Elliuotatar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1When I said they produce houses like they do cars, I meant it.

          Behold, the modular home: http://www.dgmodular.com/price.html

          This is just one website I could find some prices on, but as you can see, fairly inexpensive as homes go. Modular homes are real houses, constructed in a warehouse from timber and assembled on site. They can be placed on a slab or have a full basement, and they don't depreciate in value.
    • Homerr, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7$3 million each probably includes installation, a multi-year service contract for maintenance, and coke and hookers.
      • Stevanoski, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1"and coke and hookers." HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, what are you in Jr. High?
    • Zera, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11Remember, when one of these turbines is generating 1.5 MegaWatt of power, that means it is resisting 1.5+ megawatt of WIND at a very high altitude. Without the ability to use support cables (windmill blades would hit them) they have to make the cylinder that supports the windmill fully strong enough to stand up to that force.

      The great majority of the expense is #1) the tower itself, and #2 the re-enforcing of the foundation underground to resist that kind of leverage the wind has.

      However, if done well, that base is reusable over and over for hundreds of years. Wind Power is ALL sunk cost.
      • kublerross, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1also thats 1.5MW of energy out of the local climate too. im not sure these wind farms will be faultless in regards to local climate change once more are built
        • Zera, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I appreciate the idea of what you're saying, but it is truly an infinitesimal amount of actual energy in the wind. Keep in mind, every tree already has a similar impact on "slowing the wind with friction" Also remember that these HUGE windmills have three HUGE fins, each longer than our largest planes' wingspans, and so while some of the wind does hit them and transfers energy, 99% of the wind, blows right through them without being slowed or affected.

          Remember that the sun gives off an amount of energy EVERY HOUR that is equal to the amount of energy contained by gasoline flowing over Niagara falls for 5 million YEARS. The wind is just one of the things the sun powers, and my point is that we will NOT be running out of wind, ever, no matter how many windmills we build.

          Just think. If we could stop the wind with towers, why didn't we do it long ago to stop tornadoes and cyclones?
    • SniperZ, on 05/19/2008, -0/+33 Million really isnt all that much for construction and material these days... hell, a single f-22 aircraft cost around 85 million, id rather take 28 wind turbines.
    • hollycowlman, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Never underestimate the COST of R&D
    • IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1look at the difference between carbon fiber and fiber glass car molds

      composites are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      you gotta pay for your high durabiltiy, lightweight, and custom directional load/strain designed mat's
      • jefferygomer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Except for the fact that the towers are giant steel tubes, and the nacelle houses a damned heavy generator...

        Really - the only thing "light weight" are the fiberglass blades, which need to be perfectly balanced.
    • wombat02, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4$3 million for a 400+ ft structure. Doesn't seem that much to me, even if it didn't do anything.
    • Testies, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Steel and Copper prices have gone thru the roof in the past year.
      I read somewhere that wind turbine industry is the biggest user of steel in the world right now.


  • straylight08, on 05/19/2008, -6/+202I like how the guy only just avoided getting 666 of them.
    • trollick, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3He can always take one down and then...
    • bwa236, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7... the END OF THE WORLD
    • fxspec06, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3I was thinking, pass it around
    • MRAS, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I blame nero for sticking us with this eternal fear of 666
    • leerayIG88, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Too much will cause the earth to fly away.
    • oxilite, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0When i first read that i missed the word Order, so i thought it was just 1 single $2Billion wind turbine. I was disappointed.
  • 955701, on 05/19/2008, -14/+8Now you *know* for a moment there he was going to place an order for 666 of them.
  • aflaks, on 05/19/2008, -3/+13The US is huge space wise, I dont know how effective wind power is but i'm sure it will make life easier if the scarcely populated portions of the country are covered with these
    • cemcclelland, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Wind projects can be very effective if sited properly.

      This single wind project will produce about 0.3% of total U.S. electricity demand (assuming a reasonable capacity factor of 28%), or about 9,800 GWh. That's no small potato.
    • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1The wind turbines need a constant wind speed above around 15 mph. A lot of places don't meet this criteria.
      • warriorscot, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1They work in that range but that doesn't mean that they need to always be powered to work most places don't get constant wind speed. What you do is optimise them for the most common range of speeds in an area and then use the power they generate at those times and any left you store for later use.
        • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1It isn't economically feasible to put wind farms where they aren't as efficient. If you are building a wind farm, you want to put your windmills where you will get the most out of them.
        • IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2how do you store it? i've heard it just allows the electric companies to dial back their load if enough people have a + current going towards the power company. I've also heard a very simple way of "storing" energy is pumping water up hill - how else are you referring to store it? it's not like you can just keep charging a bunch of really big batteries
        • JoeKehr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I've read recently (sorry, German newspaper) that a possible solution would be to pump water into depleted gas reservoirs or basically where the ground is cavernous (don't know whether it's the right word "Damnit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a geologist!" ;-)). This technique is already used in Spain and interestingly there are lots of places in the U.S. where this is possible.
      • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Newer models can generate electricity at speeds as low a 5mph. Speed doesn't need to be constant, what needs to be examined is the frequency distribution of speeds and the amount of total energy generated.

    • IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1there is also a maximum wind speed they can operate with due to fatigue, so at a certain maximum windspeed, the blades turn themselves into the wind with their lowest drag profile. and the clutch releases to prevent engine wear/tear.

  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -8/+50But.. but... Pickens is an oil man and therefore evil, right?
    • forcedfx, on 05/19/2008, -3/+86He's not really going to install them. He's going to pile them up in the center of town and set them on fire.
    • notoneofus, on 05/19/2008, -2/+19He can't be truly evil, or he would have done as 955701 says, and ordered 666 of them.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+29Ah, but you see, here's the insidious part, the part that I notice they just happened to omit. Once he's installed these things, he's going to *gasp* charge people money and turn a profit!
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13That BASTARD!
      • dave122, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6no way, I thought he was going to invest 2 billion dollars and give it all away for free...
      • unreg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4No, he relying on the fact that all those workers will drive to work. That the shipping and installation will require copious amounts of energy. That the profits will be plowed back into expansion, where the workers drive, the shipping and installation........

        Endless circle of energy consumption.
    • TheSpook, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7He's in it for the money. Renewable energy fetches a premium these days. I have 25% of my energy bill allocated to renewable energy, and plan on allocating more. I don't exactly remember the rate card, but I think around here my bill would go up about $2.50/month per 25% I allocate to renewable.

      Obviously, the grid doesn't discriminate. Power is power, however, that extra money is *supposed* to go towards additional renewable development and maintenance.
    • swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -10/+4T. Boone Pickens financed the Swift Boat ads that smeared John Kerry's war record, helping to hand George W Bush a second term. He later implicitly admitted the Swift Boat ads were 100% false when he reneged on his offer of $1 million to anyone who could disprove them.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4Quit being a jerk.
      We don't have a problem with Oil extraction and using gasoline -- it's using gasoline without promoting alternatives. It's fine that this guy made money -- just don't do it lobbying our government to subsidize Middle East oil with our military.

      Why do you think we sell Saudi Arabia $10 Billion in weapons every other year with a loan that almost makes if free?

      This man is just being smart. Oil will run out and people need energy. As long as you provide needs and don't force people to drive fuel inefficient cars (guess who keeps blocking a decent train system), It's OK.

      And being "green" doesn't mean you aren't evil. It just means you are efficient. This isn't the new religion -- it just "not being stupid." Try it sometime.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1"Quit being a jerk."

        You first.
    • boxxa, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Hes sick of paying himself $4.50 a gallon for gas
      • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Hey, $2 billion may sound like a lot, but it was still cheaper than filling up his Hummer again.
    • zaffir, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Smart "Oilmen" aren't exclusively in the business of oil- they're in the business of ENERGY, and oil is but one source.
    • ZxEfR, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Being an oil man doesn't always mean being evil....but in T's case it does.
      • sealhands, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1why?
        • ZxEfR, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"Pickens wants to take the water from the Ogallala Aquifer and pump it to El Paso, Lubbock, San Antonio or Dallas-Fort Worth." --- That's just one of the many reasons. Seems that's pretty much all T. knows how to do...steal from John to sell to harry. I live over the Ogallala....I live about 100 miles from where T. just built his mega mansion.....I've grown up hearing all about T. and what and who he is! I even own stock in Mesa Offshore (that I bought in the 80's) A company he started just to get capital then drove it into the ground on purpose. If you require any more info you'll have to do your own research.
    • fossilnews, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1No, he's just a capitalist and sees an opportunity.
  • Smurph0404, on 05/19/2008, -1/+171You know a green technology has made it when people who aren't all that concerned with being green start using it because it makes economic sense. Economics, not altruism, will have to be what turns us into a green society.
    • ahuxley, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Its all short term profit and 'fun'.
      Other parts of the world are going to clean up (profit) with brand 'green'



    • diggrnumber1, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3the cheapest way to produce energy now is through coal liquefaction and gasification, so if we follow economics we should start producing energy that way. These technologies are even more polluting than burning fossil fuels.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -8/+4Granted, it would've been nicer if we had been able to pull our heads out of our asses BEFORE it became an economics issue - I mean, we knew that cheap oil couldn't last forever, we should've been thinking ahead, but hey, hindsight is 20/20, right?
    • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I'd agree with you if wind power were "green" and "made economic sense". I get the impression that neither of these premises is actually true, though.
      • dood, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3What about wind power makes it non-green, or makes no economic sense? I'm always curious about opposition to wind power. The main opposition, such as from the Kennedy family, seems to be that they are "ugly". Others are against them because of the birds that die in the blades (although very few birds die this way). I haven't heard anyone argue that wind isn't green.

        The only way I could see wind power not making economic sense would be if we had some other basically pollution free low impact source of power. My gut hunch is that solar power has a higher impact, due to the land usage, and all of the other power sources I can think of (gas, oil, hydro, nuclear, etc) are either high impact or high polluting.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I guess it depends on how you define "green". Installing turbines in forest regions requires clearcutting of trees. I've also heard of pollution during turbine manufacture, bird deaths (which sounds exaggerated), effects on weather by extracting energy from the wind (also dubious), forest fires started by malfunctioning turbines, and hydraulic fluid leaks polluting sensitive environments.

          But the main opposition I've seen is the relative high cost (not making economic sense), and the relative safety problems. Deaths per kilowatt-hour for wind is something like 10 times that of other power sources. Hard to find reliable data for any of this, though. People support or oppose this stuff mostly on gut feeling and not on facts.
    • Pritchard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Supply and Demand rules all! One of the lucky things about how the world's worked so far is that whenever we go low on supply, there's a solution to be found elsewhere. When oil prices rise high enough, "green" energy will eventually cost less or will be cheap enough for research to potentially be profitable.
    • N0vember, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2But why is being green economically profitable ? Because of altruism.
      So basically, your logic fails, or at the least it is incomplete.
      And it is especially true in socialist (OOOH, BAD SOCIALISM) countries like France, where we could be all happy with nuclear plants, but where we also have wind turbines proliferating ? Why ? Because our energy providers are pressured to do so. Why ? Because of the altruism of people, which is also the cause of any profit green energy can produce.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Wind turbines proliferating in France? Really?

        "Although Europe's top electricity exporter, France is still only the region's fourth smallest generator of wind power since it currently relies on nuclear reactors to supply nearly 80 percent of its needs."

        http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid ...
        • N0vember, on 05/19/2008, -1/+0Please, be kind, update your informations : the article you are linking to is from 2003.

          Now please, take a look at a more up-to-date and reliable article :
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

          You'll notice that in 2007, france is the 7th world wind power producer, and the 5th europe producer, with 2,454 MW. Its producing capacity has nearly quadrupled in two years. And it is planning to have a capacity of 12,500 MW by 2010, which means it will be multiplied by 5.

          So, yes, wind turbines are and will continue to proliferate in France. Really.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12.5 GW wind capacity? Assuming a generous 35% capacity factor, that's 900 MW average power output. Meanwhile, France generates 48,000 MW on average from nuclear plants. 50 times as much.
        • N0vember, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Yes, most of France power is supplied by nuclear plants.
          Still, it doesn't condradict my point, which is that Wind turbines are proliferating in France.
    • dmitry, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Um yeah that's not true because he's using wind not nuclear.
    • frisk415, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You're right. Give it twenty years.
    • c0mputar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Well said #1. Now those global warming idiots need to stfu because our world doesn't function for the good of man kind, but for the greed of a few. Anyways, by satisfying our energy needs, one simply permits the growth of civilization and, therefore, the continuing destruction of the environment, but, in this case, not the atmosphere.
  • gtluke, on 05/19/2008, -15/+5oil man, AND from texas
    QUICK DIGG THIS STORY DOWN ITS EVIL
  • shaXian, on 05/19/2008, -3/+25Watch one being built in timelapse:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZqNL4qZxY
    • r3s0p, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Dang, they were done by lunch on the second day. Why does it take a week to get a furnace in my house?!?!? haha
      • chrisduser, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I'm sure someone would install your furnace in two days if you pay them for one weeks worth of work.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Watch one destroying itself in slow motion:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvvRHhsQhi8
    • edein, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1i hardly see the tree moves during the whole time lapse....
  • rohcky, on 05/19/2008, -16/+5I'm not an expert or anything, but wouldn't this be detrimental to the atmosphere? Newton's law states that an object in motion stays in motion, unless friction is present. So if such a large amount of turbines slow down the atmospheric air, wouldn't that stagnate the natural circulation of air leading to some sort of catastrophic event?

    Just wondering based off my simple knowledge of physics. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.
    • turkeyssr, on 05/19/2008, -1/+20Yes, and if I spit in the Ocean it will flood in Asia somewhere.
      • rohcky, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1If you and every other human did it might.

        And my question was based of wind power being the new craze in energy. If all countries decide to cash in on wind power, it might have an effect on the weather, perhaps not catastrophic, but something could happen.

        Thanks to those who replied with non-insulting answers to my question by the way.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8Umm... you're thinking wayyyy to deep on this. It would have an exponentially smaller impact than say a CITY.
    • shaXian, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2No. The size and scope of what your are comparing are no where close to affecting each other. Read the various wiki articles on wind turbines. Some of your concern is addresses.
    • Danskiii, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Nothing we humans have made so far or will make in the next many hundreds of year will have any such effect. There's too much air for it to be slowed down by a few tiny wind mills. Trying to stop the wind with turbines would be like trying to set the Earth off course by having a dozen people jump at the same time.
    • pandorazboxx, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2no, we'd only be using the air/wind that's up to as tall as the turbine. There are a few layers of the atmosphere. and the wind is still blowing, we're not stopping the wind from blowing we're just using it to spin some blades. Waaaaaay to small to make any difference
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/19/2008, -2/+18according to the butterfly effect of chaos theory, everything that happens can eventually lead to some catastrophic event. typing that comment might have somehow killed a baby somewhere.
    • aladrin, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4You aren't completely offbase. Windfarms -do- cause weather changes in their area. This is not necessarily bad, but studies were probably done to make sure it won't adversely harm the area.

      The other posters are correct as well... Holistic thinking is valid, and cities DO cause a lot more weather changes than a windfarm will. That doesn't mean you are any less correct, though.
    • ricksite, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2You are correct in that the windmills will technically slow the air down but there is such a tremendous amount of energy involved that the effect is negligible.
      I see people are digging you down but I digg you up for asking a question so you can understand something better.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I considered this, too, but I think things like deforestation have a much larger impact than some wind farms. It's probably in our best interests to add *more* drag, actually, to cancel out some of that. I imagine taking energy out of the atmosphere has a beneficial effect on weather patterns. All this land we live on used to be covered by trees, you know.
  • danwgre, on 05/19/2008, -2/+136Dugg for a Texas oilman named, "T. Boone Pickens"
    classic.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+25With a name like that, he had no choice but to go into oil.
    • bwa236, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1makes me want a T-Bone right about now
    • graemee, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Sounds like a sidekick name.
    • Troy64, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I thought he gave all of his money to the OSU football team.
    • Calypsoaf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's not often a comment on Digg makes me laugh out loud at work.

      Touche kind sir, your comment made my day.
    • TheR3dMenace, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Thats what the texas oil tycoon from the simpsons should be named
    • machocheese34, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Daniel Plainview would have been better
  • uptwolait, on 05/19/2008, -0/+82As a salesman, all I can think about is if I sold him the deal on a 1% commission, I'd be rolling in $20M right now.
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 05/19/2008, -13/+5As a consumer, all I can say is: ***** you.
      • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5you have to buy things... therefore you need a salesman...
      • dha07030, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Yeah you wouldnt want him to make money for the work he does.
    • soulkitchen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1True, but if I'm dropping $2 Billion at your company, I want the President and CEO out there turning the wrenches. Don't send me some junior account executive. Actually this begs the question, couldn't this guy have started his own wind turbine company?
  • swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -17/+7T. Boone Pickens financed the Swift Boat ads that smeared John Kerry's war record, helping to hand George W Bush a second term. He later implicitly admitted the Swift Boat ads were 100% false when he reneged on his offer of $1 million to anyone who could disprove them.
    • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6That's a good enough reason for me to put an end to the subsidies that'll support this project.

      A guy like T. Boone Pickens, whose so evil that he stood in the way of the coronation of JFK II, isn't good enough to be allowed to put up something as pure as a windmill. Off with his head!
  • GeauxLSU, on 05/19/2008, -4/+48The Power of Green
    The politician who actually proved just how effective this can be was a guy named George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. He pushed for and signed a renewable energy portfolio mandate in 1999. The mandate stipulated that Texas power companies had to produce 2,000 new megawatts of electricity from renewables, mostly wind, by 2009.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green ...
    • rezonq3, on 05/19/2008, -0/+14Holy *****.
    • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3Yeah, but he made up for it by hammering Al Queda and Saddam Hussein into strawberry jam.

      I'm not all that hopeful that he, or many, politicians have learned what a huge mistake subsidizing alternative energy schemes has been but corn ethanol is a good wake up call about the stupidity of the idea.
      • warriorscot, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Nothing wrong with subsidising energy schemes, in order to keep prices down its often the only way to get new power generation facilities built. What you need to do is subsidise the right things, the whole corn ethanol debacle was as much the farm subsidy system as anything.

        I would be less bothered with alternative energy subsidisation than the farming subsidisation system in the US it is utterly ridiculous, you knock back policies that even smell slightly socialist but endorse farm subsidy in a massive scale.
    • mod4l, on 05/19/2008, -3/+0Yeah, it's always convenient to quote selectively, isn't it?

      From the same article:

      President Bush, though, is no Governor Bush. (The Dick Cheney effect?) President Bush claims he’s protecting American companies by not imposing tough mileage, conservation or clean power standards, but he’s actually helping them lose the race for the next great global industry. Japan has some of the world’s highest gasoline taxes and stringent energy efficiency standards for vehicles — and it has the world’s most profitable and innovative car company, Toyota. That’s no accident.
  • sentinel106, on 05/19/2008, -2/+11clean, renewable energy FTW!
  • OffPiste, on 05/19/2008, -24/+31Leave it to a Republican to make a difference.

    Dimms are all talk and "Not in my backyard" like Sen Ted Kennedy (D). Kennedy has staunchly refused and worked ardently to kill a wind farm that might spoil his ocean view.

    They only want to spend your money on change. Republicans spend their own money on change.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -9/+5Oh, well Ted Kennedy doesn't like wind turbines? Guess I'll have to change my stance. Seriously, WTF does he have to do with anything? Hell, I'd like a wind turbine in my front yard.
      • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Well then you must not be a rich hypocrite like Ted Kennedy who thinks wind power is just a peachy idea unless it might, just maybe, interfere with his million dollar view. Then it's not such a good idea.

        That's what it's got to do with anything.

        If you're willing to look you'll find exactly the same sort of elitist hypocrisy infects pretty much all Dems but it's toughest to swallow among the leadership that thinks they've got some special dispensation to lecture others about how live when they can't be bothered to live that way themselves.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3I guess I'm just not following the logic - Ted Kennedy is a hypocrite, and he's a Democrat, so all Democrats must be hypocrites. It'd be like if I said that Dick Cheney is evil, and he's a Republican, so that must mean that all Republicans are evil.
      • darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0at least it would be better than a nuclear power plant in your front yard.
    • Foot56, on 05/19/2008, -9/+5Ya I love how the Republicans are making a difference. They are censoring the world leading scientists because of their opinions on Global Warming. Refusing to crack down on oil companies who are reaping insane amounts of profits and the average American is struggling to put food on the table. If you recall Bush had no clue gas was even around 4 dollars. Let alone the Bush administration relax of policies on pollution and other standards within the EPA. I can go on and on but to put the Republicans on this high horse on environmental issues is like letting Michael Jackson run the Child Protective Services Agency, it’s just ludicrous.
      • aMammoth, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3The funny thing is you capitalized global warming.
    • treehugger87, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3T. Boone Pickens would not be spending $2 billion on anything if he thought he couldn't make $100 billion off of the investment. You make it sound like all the Republican capitalists are only looking out for the greater good.
      • bernandoo, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6how much money he will make off the investment is irrelevant.. that fact that he made the investment to benefit you, me, and the world is what matters.
      • rlh1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4If he lost money and went out of business then everything would be OK ?
      • CobaltBlue, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4He's given $290,000,000 to his alma mater. I doubt that is going to make him much of a return in money.
    • colinnwn, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2A single datapoint does not a good thesis make. If you looked at Repubs and Dems in the last several administrations I think you would find about equal amount of NIMBY protestations.

      But in contrast to your assertion, from a reformed Repub, "Republicans spend their own money on change, when it benefits them. Democrats spend our money on change, when they believe it benefits our community."
      • Foot56, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1"A single datapoint does not a good thesis make. If you looked at Repubs and Dems in the last several administrations I think you would find about equal amount of NIMBY protestations."

        Name three things Bush has gone for the good of the enviroment without being pressured by Congress.
    • ObamaWins08, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Unrelated, and this is from a Republican, I believe that Ted Kennedy is due at least a one-day moratorium on his stances...
  • hoispoer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+44Omg these pictures were taken right outside my town. My town is surrounded by these as far as the eye can see. They kinda take away from the view of the land but then again its so flat that in turn it is nice to at least see something in the distance. Plus these going up are providing a lot of jobs in my town and driving up the population which is also growing because oil industry around here is huge. Plus when these are put on farm lands it makes the farmers richer which is always good.
  • nastronomical, on 05/19/2008, -11/+32The Power of Green
    The politician who actually proved just how effective this can be was a guy named George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. He pushed for and signed a renewable energy portfolio mandate in 1999. The mandate stipulated that Texas power companies had to produce 2,000 new megawatts of electricity from renewables, mostly wind, by 2009.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green ...
    • phrstbrn, on 05/19/2008, -4/+6You just said something good about George W. Do I digg you up for being open minded, or do I digg you down...
      • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Depends. Do you care more what a bunch of dip-***** diggercrats think of you or do you have some pride?
    • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3He also says that nuclear energy is a renewable.
      • bernandoo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5at least it's better than coal.. but you're right, it's not the end solution.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I think it is the end solution, actually. Just pointing out that Bush requesting money for renewables doesn't mean what you might think it means.
    • becknell, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Once again from the next paragraph in the same article:

      "President Bush, though, is no Governor Bush. President Bush claims he’s protecting American companies by not imposing tough mileage, conservation or clean power standards, but he’s actually helping them lose the race for the next great global industry. Japan has some of the world’s highest gasoline taxes and stringent energy efficiency standards for vehicles — and it has the world’s most profitable and innovative car company, Toyota. That’s no accident."
  • gritta, on 05/19/2008, -15/+2If you think this is a "green" option then think about all of the carbon emissions from harvesting iron ore, making steel, transporting steel to factory, building turbines, transporting turbines to site, building wind turbine.

    Wind turbines also kill thousands of birds a year, the only form of power generation to directly cause wildlife damage.

    You could just build a couple of nuclear power plants and it would be cheaper, cleaner and not be as damaging to the environment.
    • shaXian, on 05/19/2008, -2/+16Buried for uninformed antiquated claim that wind turbines kill *thousands* of birds. Cars kill thousands more birds anually than wind turbines. Do some research before you spew.
      • havokdu, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3That's right. It's been proven reently that birds just skip wind turbines.
    • fuzzmeister, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7Every power technology has its downsides, nuclear isn't exactly perfect either. I agree with you that nuclear should be looked at as a valid option more often, though.
    • WeaponMit, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6The transportation costs that you mentioned are going to be nill compared to what these things are going to produce. Why don't you put down the pipe and find some facts to backup your claims.
    • phrstbrn, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4If you think building nuclear power plants is a "green" option then think about all of the carbon emissions from harvesting iron ore, making steel, transporting steel to factory, building nuclear reactors, transporting nuclear reactors to site, building nuclear reactor.

      Nuclear reactors also kill thousands of people a year, the only form of power generation to directly cause human sacrifice.

      You could just build a couple of wind turbines and it would be cheaper, cleaner and not be as damaging to the environment.
      • IAmTheGuy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Nuclear reactors don't kill people except when there is a meltdown and one hasn't happened since 1986. Therefore, it would be kind of hard for nuclear reactors to kill thousands of people each year.
    • atgmac, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Because building a nuclear plant uses no steel or other raw materials. Face it, the world isn't technologically advanced enough for the implications of nuclear energy yet.
      • arpad, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You might want to let the French and the Japanese know that. They've been getting the bulk of their electrical power from nuclear for a couple of decades.
    • TJ11240, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Wind is the least carbon intensive energy source out there.. even less so than solar and nuclear
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Well, I think blimp-tethered wind turbines are more efficient. Digg had an article just last week. You have a long chain of props, strung along jointed pipes and fixed to a blimp. The blimp is pushed by the wind to always give the turbines the best angle, and you get a lot more area for your wind farm.

    Just make sure you keep some blinking lights on for low-flying aircraft.
  • Screwy1138, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9Some rich people shouldn't be hated.
    • muchachoburacho, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well im sure he wouldn't do this if it wasn't gonna make him richer, so you can go on hating if you want to.
  • scaaven2, on 05/19/2008, -5/+9Why not make it an even 666?
  • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5So $3 million buys you 400 kilowatts? (Wind turbines actually only put out about 25% of their peak rated power on average.) So $7,500 per kilowatt? How much are other power plants, in comparison?
    • rugabug, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Actually $7,500 per kw is about right for renewable power. Though Texas is very windy nonstop most of the year at around 5-6 MPH on the low end. So in renewable terms this is cheap.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1"for renewable power"? I doubt that all forms of renewable power cost the same. I want to know how this compares to other technologies.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1this is a great question... some power supplies pull 1killowat these days... my guess is that they will pay off over a long period of time.
    • blakestah, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2One megawatt-hour runs about $20-25 USA right now. Or 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

      Then the question is, how many hours do these need to run maintenance free to break even, and the answer is 375,000 hours, or 15,600 days or 42 years.

      And you conclude from that?

      First of all, wind power is not cost-effective. Those turbines will not last 42 years maintenance free - the best estimates are less than a quarter of that. It is still much cheaper to put up more fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. Either there are government subsidies that are going to be cashed in, or our Texas oilman is a fool. I am betting on the former, because billionaire Texas oilmen are not usually fools (GWB is not a billionaire Texas oilman).
  • justinx0r, on 05/19/2008, -11/+5But I thought capitalism destroyed the environment? Right diggers, right?
    • bb5999, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Capitalism, and a basic human desire to make the world a better place, are the answer. Somewhere up above this post someone commented about how Pickens is only be doing this to make a bunch of money, YES, that is right!

      Individuals, capitalists, have the power to make things better and solve problems, where there is demand, some brilliant person will id the market and serve it, to make money!

      Government will not solve only complicate, regulate, tax and generally screw things up.

      I love seeing all of the small energy start ups flourishing and working away. Invention, hard work, a desire to make money, great stuff! These are the forces that drive the energy revolution, these are the forces that will come up with and implement solutions.
    • DracoFlameus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Capitalism is about one thing... making money. So, if you are planing on biulding a wind farm in a windy area... that will get you money for sure. But that's it. We are not talking about a change in mind here.

      In other parts of the nation/world, other forms of electricity generation are more valuable. And don't forget those, whose economical existence depends on a certain type of electricity generation, like say nuclear power. They won't give up their "power".

      So, renewable energy is cool, but as you can see here
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electricity_pro ...
      isn't the prefered type. 667 new wind turbines are a drop in the ocean.
  • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -12/+18When will people realise that 1MW from wind energy is not the same as 1MW from Nuclear or Coal? For every MW of Wind, you need a MW of always on capacity elsewhere in the grid. If you don't, there is going to be rolling blackouts and brownouts whenever the wind doesn't blow. People often don't realise that there is currently NO WAY to STORE electrical energy. Pump Hydro can do it, but is only possible in a limited number of locations. Whichever way you look at it, the conclusion is that we need nuclear power.
    • jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16You are exactly right Spetz, but I think while the availability of pump storage systems in the US is probably sparse, the amount of wind farms large enough to justify one are pretty rare too. I think that when one of these larger, efficient wind farms are built (like this one in Texas), one of those pump systems will become necessary and a lot more of them will start springing up.

      For anyone who hasn't heard of it, the pump hydro system that Spetz is talking about to store energy, uses the excess wind power to pump water into a tank at elevation, when the wind power would otherwise not be needed, like late at night. Then later on, water can be released from the tank and it naturally flows downward because of gravity (the tank is elevated). That running water can be run through a hydroelectric turbine to create electricity on demand, from the 'stored' wind power. So this technology allows wind power to be stored in the potential energy of water due to gravity.
      • c0mputar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Hadn't heard of that pump hydro system, makes perfect sense.
    • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4I am no huge fan of this. Seems to me the capital costs are grossly out of line with the power produced. But off peak power can be used to drive reverse electrolysis of water to form hydrogen, which can be used to store energy.
      • soulkitchen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Looks like the anti-hydrogen crowd is out to get you amightywind! While you do lose energy due to the inefficiency of conversion, Hydrogen makes a hell of a battery.
        • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I think a hydrogen combustion turbine makes more economic sense than large fuel cells. The turbine could be generating any reasonable chemical dissociation to store energy, it doesn't have to be Hydrogen. I don't mind being dug down. Most people on this site thinks that the country could run on lollipops and moonbeams, and that only Dick Cheney stands in the way.
    • jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4I'd also like to point out that I agree with Spetz on the need for more nuclear power generating capacity. While it may create waste that we cant deal with yet, at least it's controlled. A coal power plant also generates huge amounts of toxic material as it operates, but its waste is shot into the air and can't be controlled at all.

      I'd rather have the problem of storing waste we can control, than remain ignorant of the waste that coal plants freely disperse in the air.
    • rugabug, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9I guess you have never heard of the newly invented product called the battery.
      Yes they are expensive but they do work.
      • jamesfrmmaine, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Whats a battery? Lol I love all the people yelling that renewable resources will never work. So I guess when oil reserves run out then everyone alive at that time is ***** huh? Coal and gas and oil is the "only" way.

      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I hope you're joking. Batteries do not work at that energy level.
      • Koookie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Battery energy density = 2,5 MJ/kg (Wikipedia)

        To store energy for a day of half-speed winds in the wind park =
        (1 d · 24 h/d · 60 min/h · 60 s/min · 4000 MW)/(2·2,5 MJ/kg)= 69 120 000 kg ≈ 70 000 tons ≈ about 1000 large trucks full of batteries. Sounds expensive, and batteries wear out too.

        A less windy week? Multiply the above by 7...
    • astroslut, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9I agree, we need to stop being so afraid of nuclear power.
    • warriorscot, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6There are more than a few ways to store electricity pumped hydro is definitely one of the best options as it is well proven technology. And the US is a huge country I would be very surprised if there were not enough suitable sites at least in mountainous regions. They are also very flexible systems and cost effective they are used extensively even with non renewable energy sources for storing off peak energy production.

      There are a number of new storage technologies available now, often clever variations on pumped hydro or at least inspired by it such as below ground gas storage. You can also store it as hydrogen, you can add hydrogen production and storage facility to wind turbines quite easily it increases costs a little but it makes them much more flexible and self contained.

      Nuclear power is a good thing to have it makes a nice back up, but the reasons you state are not correct, you want it in case of storage being depleted or compromised and new power unavailable, essentially it is your reserve system but one you should not have to use very often in a well designed system.
    • darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5wrong. this is what the investors in large scale power plants and fossile energy want you to think. you do not need large scale power plants if you have a decentralized system of multiple renewable energy power sources spread all over the country. provided that several different sources of renewable energies are developped and deployed gradually, there is no need for large plants providing reserve capacities in case the wind does not blow.
      and there are indeed efforts to develop storage devices like the ones stated in the comments above.
      the risk of widespread blackouts is even smaller with a decentralized system, because there may be one wind turbine that stands still or even a windpark, but that won't lead to nation wide blackouts.
      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes but then you need to put in huge capital investments with no payback potential (such as building a power station does - at least you can sell the electricity you produce) to completely change the national energy grid system. No one's going to invest in infrastructure out of their own choice in a privatised energy market.

        Even if you do, you'll still suffer instability in a completely decentralised system because there are different types of load demand. A large proportion of electrical power goes into supplying heavy industry, which has completely different load characteristics than home users.

        Look up some terms for a further description: Base Load, Mid Load, and Peak Load.
    • Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3electricity can be stored in a flywheel, electricicty is used to speed up the wheel , which is then used to power a generator when required. They are used as uninterruptible power supplies , not sure how far they can scale up though.
      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They cannot scale up. A lot of people do not understand that there is NO WAY TO STORE ELECTRICAL POWER at sufficient level for utilisation in a grid system. By all means, invent a method - you'll become insanely rich.
        • rugabug, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yes they can be scaled up but they are not economical.
    • robbibaba, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1The great thing about nuclear is the potential to lay vast areas of the country uninhabitable and to sky rocket cancer rates--that means fewer people actually using electricity (as they are all dead, see?). It's a win win. And with all that nuclear waste laying around, it's only a matter of time before homemade nuclear bombs take out some major metropolitan areas. How cool is that?
      And with coal, you've got all those cities along the east coast going underwater--again, massive death rate! Not to mention collateral deaths from global warming related drought-famine, wildfires, etc. win win win.
      I can see you guys are really thinking ahead!
      Of course, with enough solar and wind, we'd need so little back up generation, we could probably just use the natural gas plants already constructed. And there's that plan to tie millions of electric vehicles into the grid to stabilize it during the day. Oh well.
      • psevium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Huh... I guess the studies showing there is NO correlation between nuclear plants and cancer rates or sickness for that matter don't apply here, nor do the fact that nuclear plants are more or less the most secure installations ever built (probably being able to withstand a severe bomb blast), and that nuclear waste is properly disposed of OR recycled completely? Yeah ***** facts, they suck. Coal sucks though.

        Solar and wind are good, but not good enough now. I can't wait til we can rely on them but we simply can't until they're more efficient, especially solar. Nuclear power is safe, clean, non-polluting, held back by ***** mothers concerned about their kids growing four legs and retarded politicians.
    • secrity, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Have you done any sort of analysis on this?

      It would be silly to have wind generated power become the dominant source of power, just as it would be silly to become dependent upon any one source of power. Considering the likely geographical dispersion of wind power generation and the use of power grids to spread out the usage and supply, this may not become a significant problem.
      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes plenty. I don't really have the time or inclination to write a 10,000 word essay on it to explain exactly what I'm on about. I can't exactly teach engineering principles over digg... Do some reading and then come back and argue with me.

        Yes I agree. Having no single source of power is definitely a good thing. However, you can pretty much class all renewables, bar large hydo, as unstable sources of supply. The theoretical limit to renewable generation capacity is 20-30% with our current grid architecture. That's a hard physical fact.
    • beersnob, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2You don't have to build extra coal/nuclear plants to backup these wind generators....The backup capacity already exists....We're using it right now. When these come online, existing coal plants can cut back. No, wind isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing at all!
      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes but electricity demand is growing.
    • elementop, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Spetz,

      You've never been to NW Texas, have you? The wind *always* blows there ;)
      • Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's still not the same sort of electricity as you get from a coal, oil or nuclear power station.
    • Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0This is exactly why it is good to have a mix of energy sources:

      When there is wind: Wind and wave power will be abundant, when there is no wind there tends to be sun which means that solar power plants will produce more power instead. And the US large that there might be hurricanes in one part of the country an no wind and unhindered sunshine in another.

      Also tidal power plants and such will help produce a stable source of energy.
  • shaz971, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10finally somebody is serious about green energy
  • tweetsa, on 05/19/2008, -24/+2good bye local bird population

    seriously these things kill so many birds
    • diggB, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9So, if given the choice between global warming or a decline in the local bird population, which would you choose? Just say'in.
      • tweetsa, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1well the truth is, each wind turbine kills over a million birds a year. This field will kill over half a billion birds a year.

        a wind turbine was erected behind my work and you basically just see blood pooring out the back constantly
        • diggB, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Each turbine kills a million birds? A million birds, assuming each bird takes up roughly 1x6x1 inches in volume, would cover 4,629 square yards of ground if distributed evenly in a one inch layer. That's a lot of dead birds accumulating at the base of each turbine. Just say'in.
        • trashcat, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Classic.
        • machocheese34, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2[citation needed]
      • soulkitchen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Alfred Hitchcock's corpse just cracked a smile
      • shadowmoose, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I choose nuclear fusion energy.
    • tuxerware, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7and oil doesn't???
    • darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Surface mining kills moles...
    • jamesfrmmaine, on 05/19/2008, -1/+17The building I work in is surrounded by dead birds in the summer because they see landing places reflected on the glass panels and fly right into them. I see a couple of roadkilled small animals everyday but your not suggesting banning cars are you?

      STFU.
    • dood, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Nah, not really.
    • thentro, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Not since the 80s
    • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4http://www.ibrrc.org/images/prestige/bird--beach_l ...
    • trashcat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Actually.. No they don't; I even know of a Red Kite sanctuary next to a wind farm.. You probably don't know but Red Kites are a very rare bird of prey.
    • aMammoth, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Maybe, but its nothing compared the small rodents killed on the road.
      Moral of the story, its no big deal.
    • bearcat8543, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4god, nothing can please the leftest of liberals. perfectly fine renewable source of energy, and you're complaining about birds. wow. plus, if a bird is stupid enough to fly into something that moves as slow as these massive propellers then thats just darwinism at its finest. you ever see how slow these massive blades rotate? theyre not airplane propellers.
    • BorsKaegel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Well, farmers should be lining up for turbines in Texas, then. Free fertilizer.
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2A single 747 probably kills more birds than a whole field of wind turbines in a year's duration.
    • BuzzedMonkey, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0These kill like 4 birds a month or so. That multiplies to 48 a year. Wow, huge dent in the population. And birds aren't going to keep going back to an area such as a wind farm that is killing them, they aren't that stupid (I hope). The world needs less birds anyway.
  • cplusplus, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7I wonder if the turbine in hydro damns kill any fish.
  • monkeyboyx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Wow im impresed. Somebody is has a good idea here and using their own money ha thats intresting. I don't understand why we don't build more of these and not have to depend on oil, coal, on ect.. to make electricity. Has anybody done a calculation of how many we sould need to run the whole country? This sound great to me.
    • scamper22, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Yes, that's what happens when you leave money in the hands of people instead of taking into the hands of government. If it means he gets a nice return on his investment...wonderful.

      For all we know, the government would have taken this 2 billion and spent it on ethanol to get votes from the farmers.
  • diggB, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Does anyone know how efficient wind energy compares to solar on a per unit acre basis? I'm sure it depends on the location (average days of sunlight per year or how consistently windy it gets), but I'm wondering if they are even in the same ballpark?
    • Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4not sure but it might be logical to think that the two technologies compliment each other , in that windy places are probably not the best place to site solar panels and vice versa.
    • InvisibleMan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3A wind turbine is a highly efficient solar power system that takes the thermal energy from the sun over a very large air mass. In this system, no direct sunlight is needed and since the sun is always shining somewhere then there will always be wind. The only problem is that the wind needs to be in the area of the turbine and of sufficient speed. So wind power is a super efficient version of solar power but has different peek power times. Wind power doesn't work very well in summer (at least on the west coast) where there is very little wind and solar works best during summer. Unfortunately, a solar plant of the same size (footprint on the land) as a wind farm would generally not produce the same amount of power. (That is speculation: Ideally in the same amount of area used to produce as much as 5 MW (one large turbine) of wind could produce nearly 90 MW from direct solar power, but this is realistic(wind) vs ideal(solar). That is direct sunlight at the best angle and 100% coverage, but that is not possible.) In closing wind power is slightly more efficient since the wind blows more than the sun shines, at least in North America.
  • ncc74656m, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I tell you, I don't even use much energy, and I'd kill to have one of these "in my back yard." I'd be happy to sell the remainder back to the grid, and I get the warm fuzzy feeling from that soft hum of the turbine rotating every day.
    • InvisibleMan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It doesn't really make a hum, more like a slight 'swoosh' sound. Imagine someone using a paper fan across the room. When the room is really quiet you can hear the sound of the air moving very slowing. In fact, wind turbines are so quiet that it is a little freaky. Something so large and producing so much power is so damn quiet.
    • GrandmasterB, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I have looked into small home based wind generators and while the initial cost is a lot, they wouldn't be a bad thing to have in a pinch. If you could power a home office or home theater by wind power that would save a ton of cash per year.
  • coolrecep, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I remember Black Mesa...

    The Mesa company...
  • Hilmi86, on 05/19/2008, -6/+0Meh...
  • homercles337, on 05/19/2008, -8/+2Hey look, someone in tejas is actually doing something positive for a change. Im shocked!
  • mrzeero, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4Fantastic, but he should be using something like

    http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1476/86/
    They are much more efficient, don't have catastrophic failures and don't kill birds.
    • jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11Modern GE wind turbines are specifically designed to be less complicated, easier to maintain, and less prone to failure.

      As for the bird thing, that is a myth. You're referring to Altamont pass, where a bunch of birds were killed at a wind farm. They built that windfarm in such a way that when they dug up the earth to plant the turbines, they created a habitat for rodents. Raptor birds were attracted to the rodents, and naturally came to the area to hunt. But because small turbines were used, many were placed close together, creating a dangerous environment for flying birds who are diving for prey. Most of the birds weren't even killed by spinning blades, but rather by running into the towers themselves.

      The fact that wind turbines were placed there was irrelevant, they could have installed a field of telephone poles there and it would have had the same result.
    • thentro, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Perhaps those will come in round 2, or 3 or 4.
    • trashcat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0That's an interesting design, but generators are huge - I'd be interested to know how they fit one into the surrounding ring. And as for the birds thing, I guess you haven't seen what happens when a bird flies into a jet engine! (not quite the same I know, but I would't want to climb it to extract a dead bird)
      http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/ ...
      • mrzeero, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I think I read that they can avoid these because they are fixed and not moving at hundreds of miles an hour.
  • astroslut, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4T. Boone has extensive knowledge about the oil industry. Educate yourself, and help to educate others.

    http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/09/great ...

    Recent interview with T. Boone. It's over an hour long, but you will know a lot more about how the oil industry works, and why the next president should be talking more about oil then any other issue.
  • BECoole, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3Oh teh noes!
    Big Oil is now Big Wind! Those bastards!
  • laquete, on 05/19/2008, -7/+03 million dollars a turbine is kinda expensive
  • funkytaco, on 05/19/2008, -0/+37We need to decrease our dependence on foreign wind.
  • thentro, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7To compare, the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Nuclear plant in Texas produces about 1,150 Megatats of electricity but cost $11 Billion in 1993. Or about $16 Billion in todays dollars. So this seems like a really smart deal economically.
    • InvisibleMan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The real economics comes from the fact that wind turbines cost next to noting to operate. The largest 'cost' is the loan to use the land and the get the capital for the build. Once those are paid the wind farm 'prints money'. That is, as long as maintenance kept up (which costs relativity next to nothing) then if the wind blows, you make money for decades to come.
    • TJ11240, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What the hell is a megatat
  • MrStu, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0This one's just being finished near me:
    http://www.scoutmoorwindfarm.co.uk/indexorig.html

    I love it, makes me feel like I'm in the middle of a game of supreme commander :D
  • BradMW, on 05/19/2008, -3/+15You may think he's being eco-friendly, but he's actually planning on using these turbines to speed up cattle-slaughter and flinging his oil onto unborn gay seals..
    • gtlogic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Don't forget KFC opening up right underneath. Put some boilers there and you got yourself some renewable rotisserie.
  • trollick, on 05/19/2008, -6/+4The article impl