Boone gets blown away

[cleller]

Maybe this is the wrong forum, but the football crowd here enjoys watching Boone's hairbrained ideas blow up in his face.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial blasting the Pickens Plan's wind farm ideas. He's lost enough money to build another second rate football program. It's reprinted here:

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/12/23/a-wind-power-boonedoggle/

[BoulderSooner79]

I admire Boone for his wind farm/liquid natural gas energy plan. At least it's a plan and it's amazing a guy his age puts in such effort knowing it couldn't be completed in his lifetime. But we don't live in a place willing to invest in the long term.

Now why he'd sink so much money into orange is another issue altogether..

[texaspokieokie]

cause that's his alma mommy.

[Wishboned]

And he's obsessed with things that blow and suck.

[olevetonahill]

Hell that old bastard will end up making a few bucks off this deal some how

[85sooners]

:rolleyes:

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

Wind farms are noisy and an eye sore for people that live near them. They need to be offshore.


Trust me, he will end up losing on this one

[olevetonahill]

Hope yer right,

[budbarrybob]

I'd even give it up to an Aggy Lite if he could:

1. Lower the price of fuel.
2. End our dependence on Terrorist gas
3. Admit they are the pit of suckitude... :D

[mdklatt]

Wind farms are noisy

Not really.


and an eye sore for people that live near them

That's debatable. They sure don't bother the landowners in western Oklahoma (unless your neighbor is getting money from them and you're not.)



Trust me, he will end up losing on this one

This was never about wind for him. He was trying to push natural gas all along and screw people out of water rights.

Only a total dumbass could **** up a wind farm in the Texas panhandle.

[SoonerNutt]

Windfarms are a great concept that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Once you get past the conceptual phase though, they aren't all that great.

They endanger wildlife, disrupt weather patterns, take up tons of land, are an eyesore (see Teddy Kennedy's NIMBY protests against offshore wind farms near his beach home).

Is it a better option than fossil fuel consumption? Maybe, but far less efficient and not as simple to implement as pie-in-the-sky hippies like to pretend. The real world puts a damper on all the that kumbaya crap.

In the real world, wind farms can only be a small percentage of our energy production, but that's a good thing if it saves resources and creates domestic production, even at a small percentage.

So, good for Boone for pushing it. He may be ridiculed by alot of people over alot of things. But I won't ridicule him for this. Everybody gripes about our dependence on foreign oil, but nobody has the balls to do anything about it. At least he's trying to do something.

[Partial Qualifier]

Windfarms are a great concept that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Once you get past the conceptual phase though, they aren't all that great.

They endanger wildlife, disrupt weather patterns, take up tons of land, are an eyesore (see Teddy Kennedy's NIMBY protests against offshore wind farms near his beach home).

Is it a better option than fossil fuel consumption? Maybe, but far less efficient and not as simple to implement as pie-in-the-sky hippies like to pretend. The real world puts a damper on all the that kumbaya crap.

In the real world, wind farms can only be a small percentage of our energy production, but that's a good thing if it saves resources and creates domestic production, even at a small percentage.

So, good for Boone for pushing it. He may be ridiculed by alot of people over alot of things. But I won't ridicule him for this. Everybody gripes about our dependence on foreign oil, but nobody has the balls to do anything about it. At least he's trying to do something.

you managed to **** off the Hippies, Windfarm opponents, Windfarm supporters, Boone Pickens, and Boone Pickens' haters. ;)

[stoopified]

And he's obsessed with things that blow and suck.:D In that case I assume he owns brothels in Nevada?

[MrJimBeam]

Windfarms are a great concept that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Once you get past the conceptual phase though, they aren't all that great.

They endanger wildlife, disrupt weather patterns, take up tons of land, are an eyesore (see Teddy Kennedy's NIMBY protests against offshore wind farms near his beach home).

Is it a better option than fossil fuel consumption? Maybe, but far less efficient and not as simple to implement as pie-in-the-sky hippies like to pretend. The real world puts a damper on all the that kumbaya crap.

In the real world, wind farms can only be a small percentage of our energy production, but that's a good thing if it saves resources and creates domestic production, even at a small percentage.

So, good for Boone for pushing it. He may be ridiculed by alot of people over alot of things. But I won't ridicule him for this. Everybody gripes about our dependence on foreign oil, but nobody has the balls to do anything about it. At least he's trying to do something.

Bull

[delhalew]

We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Boone is the loudest voice pushing this idea. For that I give him props.

Wind mills are best used on personal basis, combined with photovoltaic panels and a geothermal system. That, of course, is as expensive as hell, but worth it in the long run.

[mdklatt]

They endanger wildlife, disrupt weather patterns, take up tons of land, are an eyesore


This is 90% bull****.



In the real world, wind farms can only be a small percentage of our energy production


Is 25% a small percentage? That's feasible with existing technology. Iowa currently gets ~15% of its electricty from wind. Oklahoma is at 8%.



Everybody gripes about our dependence on foreign oil, but nobody has the balls to do anything about it. At least he's trying to do something.

Oil is a very small percentage of our electricity portfolio, so we'll need to embrace electric cars in a big way for solar, wind, and hydro to reduce our oil consumption.

[mdklatt]

Wind mills are best used on personal basis

Not for most people. They're not going to work for people in urban areas. The best use is to put large wind farms in the most suitable areas, and then send the electricity to population centers. Unfortunately, our national power grid succs.

[delhalew]

The electric car is horse****. When will you goobers give some thought to were that electricity comes from. Not to mention the economic effects of losing our oil/natural gas jobs.

[delhalew]

Not for most people. They're not going to work for people in urban areas. The best use is to put large wind farms in the most suitable areas, and then send the electricity to population centers. Unfortunately, our national power grid succs.

A:Most of this country is rural.
B:It doesn't matter how well placed a wind farm is; it will NEVER supply the proper amount of power needed during the peak summer months. Wind simply does not blow enough during that period. That is why it needs to be supplemented with with solar.

[Wishboned]

:D In that case I assume he owns brothels in Nevada?

He does.

Gundy works there during the offseason.

[mdklatt]

The electric car is horse****. When will you goobers give some thought to were that electricity comes from.

It's easier to control pollution at the power plant level than at the individual level. You can replace coal plants and eventually natural gas with renewable energy.



Not to mention the economic effects of losing our oil/natural gas jobs.

Those job losses can be offset by renewable energy jobs. Every state around Oklahoma is getting wind manufacturing jobs. There are short-term construction jobs and long-term O&M jobs being created in Oklahoma by wind farm construction.

[delhalew]

It's easier to control pollution at the power plant level than at the individual level. You can replace coal plants and eventually natural gas with renewable energy.




Those job losses can be offset by renewable energy jobs. Every state around Oklahoma is getting wind manufacturing jobs. There are short-term construction jobs and long-term O&M jobs being created in Oklahoma by wind farm construction.

I can see you've gotten the memo from pixie dust central, but your cart is in front of your horse.

[cleller]

Nobody's going to change anyone's opinion on the topic. I was mostly interested in seeing Boone fail. Again.

Wind farms are interesting to look at, but I wouldn't want to live near one either, unless I was making loads of money from a tower on my land.

I've read that the purpose of wind farms is mostly to lower emissions from coal fired plants, but this hasn't worked, due to the variability of wind. The conventional plants have to keep running, to make up for times the wind isn't blowing.

Hopefully, solar technology improves to the point it takes the lead. In China they are building office buildings with "solar windows" that generate
power- and cover the buildings electrical needs.

[mdklatt]

A:Most of this country is rural.

Yeah, but that's not where most of the people live. Most Americans will not be able to benefit from a personal wind turbine in their backyard. Solar is a much better bet for distributed power generation.



It doesn't matter how well placed a wind farm is; it will NEVER supply the proper amount of power needed during the peak summer months. Wind simply does not blow enough during that period. That is why it needs to be supplemented with with solar.

I wasn't saying otherwise.

[delhalew]

Nothing is cleaner, more efficient, or more readily available that natural gas.
Converting our transportation fleets alone would make CARB along with a host of other commerce killing hippy dippy horse**** regulations and governmental entities completely obsolete.

[delhalew]

Nobody's going to change anyone's opinion on the topic. I was mostly interested in seeing Boone fail. Again.

Wind farms are interesting to look at, but I wouldn't want to live near one either, unless I was making loads of money from a tower on my land.

I've read that the purpose of wind farms is mostly to lower emissions from coal fired plants, but this hasn't worked, due to the variability of wind. The conventional plants have to keep running, to make up for times the wind isn't blowing.

Hopefully, solar technology improves to the point it takes the lead. In China they are building office buildings with "solar windows" that generate
power- and cover the buildings electrical needs.

Only because people have an aversion to reality.

[delhalew]

Yeah, but that's not where most of the people live. Most Americans will not be able to benefit from a personal wind turbine in their backyard. Solar is a much better bet for distributed power generation.



I wasn't saying otherwise.

Cities need to get there power from hydro electric were available and nuclear were there are not better options.

Solar is viable, but not sufficient.

My point is that, for those in a rural setting, the right combination can remove you from the grid, and reduce the strain.

[mdklatt]

Wind farms are interesting to look at, but I wouldn't want to live near one either, unless I was making loads of money from a tower on my land.


Would you like to live near a coal or gas plant?

Have you ever been to a wind farm? Have you ever stood under a wind turbine? They're not that loud. The traffic passing by on I-40 is as loud as the turbines at the Weatherford wind farm. Sometimes they make more noise as they rotate into the wind or to unwind, but most turbines (in Oklahoma anyway) aren't close enough to any houses for anybody to hear them.



I've read that the purpose of wind farms is mostly to lower emissions from coal fired plants,


The purpose of wind farms is to generate electricity and act as a hedge against rising fossil fuel prices. As soon as a wind farm goes online, the energy cost is locked in for the 20-30 year life of the project. Can you lock in the price of coal or natural gas for 30 years? Displacing emissions is certainly a benefit, and when we start to see the externalities of pollution finally reflected in our energy costs, renewable energy will become even more cost-effective.


but this hasn't worked, due to the variability of wind. The conventional plants have to keep running, to make up for times the wind isn't blowing

That's not how it works. You can forecast how much wind power you're going to get day to day, so you can idle your fossil fuel plants as necessary. If the forecast is wrong, natural gas backup can brought online.

[mdklatt]

My point is that, for those in a rural setting, the right combination can remove you from the grid, and reduce the strain.

Well there you go. At first you said "most people".

[delhalew]

Well there you go. At first you said "most people".

Actually, I didn't. I said most of the country, meaning land mass.

BUT, removing 20% of our population from the grid would have a serious effect.

BTW, in looking at some census numbers, Duncan Oklahoma is considered urban...for that matter, so is Marlow(pop. 3500...maybe).:rolleyes:

[SoonerOX]

Football anyone?

[badger]

Really, I think what sank Boonester the most is that people were ready to shell out for anything when the economy was high. Green projects sounded fun, and who cares what they cost when everyone's employed at really good wages?

And then... recession. Green suddenly became a luxury nobody wanted when there were cheaper alternatives.

I like that there were new ideas in the energy argument, but this idea is just too pricey when every state out there is slashing their budget and... yeah, hoping for another government stimulus to prevent cuts of necessities.

[SoonerBacker]

Football anyone?

^^^^nail meet hammer!^^^^
Move this to the South Oval....

[Seamus]

Please use this:

http://www.janitechcorp.com/products/equipment/Traditional%20Cotton%20Cut%20End%20Wet%20Mop.jpg

To clean up this thread of fail.

Be gone to the South Oval, ye swath of shiite most lame!

[StoopTroup]

Everyone makes great points as long as there is other energy to use.

This idea should not be scoffed at IMO. It has nothing to do with environment or eyesores or bad ideas IMO. It offers a solution to having to buy energy from outside the US. For me that's the real kicker. Be Self-Sufficient as a Country. Nuclear although it can offer nearly everything we'd need, for and electric run world it is dangerous, expensive to make and maintain and the waste is a huge problem. Many of these posts don't take into the fact that we need to quit spending dough for things we can overcome here. The following quote was his best selling feature when it seemed that the price of a barrel of oil wouldn't ever stabilize.


The United States, he claimed, is “the Saudi Arabia of wind,” and wind energy is an essential part of the cure for the curse of imported oil.

I would caution that him losing money is maybe funny to us as Sooners but not having a backup system to curtail outside influences from forcing us into another basically "Highwayman" type of energy robbery again could be short sided. Hydroelectric Power wasn't popular when folks were asked to leave their Family own Property so the Power Company could flood the valley forever either.

We should have this system as at least a backup and maybe even a solution to back up the grid. I don't know enough about the grid system to tell you it needs a backup but we have seen Blackouts and Brownouts of the grid before.

Just a though....

[GDC]

He can't go wrong buying up water rights.

[pphilfran]

This is 90% bull****.



Is 25% a small percentage? That's feasible with existing technology. Iowa currently gets ~15% of its electricty from wind. Oklahoma is at 8%.



Oil is a very small percentage of our electricity portfolio, so we'll need to embrace electric cars in a big way for solar, wind, and hydro to reduce our oil consumption.

Get him....

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, I didn't. I said most of the country, meaning land mass.

BUT, removing 20% of our population from the grid would have a serious effect.

BTW, in looking at some census numbers, Duncan Oklahoma is considered urban...for that matter, so is Marlow(pop. 3500...maybe).:rolleyes:

That's because too many people at the Census Bureau do hard drugs:


The Census Bureau defines "urban" for the 1990 census as
comprising all territory, population, and housing units in
urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside
urbanized areas. More specifically, "urban" consists of
territory, persons, and housing units in:

1. Places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities,
villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and
towns (except in the six New England States, New York,
and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of
"extended cities."

2. Census designated places of 2,500 or more persons.

3. Other territory, incorporated or unincorporated,
included in urbanized areas.

[pphilfran]

He can't go wrong buying up water rights.

He already has...but you already know that....

As you and others have stated the deal was as much about water as wind...

He wanted the wind farm so transmission lines would be build to the Metroplex....he would then use the transmission line right of way to pipe water to DFW...he already owned a large portion of the aquifer...

The new generation wind tower does little or no harm to birds of prey....the early one build in Cali were much smaller and turned much faster...they did impact birds...

As someone said I40 is louder than the new generation units...

I would rather live next to a wind farm than a coal or ng power plant...

Wind will ultimately reach 20-25% of total electrical production...solar will be used to fill in during low wind times, but it will take at least a decade before it is efficient enough to make a significant impact...recycled batteries from electric cars will be used to store power to be used during peak times...

Electric cars and ng will bridge the gap between gas and fuel cells...two decades or more to get fuel cell powered vehicles to any significant level...

Move as much of the commercial fleet to ng....

Standardize the nuke design and start building some of those suckers..I doubt we see any new nukes within a decade...

Ethanol and carbon capture/storage are bad deals...very bad deals...

[walkoffsooner]

Wind power is like a cop. Never there when you need it most. Morning peak and afternoon peak.

[cleller]

Crap. Why did I start this?
Die thread, die.

Boone Pickens looks like a wind blown prune.
He only created a wind farm because he thought he could sell wind.

[texaspokieokie]

he looks like a man in his 80s.

[ashley]

Wind farms are noisy and an eye sore for people that live near them. They need to be offshore.


Trust me, he will end up losing on this one

I will trust him on investment matters.

[StoopTroup]

As the price of a barrel of oil just was speculated over 90 bucks a barrel....I'd be glad to take free energy from any one of his towers for my House.

[Boomer Mooner]

As the price of a barrel of oil just was speculated over 90 bucks a barrel....I'd be glad to take free energy from any one of his towers for my House.

Yes, but natural gas is $4.22 per MMBtu. With the new shale plays in the US we are absolutely flush with natural gas, it's efficient and burns clean.

[mdklatt]

I will trust him on investment matters.

If that old ****er told me the sky was blue I'd look outside to make sure.

Failing at developing a wind farm in the Texas panhandle is a real-life aggie joke. So either he and his minions screwed the pooch big time, or he had an ulterior motive. My vote is the latter.

[I Am Right]

And he's obsessed with things that blow and suck.

lol

[Soonerfan88]

The ulterior motive was water profits. He bought the land in west Texas to get access to the Ogallala Aquifer so he could drain it and sell the water to DFW. The wind farm is just a convenient way to also make more money, especially from all those govt green handouts.

Problem was the cost of getting the water & electricity that far. He tried to buy enough votes in Texas to get eminent domain enacted so he didn't have to actually pay folks for the necessary right of way.

[StoopTroup]

Yes, but natural gas is $4.22 per MMBtu. With the new shale plays in the US we are absolutely flush with natural gas, it's efficient and burns clean.

Your vehicle runs on NG?

[olevetonahill]

I will trust him on investment matters.

That werked out well fer OsU now dint it :D

[StoopTroup]

That werked out well fer OsU now dint it :D

They have little choice but to trust in him as nobody's come close to endowing them with as much cash since Shawn Sutton paid the hydrocodone bill he stuck them with. :D

[Sooner_Tuf]

Windfarm efficiency is a dream. Take into account the fossil fuels needed to create the towers and to get them and their infrastructure into place and you will never come out unless subsidized.

They produce a fair amount of power in areas that don't consume much. A large amount is lost as resistance trying to get it to faraway cities.

You think they don't affect wildlife? Get I'm your car and drive up here any morning and I will show you truckloads of dead bats, birds, etc. They aren't dying from impact strikes. They are dying from the low pressure created behind the blades that breaks blood vessels in their lungs and they drown in their own blood.

Whether or not they are an eyesore is an opinion. My opinion is they are ugly but if they did some good I would be ok with them. Fact is they really don't do much good. What they do is allow some different people to get on a Gov Teat.

Cities should located where they cab take advantage if Hydro Power or use Nuclear energy. Nuclear is where we are headed. It's just a matter of how much time and how many resources we want to squander before we do.

If we don't ever accept nuclear energy in this country then I hope you can and will embrace and a third world lifestyle. Because that is exactly what you will have.

[Leroy Lizard]

You think they don't affect wildlife? Get I'm your car and drive up here any morning and I will show you truckloads of dead bats, birds, etc. They aren't dying from impact strikes. They are dying from the low pressure created behind the blades that breaks blood vessels in their lungs and they drown in their own blood.

:confused:

[Sooner_Tuf]

:confused:

Shouldn't the mouth be rounder?

[StoopTroup]

Windfarm efficiency is a dream. Take into account the fossil fuels needed to create the towers and to get them and their infrastructure into place and you will never come out unless subsidized.

They produce a fair amount of power in areas that don't consume much. A large amount is lost as resistance trying to get it to faraway cities.

You think they don't affect wildlife? Get I'm your car and drive up here any morning and I will show you truckloads of dead bats, birds, etc. They aren't dying from impact strikes. They are dying from the low pressure created behind the blades that breaks blood vessels in their lungs and they drown in their own blood.

Whether or not they are an eyesore is an opinion. My opinion is they are ugly but if they did some good I would be ok with them. Fact is they really don't do much good. What they do is allow some different people to get on a Gov Teat.

Cities should located where they cab take advantage if Hydro Power or use Nuclear energy. Nuclear is where we are headed. It's just a matter of how much time and how many resources we want to squander before we do.

If we don't ever accept nuclear energy in this country then I hope you can and will embrace and a third world lifestyle. Because that is exactly what you will have.

So building Dams and nuclear power plants don't have an impact? Really? Wind Turbines are worse than flooding half a County? Burying nuclear waste won't have an impact on the longterm areas of the Earth we stored it in?

You got me really scratching my head on that one.

Surely there is a way to repel the wildlife without further impact on them such as you're saying. I can see how finding them dead because of the lung damage would seem upsetting. It makes one heck of a cleanup problem too I'd imagine. That is a drawback but it doesn't seem like a deal killer to me.

[Leroy Lizard]

Shouldn't the mouth be rounder?

Uhhh, whatever. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Windfarm efficiency is a dream. Take into account the fossil fuels needed to create the towers and to get them and their infrastructure into place and you will never come out unless subsidized.


Please tell me which energy source in this country isn't subsidized.



You think they don't affect wildlife?


Fossil fuel extraction and production, on the other hand, is all rainbows and unicorn farts.



Fact is they really don't do much good.


All the major utilities in Oklahoma disagree with you.



Nuclear is where we are headed. It's just a matter of how much time and how many resources we want to squander before we do.


Nuclear. LOL. Because that's not subsidized or deleterious to wildlife at all. I'm not opposed to nuclear, but if you think wind is too expensive how can you support nuclear? The capital costs for nuclear are twice as much as for wind. I can't imagine that the O&M costs are favorable, either. And then there's the pesky problem of waste disposal.

[StoopTroup]

If fossil fuels came from dead lizards...imagine who much power is stored right here on SoonerFans.Com now.

[Leroy Lizard]

If fossil fuels came from dead lizards...imagine who much power is stored right here on SoonerFans.Com now.

http://www.unlimitedperfumes.com/images/obsession-men.jpg

[StoopTroup]

http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_lizard_greeting_card-p137579854802200793q6ay_400.jpg

[Sooner_Tuf]

So building Dams and nuclear power plants don't have an impact? Really? Wind Turbines are worse than flooding half a County? Burying nuclear waste won't have an impact on the longterm areas of the Earth we stored it in?

You got me really scratching my head on that one.

Surely there is a way to repel the wildlife without further impact on them such as you're saying. I can see how finding them dead because of the lung damage would seem upsetting. It makes one heck of a cleanup problem too I'd imagine. That is a drawback but it doesn't seem like a deal killer to me.
Sure dams and power plants have an impact too. But they produce vast amounts of more energy so that they are cost effective. Wind power is never going to be. The turbines do not produce enough and are not durable enough to be a long term solution.

Finding dead birds and bats isnt upsetting to me personally. Yes it is a huge clean up problem but they power companies do that in the wee hours of the morning every morning because they don't want you to see it on the news.

But having lots of dead animals around is hazardous to your health and the food chain you eat from.

I don't really care one way or the other. Lots of money is being spread around up here for them so in the short term that is a good thing locally.

Long term it is a huge waste of money and resources. It won't solve our potential energy problems when a more intelligent approach possibly would.

[mdklatt]

Surely there is a way to repel the wildlife without further impact on them such as you're saying.


Wind farm developers do environmental impact studies. Wind farms have been moved or not built at all due to wildlife issues. Environmentally sensitive areas such as migratory flyways and bat caves are taken into consideration. Of particular concern in this part of the world is prairie chickens, although studies are showing that wind turbines might not be as much of an issue as first thought.

There is also work being done on electronic devices that will repel birds and bats, including ultrasonic "sirens" to warn bats away. The use of radar to detect incoming flocks so that the wind turbines can be temporarily shutdown has also been investigated. Modern turbines turn so slowly that I don't know if the rotating blades are actually an issue, although this would also prevent the pressure changes that Sooner_Tuf talked about. Interestingly, the pressure changes effect bat lungs more than bird lungs because mammal lungs are either more or less flexible (I forget what the exact explanation is.)




It makes one heck of a cleanup problem too I'd imagine. That is a drawback but it doesn't seem like a deal killer to me.

House cats kill more birds than wind farms do. Anything humans do to alter the landscape is going to harm wildlife. The issue isn't whether or not wind farms harm wildlife, but how do they compare to the alternatives? When you factor in air pollution, renewable energy comes out far below fossil fuel use on the harm scale.

[StoopTroup]

Sure dams and power plants have an impact too. But they produce vast amounts of more energy so that they are cost effective. Wind power is never going to be. The turbines do not produce enough and are not durable enough to be a long term solution.

Finding dead birds and bats isnt upsetting to me personally. Yes it is a huge clean up problem but they power companies do that in the wee hours of the morning every morning because they don't want you to see it on the news.

But having lots of dead animals around is hazardous to your health and the food chain you eat from.

I don't really care one way or the other. Lots of money is being spread around up here for them so in the short term that is a good thing locally.

Long term it is a huge waste of money and resources. It won't solve our potential energy problems when a more intelligent approach possibly would.

That cool. I just think that folks weren't going to ever stop talking about not using Wind Power unless we created the Farms. If they are unsuccessful we will eventually have enough proof with what's out there to put it to rest. If enough data is eventually collected that someone later can improve on what was tried and really can show a system that might work 90% better in a decade...the Wind Turbines of today might be eventually worth it. Not everything works out. I remember a few billion bucks getting poured into a Fusion Reactor ten or so years back. We still don't have one of those that will put and end Nuclear Power like they initially thought they might.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Please tell me which energy source in this country isn't subsidized.

Fossil fuel extraction and production, on the other hand, is all rainbows and unicorn farts.

All the major utilities in Oklahoma disagree with you.

Nuclear. LOL. Because that's not subsidized or deleterious to wildlife at all. I'm not opposed to nuclear, but if you think wind is too expensive how can you support nuclear? The capital costs for nuclear are twice as much as for wind. I can't imagine that the O&M costs are favorable, either. And then there's the pesky problem of waste disposal.

Tell me why any energy source should be subsidized and if so shouldn't it be one that will actually produce any power to meet our needs?

Fossil fuels built this country and our economy and continue to sustain it to this day. Or do you think the truck that brought the groceries for your Christmas dinner blew into town?

Of course they do because they huge grants to build wind farms that can't sustain themselves economically and they get tremendous tax breaks for playing the stupid game.

Nulcear, LOL? Laugh all you want but it can and does provide massive amounts of power relatively economically for the world. It is only in this country because of red tape and special interests that it costs so much here. We use it anyway we just don't generate it on our side of the border.

[Sooner_Tuf]

mdklatt, come up here some morning and look at the number of dead birds and bats that collect around the wind generators daily and tell me that house cats killed them.

Sure they do studies. Like most studies they use the information that supports what they want to do. Northern Woodward, Woods, and Harper counties are riddled with huge bat caves. Ironically there are now huge numbers of wind generators located among them.

I know it sounds like I am against them. I don't really care. I am just pointing out that how stupid it is and how it won't really solve any problems.

Maybe if they were located closer to population centers where the power had a better chance of being consumed than lost as resistance traveling the grid it would be more successful.

Probably not though. They simply are not proving to be durable enough to payback their own overhead.

I don't know how old you are but if you are old enough you may remember a time when most communities their own local power plants. Forty years ago it was decided that wasn't a very good way to do things. Probably wasn't I don't know. But if having hundreds of small plants is a bad economic model then having thousands or tens of thousands of even smaller dramatically less durable ones assuredly isn't the answer.

[mdklatt]

Tell me why any energy source should be subsidized and if so shouldn't it be one that will actually produce any power to meet our needs?


Get back to me about subsidies after we've deployed carrier battle groups to the North Sea to protect shipment of wind turbines from Denmark. When you factor in externalities, fossil fuels are a hell of a lot more expensive than what you pay at the pump or see on your electric bill. Nuclear power had the full force of US government R&D behind it for decades or else it wouldn't exist, and we still subsidize the **** out of it. After other energy sources have been subsidized in many different ways for decades, throwing wind and solar a bone to get them jump started is merely leveling the playing field.

[mdklatt]

mdklatt, come up here some morning and look at the number of dead birds and bats that collect around the wind generators daily and tell me that house cats killed them.


Do you think wind farms are responsible for more dead animals than coal plants? That's what we're talking about. No one is saying that wind power is perfect, but it's preferable in many ways to the alternatives.



They simply are not proving to be durable enough to payback their own overhead.


Where do you get this idea? The payback period on an Oklahoma wind farm is ~7 years on a projected project lifespan of 30 years. Blue Canyon and Weatherford have almost been around that long, so we'll be able to see how far off those numbers are. As far as capacity factor, I've heard anecdotal evidence that Oklahoma farms are beating their resource assessment estimates. I haven't heard about any maintenance problems with the turbines themselves, but operators aren't exactly forthcoming with that kind of info.




But if having hundreds of small plants is a bad economic model then having thousands or tens of thousands of even smaller dramatically less durable ones assuredly isn't the answer.

It may have been a bad economic model in the past, but distributed generation--putting the power source where the consumers are--is the way to go, as you alluded to earlier. Solar is a key to this in urban areas. On a community scale wind can fulfill this role, although you don't see the same economies of scale. However, in parts of the country like the northeast that are more urban and less windy with expensive electricity, smaller wind farms make sense.

You're talking about durability again--what exactly do you mean by this?

[Leroy Lizard]

Do you think wind farms are responsible for more dead animals than coal plants? That's what we're talking about. No one is saying that wind power is perfect, but it's preferable in many ways to hazing new football recruits.

Just trying to make this thread fit in. ;)

[StoopTroup]

someone's winking at guys again.

[King Barry's Back]

I admire Boone for his wind farm/liquid natural gas energy plan. At least it's a plan and it's amazing a guy his age puts in such effort knowing it couldn't be completed in his lifetime. But we don't live in a place willing to invest in the long term.

Now why he'd sink so much money into orange is another issue altogether..

I am certainly not an expert on T Boone's energy plans, but I am not sure he deserves so much admiration.

His wind farm plan is basically built on the government kicking in billions of dollars of subsidies, many of which would go directly into his pocket.

So, honestly, he doesn't really even want or need your respect. He'll just be happy to take your money.

[StoopTroup]

What about just a nice Roof wind Turbine?

http://www.accentbuildingcorp.com/index_files/image3721.gif

http://www.windpowerninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/rooftop-wind-turbines.jpg


This is the first quiet, structure or pole-mountable wind turbine that generates electricity by harnessing the power of the wind— providing you a cost effective energy source for residential, community, and industrial use.

By installing a wind turbine at your location you can reduce the amount of electricity used from conventional means, reduce your carbon emissions, lower your electricity bills, and generally make the world a more beautiful place.


http://www.swiftwindturbine.com/

[70sooner]

The ulterior motive was water profits. He bought the land in west Texas to get access to the Ogallala Aquifer so he could drain it and sell the water to DFW. The wind farm is just a convenient way to also make more money, especially from all those govt green handouts.

Problem was the cost of getting the water & electricity that far. He tried to buy enough votes in Texas to get eminent domain enacted so he didn't have to actually pay folks for the necessary right of way.

T-bone doesn't give a rat's a$$ who he screws as long as he can make a buck. He focked over the good people of Bartlesville with his greenmail of Phillips in the 80's and he has no qualms about focking over his friends and neighbors in West Texas to make a buck, now.

He is a scum sucking leech who I wouldn't cross the street to **** on of he was on fire......fock him and the wild horse he rode in on, LOL!~

[MamaMia]

Boone is trying to get Federal funding...

i.e. OUR money.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The electric car is horse****. When will you goobers give some thought to were that electricity comes from. Not to mention the economic effects of losing our oil/natural gas jobs.Once a tree hugger, govt.-in-charge-of everything type, it's apparently tough to:
1)come to grips with reality
2)admit you've been foolish for so long

[soonerborn30]

Wind was never supposed to be a cure-all. It was supposed to be ONE way for us to get away from using fossil fuels.

Nuclear will probably never happen in this country again, at least not in our lifetimes. It is prohibitively expensive. Never mind the reason why it's so expensive, it is and it's not changing.

Water is a joke. There are, I believe, 2 functioning hydroelectric plants. They will serve a very select group of people and will do little in the grand scheme.

Solar is probably our best option for a renewable source. They're getting more efficient all the time, but the average consumer still can't justify the cost of installing them just yet.

Natural gas has a store of about 100 or so years IIRC, and that's with the current technology and assumes our rate of discovery will stay constant. It's much cleaner than coal, but the price is volatile for whatever reason.

It's going to take a combo of all of them to be effective, and even then we're still going to be firmly attached to the dinosaur teat. I don't think anyone's deluded enough to think that we'll end fossil fuel dependence. That is...until we actually totally run out.

[Sooner_Tuf]

You're talking about durability again--what exactly do you mean by this?

I could go into great detail and certainly don't mind doing so if need be. In a nutshell everyone was led to believe that for the most part they would install the generators and they would run trouble free for many years with minimal maintenance.

That hasn't been the case here at all. There are many more people employed repairing and rebuilding them than was projected. There aren't even enough people to keep up with the repairs. The Hotels are full so even if they had more people there isn't really a place for them unless they were to relocate them here.

Landowners are not receiving royalties at the anywhere the amount estimated. In fact some have had generators for years and have not received a dime because production has not reached a level where they begin to get paid.

This electricity is not being consumed here or even available locally. It is being put on a new line that runs to the SE. It is a terrible situation that is consuming massive amounts of money and is not doing anything to alleviate any potential energy problems.

I am by no means an insider to any of this but I deal with these issues everyday. Myself and my family are one of the larger landowners in this part of the state. I am lifelong friends with most of the other families that control the other large working ranches in the area. We all see about the same thing and feel for the investors and many of the smaller landowners that have delved into this venture.

If and when this becomes a working model I would love to have some located on me but until then no thanks I'll remain a spectator to it all.

[olevetonahill]

I can fart More energy than Bones wind farms

[sendbaht]

He build the wind turbins running east and west.....nothing works all that well that way. Ask little brother osu. 555

[pphilfran]

A lot of misinformation being spread...

As far as generation...2008 data...EIA http://tonto.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12&cid=ww,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=BKWH

Total worldwide electrical generation is 19,103 billion kilowatt hours...in 2001 the world produced 14,850 billion kwh...a 30% increase...

Worldwide, nukes supply 2,602 billion kilowatt hours...about 15% of total production...little or no growth since 2001 when 2,506 billion kwh were produced..

Worldwide, wind supplies 210 billion kwh....in 2001 it supplied 36 billion kwh...nearly 600% increase...in the US wind power has increased by over 900% since 2001...

Worldwide, solar (along with tide and wave) supplies 11 billion kwh...3 countries account for the vast majority (90%) of worldwide production...Germany at 4.2, Spain 2.5, and Japan at 2.1...up from almost 2 billion in 2001....nearly 600% increase....almost a double in the US...

Hydro supplies 3,119 billion....up from 2,565 in 2001....a 25% increase...in the US hydro is up significantly since 2001 but down 25% since the peak in 1997....

Now, what does all that crap mean?

Nukes ain't going anywhere in the next 10 years...

It means that the US is at it's peak in hydro production and we should not expect to see any significant future growth...

In the US solar is growing but even if it doubled every year (keep in mind it took 17 years to double ONCE) for 10 years it would still only produce 827 billion kwh of electricity...which would be 20% of total electrical generation...actual growth has been close to 10% a year so there is not much short or mid term help here...

Wind, on the other hand, has been growing at well over 20% a year for a decade...as expected, growth is slowing, but it should continue to grow at 15% a year going forward...so we can expect to see 300 billion kwh to be produced...about 8% of total production....we might get to a peak of 20% of total production within 20 years..

The good news is that US electrical usage growth has been slowing...we can expect to see usage increase by 1 or 2% year so carbon based production should (or should I say could) stay flat or possibly decline...

As far as killing wildlife...like I said earlier the initial generators were smaller and spun much faster...the one wind farm in Cali has problems killing birds...new systems are far kinder to wildlife...

Last year I nearly bought a wind mill cleaning business (12k to clean one tower, three days to clean a tower with the platforms they were using)...I spent three months looking closely at the business...I went up in towers...worked with a cleaning crew on several jobs...while driving to the site I saw more dead birds on the side of the road than I saw at the bases of the towers...and I saw no dead mammals, unlike the shoulders of the highways...and I looked at hundreds of towers...

As far as noise I could stand near a tower and easily talk to the person standing next to me...

Tuff talks about downtime...coal plants are offline 12.5% of the time, and when the plant is down no electricity is being produced...land wind turbines are down 2%...off shore about 5%...when one turbine is down production is still happening at the other towers...I worked 25 years in heavy manufacturing and the 12.5% downtime seems high...the 2 -5% downtime seems feasible...somebody might have more info than I have found... http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/03/uptime-downtime_07.html or http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/ca-owee/indexpages/Offshore_technology.php?file=offtech_p6.php

As far as aesthetic beauty I would rather look at a wind farm than a coal power plant....or a strip mine....or 100 car coal trains making their constant trips from Colo and Wyoming...

I am not sure why Tuff has such a hardon for wind...but he is definitely off base on many of his suppositions...

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

[Sooner_Tuf]

I'm not sure why you didn't buy such a lucrative business. I'm sure there is a gem in there somewhere.

It is not that I have a hard on for wind energy as much as I have a hard on for failure. Wind Power produces less than 10% of the power that Nuclear Energy provides even considering we do next to nothing with Nuclear in this country.

Fact is many gullible people are taking a ride on the Wind Energy train using our tax dollars. I see this much like the excitement over methanol a couple of years ago. Only the truth there came to light before much of the hoopla got started.

The truth of the matter is we built this country on fossil fuels and we run it on them to this day. At this point the only possible alternative is Nuclear. Even it is not as versatile but only it has the capability to produce as much energy.

Just out of curiosity how many dead birds did you see along side the highway? I'm not a young man and I drive a good many miles a year and I can't say I have ever seen a dead bird by the side of the road.

I hope I am wrong but I believe in a few years the wind experiment will be looked back upon as one of the largest blunders ever in US Industry.

[delhalew]

Wind was never supposed to be a cure-all. It was supposed to be ONE way for us to get away from using fossil fuels.

Nuclear will probably never happen in this country again, at least not in our lifetimes. It is prohibitively expensive. Never mind the reason why it's so expensive, it is and it's not changing.

Water is a joke. There are, I believe, 2 functioning hydroelectric plants. They will serve a very select group of people and will do little in the grand scheme.

Solar is probably our best option for a renewable source. They're getting more efficient all the time, but the average consumer still can't justify the cost of installing them just yet.

Natural gas has a store of about 100 or so years IIRC, and that's with the current technology and assumes our rate of discovery will stay constant. It's much cleaner than coal, but the price is volatile for whatever reason.

It's going to take a combo of all of them to be effective, and even then we're still going to be firmly attached to the dinosaur teat. I don't think anyone's deluded enough to think that we'll end fossil fuel dependence. That is...until we actually totally run out.

The price of natural gas has remained low while crude rises, because we keep a much larger surplus.

[pphilfran]

I'm not sure why you didn't buy such a lucrative business. I'm sure there is a gem in there somewhere.

It is not that I have a hard on for wind energy as much as I have a hard on for failure. Wind Power produces less than 10% of the power that Nuclear Energy provides even considering we do next to nothing with Nuclear in this country.

Fact is many gullible people are taking a ride on the Wind Energy train using our tax dollars. I see this much like the excitement over methanol a couple of years ago. Only the truth there came to light before much of the hoopla got started.

The truth of the matter is we built this country on fossil fuels and we run it on them to this day. At this point the only possible alternative is Nuclear. Even it is not as versatile but only it has the capability to produce as much energy.

Just out of curiosity how many dead birds did you see along side the highway? I'm not a young man and I drive a good many miles a year and I can't say I have ever seen a dead bird by the side of the road.

I hope I am wrong but I believe in a few years the wind experiment will be looked back upon as one of the largest blunders ever in US Industry.

Good post...

The biggest problem with the wind business was the various regulations and lack of consistency from state to state...a mile of cable and various harnesses that need inspected....there was a chance of very high profit but I didn't like the risk and tons of paperwork...

Honestly, I didn't see more than a handful of birds...now oil leaks are a different story...there were some transmission leaks that looked the the Exxon Valdez...

I am not big on man made global warming...and I know that little of our electricity is powered by crude...so at the current time it won't cut imported crude...

I would rather see us push natural gas for the truck/delivery fleet...

As time goes on there will be other sources that take priority...cold fussion....algae based ethanol...fuel cells...who knows...

[StoopTroup]

Wind and Global Warming doesn't have any appeal to me but having a Wind Turbine for my house and a few really good Solar panels would be really cool if you didn't have a lot of upkeep on it all and were able to use it, store some and sell the rest back to the power company.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Good post...

The biggest problem with the wind business was the various regulations and lack of consistency from state to state...a mile of cable and various harnesses that need inspected....there was a chance of very high profit but I didn't like the risk and tons of paperwork...

Honestly, I didn't see more than a handful of birds...now oil leaks are a different story...there were some transmission leaks that looked the the Exxon Valdez...

I am not big on man made global warming...and I know that little of our electricity is powered by crude...so at the current time it won't cut imported crude...

I would rather see us push natural gas for the truck/delivery fleet...

As time goes on there will be other sources that take priority...cold fussion....algae based ethanol...fuel cells...who knows...


I think you are on the right track. There does not seem to one energy that can take the place on oil. Much less the other fossil fuels available to us.

I think we should save our oil for those things that only oil fills the bill. I do believe in the responsible use of coal. We have so much of it and it is possible to use it better than we have in the past.

Generating electricity with oil or natural gas is just plain stupid to me. Approximately 85% of the electricity we generate is lost as resistance or what not. I am not sure of the exact number but that is the one I see in print the most. We need to get a better bang for our barrel than that.

I think wind power could be feasible but I don't see it the way people are going about it today. I am interested in technologies that harness wave energy and do no think they have been explored nearly enough.

Solar energy is intriguing but not for electrical service. The cost if too high and production is only really usable in low draw situations that involve storage i.e. charging a battery. Solar energy can be used for supplemental heat and does and admirable job there. It is not used nearly enough IMO.

At this point the only real solution I see is Nuclear Energy. I believe that is where we should be leaning until we have working models of other technologies.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Wind and Global Warming doesn't have any appeal to me but having a Wind Turbine for my house and a few really good Solar panels would be really cool if you didn't have a lot of upkeep on it all and were able to use it, store some and sell the rest back to the power company.

Home wind generators are available now, have been for more than thirty years. Not sure if the economics are really there but they could lower the bill from your electric company. As for selling power back, good luck with that. Unless you are in a pretty unique situation that will not give you what they charge for it. Which is understandable unless you can guarantee how much power you can add and can do it on demand.

[StoopTroup]

Home wind generators are available now, have been for more than thirty years. Not sure if the economics are really there but they could lower the bill from your electric company. As for selling power back, good luck with that. Unless you are in a pretty unique situation that will not give you what they charge for it. Which is understandable unless you can guarantee how much power you can add and can do it on demand.

I know their around....just not sure on the quality of them. As far as them buying back the extra power....That is probably more an urban legend maybe for all I know. I'm only going off a friend who had one on his place. It was a long time back and I know it was expensive and after they had a lightning strike....I'm not sure they ever used wind power again. I think originally it was a thing to just see if he could get it figured out and not to much that he couldn't afford the power for his place.

[AlboSooner]

I have not read the whole thread, but Boone may end up losing $200 million of his own money on this deal. The market is not profitable right now for wind energy. However, I'm not going to dog a guy for wanting us to get off foreign oil, and for wanting a green source of energy, just because he likes OSU. If I did that, it would be very aggy of me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have not read the whole thread, but Boone may end up losing $200 million of his own money on this deal. The market is not profitable right now for wind energy. However, I'm not going to dog a guy for wanting us to get off foreign oil, and for wanting a green source of energy, just because he likes OSU. If I did that, it would be very aggy of me.Sorta nice to be able to lose $200 million and come out in one piece!

[Sooner_Tuf]

Sorta nice to be able to lose $200 million and come out in one piece!

Pretty simple just make sure it is not your money :texan:

[texaspokieokie]

it says "his own money".

[mdklatt]

As far as them buying back the extra power....That is probably more an urban legend maybe for all I know.

It's the law if you're a customer of an investor-owned utility (e.g. OG+E). Coops are not bound by the same rules, but some of them do buy back power. In some states the utility is required to buy back at retail, but in Oklahoma this not the case.

[mdklatt]

The market is not profitable right now for wind energy.

Sure it is, if you know what you're doing. Everybody and his brother was getting into the business two years ago, but lower electricity demand, lower fossil fuel prices, and tighter financing are making it more difficult for small developers. There are 3-4 wind farms under construction right now in Oklahoma, with a lot more in various planning stages.

[Half a Hundred]

Nuclear will probably never happen in this country again, at least not in our lifetimes. It is prohibitively expensive. Never mind the reason why it's so expensive, it is and it's not changing.

Sure it will. There's no other alternative that works as effectively right now. IIRC, permits to build new plants have recently been granted.

The claim that it is prohibitively expensive also illustrates a big problem with our country these days. Anything that will pay off in the long term, but requires a heavy up-front capital investment, is seen as too costly. This is seen most distinctly in the crumbling infrastructure that we're seeing more and more. It's sad; we see anything that won't boost numbers for this particular quarter as "not worth it." As long as we keep this attitude, we'll never again do anything as impressive or audacious as building the Interstate Highway System, or landing on the moon.

[pphilfran]

Sure it will. There's no other alternative that works as effectively right now. IIRC, permits to build new plants have recently been granted.

The claim that it is prohibitively expensive also illustrates a big problem with our country these days. Anything that will pay off in the long term, but requires a heavy up-front capital investment, is seen as too costly. This is seen most distinctly in the crumbling infrastructure that we're seeing more and more. It's sad; we see anything that won't boost numbers for this particular quarter as "not worth it." As long as we keep this attitude, we'll never again do anything as impressive or audacious as building the Interstate Highway System, or landing on the moon.

Yes, but we need a standard design that will drive costs down...and then during planning there will so many lawsuits it will cause massive capital and time overruns...that's about it for the good news...now for the bad....:)