T. Boone Pickens Speaks

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The suckers are people like you who think we'll drill our way out of the energy mess we're in or do nothing.

The government uses the tax code to promote or stop a multitude of things, and to promote or stop a multitude of behaviors.

That's government/tax history 101. So yea, we're up a brown creek (black and oily actually), we'll never drill our way out and we need MASSIVE investment in new energy technology. Heck yea the government should sway the tax code to the development of new energy technology!

I guess you're one of the folks who wants to pay no taxes at all - and still have everything you need...



Nope, I'm not of the do nothing crowd and I don't believe in no taxes. I don't like to see them wasted though.

I think that solutions should be based on their economies and merits as opposed to being handouts to certain individuals or groups.

That doesn't seem to bother you however. You seem to be one that believes that any problem can be solved with enough of someone else's money.

It's great to use the tax code that way for some. They can manipulate all sorts of things and have it hidden from view. But it's dishonest and anyone can see that.

Anyway, good luck on this. And let us know when you believe in T.Boone Pickens enough to put up *your* money to help finance him.

I bet we'll be waiting a very long time...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: jsharp

Anyway, good luck on this. And let us know when you believe in T.Boone Pickens enough to put up *your* money to help finance him.

You trust the Arabs and Hugo to take your 700+ Billion a year. I'll trust Boone.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Anyway, good luck on this. And let us know when you believe in T.Boone Pickens enough to put up *your* money to help finance him.

You trust the Arabs and Hugo to take your 700+ Billion a year. I'll trust Boone.
Lets guess why there is'nt enough oil being sucked from this here USA and will those be heald responsible for screwing us?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Steve, are you surprised that Exxon Mobil has commercials?

I haven't seen many Exxon
mobil advertisements.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Steve, are you surprised that Exxon Mobil has commercials?

I haven't seen many Exxon
mobil advertisements.


Do you bashfully avert your eyes or something?

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Anyway, good luck on this. And let us know when you believe in T.Boone Pickens enough to put up *your* money to help finance him.

You trust the Arabs and Hugo to take your 700+ Billion a year. I'll trust Boone.
Lets guess why there is'nt enough oil being sucked from this here USA and will those be heald responsible for screwing us?


No need to guess. It's mostly because there isn't enough economically viable oil in the US to suck us out of high prices.
Now that crude is going for $140+ a barrel, some oil previously not exploited is now easier to get at a profit the oil companies can live with. Understand, however, this doesn't mean you'll be seeing gas for gal again.
If I had any money I'd like to invest, I'd put it in some of the companies that are in the Bakken game right now.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The government uses the tax code to promote or stop a multitude of things, and to promote or stop a multitude of behaviors.

They have such a good track record of picking and managing the good, effective programs too...

I thought you were a proponent of the War in Iraq...

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Lets guess why there is'nt enough oil being sucked from this here USA


Cause there isn't enough.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: jsharp


I bet we'll be waiting a very long time...

Actually, one mutual fund I invest in has invested in alternative energy companies, along with traditional energy companies (big gains over the last decade). A little guy like me can't buy into BP Capital like it's an open end mutual fund.

 

[Drew99GT]

double post

 

[TurboLuver]

I have found this topic to be very intriguing, just when I find myself in agreement with one side, the other side makes a valid argument in opposition. Please.... Proceed.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Wind power = feel good, junk economics and politics. Pure bovine excrement.

Source you ask?

E.ON Netz, which controls 1/3 of Germany's power distribution.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/eon-netz-wind-report-2005/
Quote:
Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity [a little over the maximum historical wind power infeed] must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times

Quote:
That is, wind power construction must be accompanied by almost equal construction of new conventional power plants, which will be used very nearly as much as if the wind turbines were not there.

This flushes the panacea of wind mills down the proverbial toilet.
Quote:
“[[T]he increased use of wind power in Germany has resulted in uncontrollable fluctuations occurring on the generation side due to the random character of wind power feed-in. This significantly increases the demands placed on the control balancing process [and bringing about rising grid costs. The massive increase in the construction of new wind power plants in recent years has greatly increased the need for wind-related reserve capacity.


There are a few truths in the quotes, and some bollocks.

Firstly, to say that you need to have as much "traditional" power as there is wind is sort of factual. Wind turbines have little inertia, and no controls as such. They will produce what they can, when they can. This DOES mean that the controlable units will be brought up and down, and these will be the ones responsible for frequency control etc...It's been explained to me that these uncontrolled inputs shouldn't exceed around half of the supply.

That being said, in my state, there are typically only two or three units on active frequency control out of everything generating.

But to say that you need 90% of the installed wind capacity "just in case" is silly. Using that logic, if my state's demand is 12GW, we would need another 12GW in spinning reserve, just in case all the other ones fall over at once. If you've got wind farms dotted over the place, there will be some useable wind over a fair part of the country.

The US is pretty well blessed in terms of demand peaks, compared to places like Oz. We have similar surface area, but more than half the population live in one time-zone. The grid stretches North/South to match that. Thus the morning and evening peaks hit very hard, with lows of around 60% capacity, and the peaks flat out....The US has a population and industry across a number of time zones. The peak will more likely roll across the country.

Electricity is the ultimate "just in time" delivery. My girlfriend turns on a light at home, and the units at work respond instantly...of course her turning the light on could be matched by someone else turning it off.

What happens when there's excess generation, like all of those uncontrolled windmills, is that the spot price drops...almost instantly, as the generator's bids are based on demand for individual units. This is when the hydros pump all of that "excess" back up the hills, to be released when the price is right and demand approaches supply. There was a funny situation in Oz a few years ago when too many generators had "zero" bids, and the hydros pumped water for free all day.

Put in wind, and the market will adapt to use hydros to smooth the bumps.

Then there's industry (e.g. Aluminium smelters) who get ridiculously low prices for electricity. Generators will take less than production costs to avoid turning them off. In return, these consumers elect to be interruptible...huge amount of electricity can be freed to the market in seconds.

As to junk economics, an (obviously) insane farmer a few miles away started a company, and installed 2 660kW machines (pics are in the photo's section). This was before wind became popular. His installed cost was just over 70% of the cost per kW of a new coal fired power station. He pays no fuel costs whatsoever. His cattle wander around unconcerned with the machine...and his farm income is augmented by losing the utility of a couple of dozen square metres of paddock.

 

[brandontyler65]

Originally Posted By: kd5byb
I saw his commercial last night saying that and more.

I was a bit frustrated at it. One quote was: "we can't drill our way out of it."

Talk about a negative attitude! Everyone knows that drilling is short term. Who is saying that it's a long term fix? No one with a brain on their head! Why do we demonize the needed drilling that gets us over the short-term hump?

It must be a balanced approach that looks at short term and long term.

Short term:

1) Drill everything here we can. I've lived next to an oil rig, they can be very clean and have little environmental impact. Why we let politics and baseless environmental fears prevent part of the short-term solution is a mystery to me.

2) Conservation. Combine trips, do the speed limit, and keep the car well tuned. Change oil less - go to 5k, not 3k. Back in the 70's, the US Government allowed workers to work four 10 hour days to conserve gas. It's not practical for all jobs, but it helps. Why not encourage this? Why not actually ENFORCE the speed limits? I get passed daily by the same people who complain about high gas prices as they waste gas attempting to save time.

Long-term:

3) Other, availible forms of energy. Canada has a ton of oil shale waiting for someone to develop an efficient extraction process. The USA has a ton of coal and we have the technology to burn it cleanly. Why are these being ignored?

4) New technology. Not just solar and wind, but it is theoretically possible to generate liquid fuels from coal. Again, we're just waiting for someone to develop an efficient extraction process. During WWII, the Germans developed a process to generate synthetic fuels. Currently, the US Air Force is looking at synthetic fuels as well. A B52 has flown on the stuff for goodness sakes! Why doesn't this get the positive press?

We all must realize that none of these processes will happen overnight. And probably even the short term solutions will really take longer that "short-term" to implement, as people are generally unwilling to change. But to ignore any potential solution like ignoring drilling is moronic.

It's crazy to me that the USA spends so much money on failed social programs that help very few, yet we can't spend money on research for alternative fuels/energy that will improve the lives of EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.

later,
b


that sounds great but don't forget that uncle sam gets money everytime you fill up so thats why the changes that happened b4 aren't now IMHO.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

But to say that you need 90% of the installed wind capacity "just in case" is silly.

Thank-you.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

As to junk economics, an (obviously) insane farmer a few miles away started a company, and installed 2 660kW machines (pics are in the photo's section). This was before wind became popular. His installed cost was just over 70% of the cost per kW of a new coal fired power station. He pays no fuel costs whatsoever. His cattle wander around unconcerned with the machine...and his farm income is augmented by losing the utility of a couple of dozen square metres of paddock.


It sounds as if he's unable to purchase power otherwise. Is this correct or was it simply cheaper to build his own plant vs. buying from an existing utility? Or possibly the size is such that it's economical?

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: jsharp

Anyway, good luck on this. And let us know when you believe in T.Boone Pickens enough to put up *your* money to help finance him.

You trust the Arabs and Hugo to take your 700+ Billion a year. I'll trust Boone.


Al, I don't trust the Arabs at all. But trusting a guy who's claim to fame is a couple of failed oil company takeover attempts isn't exactly great either.

I'd like to see any energy independence not cost so much that it's impossible. I sure don't want it to put put us in an even worse situation. If you have to compete with countries that have substantially cheaper energy costs than we do, it's going to be pretty tough to make a go of it...

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Firstly, to say that you need to have as much "traditional" power as there is wind is sort of factual.

But to say that you need 90% of the installed wind capacity "just in case" is silly.

These seem to be in conflict??

Quote:
there will be some useable wind over a fair part of the country.

The question is how much, and is more economical vs. reliable than conventional generation.

These things would be great if you could store the generated energy on high wind days. But that is not the case.

What does the farmer do on calm days? Batteries? Grid?

How hard is it to ramp up or down production on a steam generator?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

Quote:
Firstly, to say that you need to have as much "traditional" power as there is wind is sort of factual.

But to say that you need 90% of the installed wind capacity "just in case" is silly.

These seem to be in conflict??


Not at all. You have a current 120% capacity with conventional power production (in whatever form it is). You then install wind generators. Those plants then reduce production as power is available.

This is different then saying for every wind turbine you build, you need to match it in conventional production.

One statement shows the sensible savings with wind production...the other makes it look like only an idiot would consider it. Those who state the latter are those who are either deceptive or ill informed.


Now if you want to "expand" your assured generating capacity, then you're going to have to build new power plants. It would be sensible IF you're going to build new power plants ..to build wind generators to reduce their demand on finite fuels whenever possible.
Quote:
Quote:
there will be some useable wind over a fair part of the country.

The question is how much, and is more economical vs. reliable than conventional generation.


Aside from the capital acquisition costs, the fuel is free. Then you're just down to the life of the generator. Future avoided costs of coal and NG should easily trump maintenance/refit costs.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Shannow

As to junk economics, an (obviously) insane farmer a few miles away started a company, and installed 2 660kW machines (pics are in the photo's section). This was before wind became popular. His installed cost was just over 70% of the cost per kW of a new coal fired power station. He pays no fuel costs whatsoever. His cattle wander around unconcerned with the machine...and his farm income is augmented by losing the utility of a couple of dozen square metres of paddock.


It sounds as if he's unable to purchase power otherwise. Is this correct or was it simply cheaper to build his own plant vs. buying from an existing utility? Or possibly the size is such that it's economical?


Nope, he built his own 1.3MW windfarm to sell electricity into the grid at a profit. Cost him around $2M, and is now an extra source of farm income.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
The question is how much, and is more economical vs. reliable than conventional generation.


Lets see...3/4 the installed cost per MW of a new coal plant, and free fuel (versus about $20/MW for coal), no operators driving them.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
These things would be great if you could store the generated energy on high wind days. But that is not the case.


I mentioned hydro storage plants before. They store water when the price is down. There are quite a few coastal areas where novel hydros that are pure pump storage could be built, but there's a lot of hydro on your continent.

Anyway, there's a lot of wind, the natural gas plants come off line (a good thing), and the coal units ramp down...

Originally Posted By: Tempest
What does the farmer do on calm days? Batteries? Grid?


He's got his own farm supply from the grid. The wind farm was a business decision to provide extra farm income.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
How hard is it to ramp up or down production on a steam generator?


Coal units can be used reasonably well from 40% to 100% (or 105%) at ramp rates of around 1%/minute. Special burners can be installed to get down to 20%, but they can be tricky to get to respond quickly. Frequency control when there is a sudden change in system frequency (a big unit tripping somewhere else)they will respond with around 5% extra power within in 2 cycles, for a couple of minutes.

Efficiency is lower at lower loads which is why in many parts of the world, the big coal units are "two shifted", running for 16 hours, and off for 8. It's hard on the machines, but apparently economically viable depending on the market specifics.