T. Boone Pickens plans wind corridor

[Questor]

from CNet

Oil mogul and corporate raider T. Boone Pickens launched an energy plan and social-networking campaign on Tuesday that calls for replacing Middle Eastern oil with Midwestern wind.

The so-called Pickens Plan would exploit the country's "wind corridor" from the Canadian border to West Texas to produce 20 percent of the country's electricity.

Transmission lines would be built to transport the power to places in the U.S. where the demand is. The natural gas, now used to fuel power plants, would instead be used as a transportation fuel, which burns cleaner than gasoline and is domestic.

He proposed that the private sector finance the investment, which would result in a one-third reduction, equal to $230 billion, in the U.S.' yearly payments to foreign countries.

Pickens has already invested heavily in wind, notably a planned 4,000-megawatt wind farm in his native Texas.

In his public statement, he said that any large-scale conversion off of oil would need a dramatic change in policy.

"I am calling on the next President and Congress to take immediate action in the first 100 days of the new Administration to do whatever is necessary to make this plan a reality. We are asking the American public to get behind this plan and to help us reduce our dangerous dependency on foreign oil. This has to be the number one priority in the country starting today and that's what this campaign is all about. I am also calling for a monthly report on the reduction in foreign oil imports and a monthly report on progress in the development of natural gas vehicles in this country.
In the video accompanying the PickensPlan.com Web site, Pickens said that getting 20 percent of the U.S.' electricity from wind and diverting natural gas to transportation could be done in 10 years "if there is the right leadership."

I saw this while waiting for jury duty. Aren't Pickens' holding mostly domestic?

And would't this put a lot of our energy infrastructure in tornado alley?

[Surlethe]

Pickens is the CEO of BP Capital, which is investing heavily into wind power (my uncle works for them). There's no surprise in his supporting this plan. That said, it's still a good idea; I wonder just what percentage of our energy this would generate.

Here's is article from today's WSJ:

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
By T. BOONE PICKENS
July 9, 2008; Page A15

One of the benefits of being around a long time is that you get to know a lot about certain things. I'm 80 years old and I've been an oilman for almost 60 years. I've drilled more dry holes and also found more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my experience, I've never been as worried about our energy security as I am now. Like many of us, I ignored what was happening. Now our country faces what I believe is the most serious situation since World War II.

The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil – it's extreme, it's dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation.

Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil.

This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq.

In fact, if we don't do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Why do I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is such a danger to our country? Put simply, our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. Foreign oil is at the intersection of America's three most important issues: the economy, the environment and our national security. We need an energy plan that maps out how we're going to work our way out of this mess. I think I have such a plan.

Consider this: The world produces about 85 million barrels of oil a day, but global demand now tops 86 million barrels a day. And despite three years of record price increases, world oil production has declined every year since 2005. Meanwhile, the demand for oil will only increase as growing economies in countries like India and China gear up for enhanced oil consumption.

Add to this the fact that in many countries, including China, the government has a great deal of influence over its energy industry, allowing these countries to set strategic direction easily and pay whatever price is needed to secure oil. The U.S. has no similar policy, because we thankfully don't have state-controlled energy companies. But that doesn't mean we can't set goals and develop an energy policy that will overcome our addiction to foreign oil. I have a clear goal in mind with my plan. I want to reduce America's foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

How will we do it? We'll start with wind power. Wind is 100% domestic, it is 100% renewable and it is 100% clean. Did you know that the midsection of this country, that stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada, is called the "Saudi Arabia of the Wind"? It gets that name because we have the greatest wind reserves in the world. In 2008, the Department of Energy issued a study that stated that the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030. I think we can do this or even more, but we must do it quicker.

My plan calls for taking the energy generated by wind and using it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants. Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S. We can use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports. Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now. We can and should do so much more to build our fleet of natural-gas-powered vehicles.

I believe this plan will be the perfect bridge to the future, affording us the time to develop new technologies and a new perspective on our energy use. In addition to the plan I have proposed, I also want to see us explore all avenues and every energy alternative, from more R&D into batteries and fuel cells to development of solar, ethanol and biomass to more conservation. Drilling in the outer continental shelf should be considered as well, as we need to look at all options, recognizing that there is no silver bullet.

I believe my plan can be accomplished within 10 years if this country takes decisive and bold steps immediately. This plan dramatically reduces our dependence on foreign oil and lowers the cost of transportation. It invests in the heartland, creating thousands of new jobs. It substantially reduces America's carbon footprint and uses existing, proven technology. It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation. It will build a bridge to the future, giving us the time to develop new technologies.

The future begins as soon as Congress and the president act. The government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development in areas where the wind and sun are abundant. I am also calling for a monthly progress report on the reduction in foreign oil imports, as well as a monthly progress report on the state of development of natural gas vehicles in this country.

We have a golden opportunity in this election year to form bipartisan support for this plan. We have the grit and fortitude to shoulder the responsibility of change when our country's future is at stake, as Americans have proven repeatedly throughout this nation's history.

We need action. Now.

Mr. Pickens is CEO of BP Capital.

Interestingly, he all but says that oil production is peaking. I disagree with his proposal to fuel cars with natural gas; better to focus on the electrification and expansion of the rail transportation network and the adoption of electric cars.

[Glocksman]

As surlethe stated, the flaw in the plan is running cars on CNG.
Home heating prices are already expected to increase by a huge amount this winter, and that's on top of the huge increases of the last few years.

If he expects me to jump on board a plan that'd result in my paying out over half of my monthly income to simply keep the house at 68 degrees during the winter, he's fucking crazy.

CNG automobile bullshit aside, I like the idea.

[Surlethe]

As surlethe stated, the flaw in the plan is running cars on CNG.
Home heating prices are already expected to increase by a huge amount this winter, and that's on top of the huge increases of the last few years.

If he expects me to jump on board a plan that'd result in my paying out over half of my monthly income to simply keep the house at 68 degrees during the winter, he's fucking crazy.

CNG automobile bullshit aside, I like the idea.

I don't understand why he wants to run cars on natural gas. Wouldn't it be better for his plan to run cars on electricity and build electrified transport, creating more demand for his windmills' electricity?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I understood he was pushing natural gas as an intermediate step. Or maybe he wants to heat HOMES electrically.

[fnord]

Is that capacity nameplate - what the system COULD generate at full throttle?

In that case, what sort of capacity factor is he looking at? IIRC, wind's capacity factor is doing damn well to beat 30%. The Danish and German experience is more like 18-20%.

He should know that wind is very variable, a bitch to predict, and essentially impossible to control.

Fossil-fuelled capacity operating as reserve and backup is required to accompany wind generation and stabilise retail supply. Said capacity is under particular strains when in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines. Perhaps that's the ultimate reason he's advancing this?

Per the CIA World Factbook, roughly 4 trillion kWh, or 4 TWh, was produced in the US in 2005. At a capacity factor of 100% and 8766 hours per year (365.25 days in average year), that's 456.3 GW of installed generating power. What Pickens wins on the swings (aiming to replace only 20%) he loses on the roundabouts (the abysmal capacity factor), so the Pickens Plan would require 450 odd GW of nameplate wind capacity, with whatever fossil capacity is required (as mentioned above) to back it.

Capacity may be worse with the US making up the bulk of the North American grid, lacking the sink capability that the Danish and German experiences have had wrt the European grid.

There is a better, invented-in-the-US, way to displace that 90 GW, that was prototyped at Oak Ridge National Lab in the late 1960s.

[fnord]

Ghetto edit:

Whoops, cocked it up BIG time. 4 PETAWATT-hours, not terawatt-hours produced by the US in 2005.

[Sarevok]

What's wrong with CNG conversion of cars if you have enough natural gas available ?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What's wrong with CNG conversion of cars if you have enough natural gas available ?

Because America doesn't have enough gas available.

[Sarevok]

That's a dissapointment. Normal cars run fine on CNG with an inexpensive conversion. Natural gas could had been a great backup option while other energy sources are developed.

[Broomstick]

And would't this put a lot of our energy infrastructure in tornado alley?

We grow a lot of our vegetables in California. Doesn't that put a lot of agriculture in earthquake territory?

Seriously - we already have significant infrastructure in "tornado alley" and yet civilization staggers on. The fact is, that's where a lot of the wind is, so you just have to deal with it. The problems are not insurmountable.

[Broomstick]

What's wrong with CNG conversion of cars if you have enough natural gas available ?

Because America doesn't have enough gas available.

The US doesn't have enough of anything to run cars on - that's why we buy imports.

No one thing is going to replace gasoline and petroleum so get over the concept. Seriously, is there a reason we can't have both electric and natural gas vehicles?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I understood he was pushing natural gas as an intermediate step. Or maybe he wants to heat HOMES electrically.

That would definitely make the most sense. The use of gas and oil in homes should be banned--it's one area it's totally unnecessary.

[aerius]

Heating homes electrically makes sense only if the electricity comes from mostly hydro or nuclear, or if the homes have ground source heat pumps. Otherwise, it's more efficient to burn the fuel at the home rather than burning it at a powerplant, converting it to electricity, and then using that to heat the home. Power plants are around 40% efficient at best, then you lose a few more percent over the powerlines. A good furnace is around 90% efficient or so.

[Singular Intellect]

A good furnace is around 90% efficient or so.

As it was recently pointed out, a heater is a 100% efficient system.

I assume you're referring to efficiency loss with the distribution system (ie: vents) that gets heated and only because heated air needs to be moved to different locations?

[Metatwaddle]

And would't this put a lot of our energy infrastructure in tornado alley?

If we're going to have energy infrastructure in tornado alley, I'd prefer that it be windmills.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I actually heard commercials supporting this plan on the radio on my way into work. It was kinda cool, and kinda made me wonder why they NEED commercials for this in California.

[aerius]

A good furnace is around 90% efficient or so.

As it was recently pointed out, a heater is a 100% efficient system.

I assume you're referring to efficiency loss with the distribution system (ie: vents) that gets heated and only because heated air needs to be moved to different locations?

Making the electricity at the powerplant is around 40% efficient at best. In other words, burning the oil at the power plant is less than half as efficient as burning it in my own furnace. 60% of the energy in the fuel is wasted in the powerplant before it's even turned into electricity, whereas burning the oil in my own furnace only throws away 10% of the fuel's energy content.

In short, if the electricity for heating your home comes from fossil fuel sources, you're better off burning the fuel in your own home unless you have a good ground source heat pump installed.

[The Spartan]

I actually heard commercials supporting this plan on the radio on my way into work. It was kinda cool, and kinda made me wonder why they NEED commercials for this in California.

Because the fucking NIMBYs object to them as being an eye-sore.

[Glocksman]

In short, if the electricity for heating your home comes from fossil fuel sources, you're better off burning the fuel in your own home unless you have a good ground source heat pump installed.

My local utility charges all-electric households lower rates per kwh than gas/electric households are charged.

I don't know if this is result of some obscure state law or it it's something they do to encourage electricity and/or discourage gas consumption, but they do it.

[Col. Crackpot]

I understood he was pushing natural gas as an intermediate step. Or maybe he wants to heat HOMES electrically.

That would definitely make the most sense. The use of gas and oil in homes should be banned--it's one area it's totally unnecessary.

without massive MASSIVE increases to the power grid (and corresponding rate cuts) that would not work north of Delaware. To keep a 3 bedroom ranch house at 60 degrees in you average New England winter you'd pay a over $1000 a month versus $250 in gas. That would bankrupt people in one winter.

[Glocksman]

It'd also depend on local power rates and how your local utility is organized.
My for profit utility charges approx (it varies if you're all electric/or mixed gas/electric) 11 cents per kWh for home use.
The co-op right across the river in Henderson KY charges a flat rate of about 6 cents per kWh for home use.

Every time I open my local Vectren bill, I feel the need for anal lube.

[aerius]

Every time I open my local Vectren bill, I feel the need for anal lube.

5 cents/kWh here in Ontario, but after distribution & service charges it ends up at around 10 cents. Gotta love our nuke plants and hydroelectric station.

[Glocksman]

Every time I open my local Vectren bill, I feel the need for anal lube.

5 cents/kWh here in Ontario, but after distribution & service charges it ends up at around 10 cents. Gotta love our nuke plants and hydroelectric station.

Indeed.
Last winter my heating bills were in the $350/month range during the coldest months (and that's with keeping the thermostat set on 65), and this winter Vectren is saying that bills will increase by yet another huge margin due to gas prices.

I honestly don't know what I'll do if I get a $500 heating bill, as I only make $1300/month.

[tim31]

And in somewhat related news, an Australian research power station captures carbon

Ben Cubby
July 10, 2008 - 9:30AM
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement

Australia's first "clean coal" plant is finally up and running, with scientists announcing yesterday that the first tonne or so of carbon dioxide was captured and liquified at Loy Yang power station in Victoria.

A similar plant at Munmorah on the central coast is yet to show results, although the switch was ceremonially flicked last Friday.

The Loy Yang development is "a major milestone for Australia", said the chief of the CSIRO's energy technology division, Dr David Brockway, though many more milestones will have to be passed before it can be rolled out on a large enough scale to make any difference to the nation's greenhouse emissions.

One possibility being examined is the contruction of giant solar thermal plants next to coal-fired stations, with the former powering the latter's carbon capture mechanisms.

The post-combustion capture technology involves filtering flue gas released by the burning of coal through a chemical solvent, which absorbs the carbon dioxide. The CO2 is then processed into a liquid form.

If and when infrastructure is built, that liquid will then be piped to a place where it can be injected underground.

"This is a major milestone for Australia because it is the first time carbon has been captured in Australia, or in the southern hemisphere, but it is still a very small scale plant," Dr Brockway said.

"There's a general feeling throughout the world that it will take 10 to 15 years before we get to a full-scale commercial plant."

A similar trial plant at Lake Munmorah, using different chemicals to absorb the carbon dioxide, is expected to prevent the release about 3000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air when it starts operation, said the NSW Minister for Energy, Ian Macdonald.

This amounts to just over one per cent of the plants' total greenhouse emissions, although the NSW Government hopes to have a much larger trial plant up and running by 2013.

Drilling is underway around the central coast to find a suitable underground area to store the captured carbon.

The amount of gas actually captured in the Loy Yang trial was not specified by the CSIRO or by the operators of Loy Yang power station itself, but it is understood to be a relatively small amount.

In any case, it will not be sequestered but released back into the atmosphere, because the trial had achieved its purpose by demonstrating that carbon could be captured, Dr Brockway said.

The major problem with the technology, apart from the immense cost of fitting it to existing power plants across the country, is that it requires a lot of energy.

Not really groundbreaking news, but better than sitting on their hands.