Bob, that's what "Bob, my comments preceeded by ==>" was meant to signify, but I
probably shouldn't have inserted my last comment after yours but before your
sig.

As far as finding a home for the turbines.

I'm sure they will eventually find a home, but probably not that quickly. The
bigger the turbine (and these are huge ones) the more problematical the siting.

Arthur

--- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@... wrote:
>
>
> Arthur,
>
> I didn't write the paragraph above my name at the bottom, you did. About
swiftboater Pickens, he expected the public to finance the grid required for his
windmills.
>
> The story says "He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said
there were technical problems."
>
> No, I think the problems were financial or legal. Anyway, even if he looses
money, the wind turbines will be put to good use somewhere.
>
> Bob
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "ardoucette" <adoucette@...>
> >
> > Update on this discussion:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pickens_wind_energy
> >
> > Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been
> > scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a
> > home for 687 giant wind turbines.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> >
> > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, "ardoucette" <adoucette@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob, my comments preceeded by ==>
> > >
> > > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, bobmagi@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To Arthur,
> > > >
> > > > > ////Although not in Pickens plan, my plan for efficiency would
> > > > reduce the consumption of electricity.
> > > >
> > > > ==> Yeah? What's your plan to reduce electricity growth in the face
> > > > of a rapidly growing US population?
> > > >
> > > > Arthur, as a refrigeration technician, I have seen lots of energy
> > > waste of the cheapest first cost equipment. While energy was cheap,
> > > it was cheaper to waste energy than spend money on more expensive
> > > efficienct equipment. Refrigerators blow hot air into air
> > > conditioned spaces instead of outside. Fan motors in walkins heat
> > > the refrigerated space and should be the new 90% efficient motors.
> > > California has shown some leadership in lowering increases, has
> > > reduced per capita electrical consumption but not total consumption
> > > yet:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/
> > > >
> > > http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/old_electricity/consumption_by_sector.html
> > > >
> > > ==> Well Bob, you must have looked at those numbers quickly.
> > > California (and the US) population is growing LESS on a percentage
> > > basis then its electrical use.
> > >
> > > See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
> > >
> > > Which shows that California's pop is growing (00 - 06) at a rate of
> > > 1.3% but looking at electrical growth for the last 10 years
> > > (residential) shows a 1.7% annual average growth rate and an overall
> > > electrical growth rate of 1.4%
> > >
> > >
> > > > But we need to spend about 10% of our energy expense on energy
> > > efficiency instead of maybe the present 2%.
> > > >
> > > > Arthur wrote "But NG has been available (and once
> > > > cheap) for decades and yet there are less than 1 million vehicles
> > > in
> > > > the US powered by NG.
> > > > So if NG was going to catch on it WOULD HAVE."
> > > >
> > > > Bob writes: There was no reason to switch to NG when oil was so
> > > cheap. Now even with NG being 5 times as expensive than before, it
> > > is about one third the cost of pretax gasoline or diesel.
> > >
> > > ==> Not really (see calcs below), but the key is that is the price
> > > TODAY when we don't use NG for transportation. You get 10% of our
> > > transportation energy from NG and if you don't displace NG for
> > > electrical production then the increase in demand will also push the
> > > price of NG up. There is NOTHING in Picken's plan which LINKS the
> > > increase in NG for transportation to the decrease in NG for
> > > electrical generation except for wishful thinking. Of course if I was
> > > BIG in the NG business I'd be pushing that plan as well.
> > >
> > > As to the reason we haven't converted, a little looking shows the
> > > higher costs and size of the NG fuel tank are both major factors. A
> > > decade ago Honda, Ford, GM and Crysler all made NGVs. Today the ONLY
> > > NGV you can buy is from Honda and you can only buy the Honda Civic GX
> > > if you live in CA or NY. But, the suggested retail for the Civic GX
> > > is $24,590 plus $635 for freight. A comparably equipped Civic LX
> > > lists for $17,760.
> > > http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/faq.aspx
> > > That's a HUGE price difference that will take a LOT of driving to get
> > > ahead of, particlarly since they say in their FAQ's about the range:
> > > Q: How far can the GX go on a full tank of natural gas?
> > > A: The GX can go approximately 170 miles before it runs out of fuel,
> > > according to the EPA.
> > >
> > > Or the trunk space, given the HUGE NG tank, you are left with SIX
> > > CUBIC FEET of space.
> > >
> > > But back to the cost/savings. At a $7,000 premium for the GX you
> > > could drive your LX 16,000 miles per year for 5 years (44 miles per
> > > day) paying $4.00 gallon and you still would be ~$1,000 ahead of the
> > > GX driver paying $1.30 per gallon equiv of NG (~$2,000 ahead if you
> > > include the NPV cost of the higher initial capital outlay).
> > >
> > > Sheesh.
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > A: "Too bad the
> > > > plains are a very low population density area of the US."
> > > >
> > > > B: Pickens calls for $200 billion worth of grid to distribute it.
> > >
> > > ==> Well, that's a major pricing issue then since currently the cost
> > > of electricity is so low that without the PTC the building of Wind
> > > Farms drops precipitously, and that's for projects with relatively
> > > low interconnect costs.
> > >
> > > See http://images.vertmarkets.com/CRLive/files/images/8c73892d-91f0-
> > > 4155-96af-ec01f9cb9336/wind.jpg
> > >
> > > Again, Wind has to compete with Nuclear and Coal and both have low
> > > per KwH costs and neither are affected by the price of oil and
> > > neither require the higher distribution costs and each produce with
> > > well over three times the Capacity factor of Wind.
> > > >
> > > > A: "==> Oh please. We are not in a world war with hundreds of
> > > thousands
> > > > of our men fighting and dying in a global battle for our survival
> > > and
> > > > without that kind of motivation people & thus Congress will NOT
> > > make
> > > > those kind of sacrifices."
> > > >
> > > > B: We are in a war for our survival, not the hyped up Zionist 'war
> > > on terror,' but our economic survival with our trade deficit caused
> > > in part by our imported oil habit.
> > >
> > > ==> Well good luck with that arguement. I think people know that
> > > there is a substantial difference between WW2 and higher Gas prices.
> > > >
> > > > A: Here's what is happening to the price of NG.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/4usanatg.gif
> > > >
> > > > B: One MCF of 1000 btu/ft3 gas would be about 8 gallons of
> > > gasoline, wouldn't it? So we have wellhead NG at about $0.90 per
> > > gallon equivalent or something like $50/barrel oil equivalent.
> > > > http://www.cgcu.com/pdf/EnergyConversion.pdf
> > >
> > > ==> Not quite.
> > >
> > > See: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp
> > >
> > > This results in a well head price equal to $83 a barrel, but you
> > > can't play this game, like I said you drive up demand for NG you
> > > drive up the price. You think Picken's plan makes sense then show me
> > > how you are going to get the Electical producers to mothball their
> > > very efficient Combined Cycle Gas generators and what they will
> > > replace them with?
> > >
> > > Note: Power companies love Combined Cycle Gas Generators because of
> > > their low construction costs of ~ $600 per kW, low fixed costs per
> > > year of ~ $6 per kW and the fact that they can go from a cold start
> > > to full power in 3 hours or run efficiently at as low as 40% of
> > > capacity and then ramp up at a rate of 7% per minute to meet demands.
> > > All this and then routinely post availablity rates in the mid 90s.
> > > Its NOT just about the cost of fuel. Providing a STABLE, RELIABLE
> > > power supply is KEY to the successful operation of a power grid and
> > > Gas currently plays a HUGE role in this. Something that Wind Turbines
> > > are not likely to change.
> > >
> > > > A: "In fact, the industry right now considers that only 1/3 of the
> > > ACTUAL
> > > > generation of a wind turbine can be used in Base load planning. Of
> > > > course Wind plants only generate at 25% of RATED capacity, so the
> > > > NET to a grid of increased base capacity is a paltry 8% of a
> > > > turbine's
> > > > rated capacity."
> > > >
> > > > B: You are using the worst condition, not considering what a
> > > multistate grid interconnection can do, and of course, we can have
> > > smart load control instead of dumb brute force generation.
> > >
> > > ==> No, I'm not. Grid planners don't have the luxury of planning for
> > > AVERAGE conditions. And while its true, the larger the grid, the
> > > lower the fluctations, the electical producers still have to produce
> > > PEAK power in the middle of the summer and that is when wind is
> > > typically at its lowest (April is typically our highest month for
> > > average wind speed). It hardly helps to show graphs of AVERAGE ANNUAL
> > > wind conditions to make your case.
> > >
> > > See here for the DRASTIC difference between Spring (low electrical
> > > demand, high avg wind) and Summer (High electrical demand, low avg
> > > wind)
> > >
> > > http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-14m.html
> > >
> > > http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-13m.html
> > >
> > > I'm not against wind, but its unlikely to have much impact on our
> > > near term energy future even if we increased our rate of new
> > > installations significantly. Even with substantially more wind power
> > > being installed each year its still not likely to have an impact on
> > > Oil use since there still remains only a very tiny linkage between
> > > electricity rates/use and oil rates/use. The most likely result would
> > > be a slight slow down in the number/size of new coal plants. Let's
> > > put it this way, talk about how wind will make a substantial impact
> > > is hardly justified until the amount of new wind power installed each
> > > year can simply keep up with our growing annual demand for
> > > electricity.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Maginnis
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>