Oilman Plans Huge Wind Project

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=464

Oilman Plans Huge Wind Project

February 20, 2008

By Gary M. Stern

T. Boone Pickens is nobody's fool. Pickens, who has a net worth of $2.5 billion and is ranked as the 131st wealthiest person in the United States by Forbes, is not prone to invest in pipe dreams. Then why is Pickens, who runs BP Capital Management, a private equity firm, and Mesa Power, building a 4,000-megawatt wind energy facility in Pampa, Texas, in the Panhandle section, which could cost as much as $10 billon?

In 2006, wind power facilities totaling 2,500 megawatts were built nationally, making them the second largest source of new generating capacity in the United States, according to Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association. Pickens' wind-power facility would be 60 percent larger than all the wind power projects introduced in the United States in 2006.

...

Asked how Pickens will make money on the project when investing so many billions of dollars, Bojorquez replied that German utilities and entrepreneurs have harnessed wind and made money. He recently met a German entrepreneur at a conference who told him, "I put 100 turbines in the field. For five years the turbines spin for the bank, but after five years the turbines spin for me."

What does Pickens' proposed project say about wind energy's future? "It tells us that this is where energy's future is going, and smart players recognize that dollars are following that direction," said American Wind Energy Association's Randall Swisher.

[DS1]

1. 2.5 billion, and only 131st in the food chain

that's incredible

[Dogmudgeon]

2. 4 GWe capacity for $10bln

At the industry average 25% load, that's a ten billion dollar gigawatt.

I wonder how nuclear energy compares to it economically. The last time I heard, the argument was that $4bln/GWe was waaaay too expensive. And that isn't even comparing the lifetimes of reactors (50-60 years) versus wind plants (20-30 years).

It will also take eight years to build; one of the arguments used against reactors is that they typically require five years to build.

But if you want to keep non-nuclear (in the forum or in real life), here's the real point to consider -- no matter what course we take, it's going to be difficult and expensive. And mandatory. And that's a point that is much more important to consider than the "flavor" of the energy. These are all big projects, and they have to start breaking ground yesterday.

So Pickens should greenlight it. We need to know if and how "big wind" can be financed and implemented -- fast.

--p!

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. EROI of wind -vs- nuclear

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Where did its data come from?

I found the website, but could not find the page for this illustration -- and it is in a directory called "draft", which I assume doesn't mean wind. :)

I question the data because I have seen several (academic non-industry) studies that show all of those sources as having wider EROEI ranges that also go far higher -- as much as 80 or 100. Several threads with citations from different proponents may be found by searching http://www.theoildrum.com">The Oil Drum website.

If this is just about nuclear energy, I can tell you that the non-industry and non-Greenpeace average EROEI estimates generally start at around 10 though some estimates are certainly lower. (The costs of ALL energy sources are now changing very quickly.) The http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html">nuclear industry cites EROEI figures up to about 60 and the anti-nuclear movement would have you believe it is more like 0.000001.

Wind power per se can have a very favorable EROEI, up to 100 in some select wind farms. If you read the nuclear link, you will also find some key information that reflects well on wind energy. (I don't know a single nuclear energy supporter who opposes wind energy.) But the cost of energy storage, which will be required when more than about 15-20% of our primary "grid" energy is wind-produced, cuts deeply into its EROEI at this point. And that's the biggest sticking point, as far as I can see -- other than poorly-planned and -built wind farms, of course. I believe that basic research in energy storage technology is a more pressing need than R&D in energy production, even if we were to build a large number of nuclear power plants.

I can post in more detail when I get more time, and I'm sure others may also want to take a shot at this.

And note:

Any revolution in energy use is going to be expensive and difficult, and it won't please everybody.

(I know, I should start a thread about it, and keep The Dreaded Form Of Energy out of the OP.)

--p!

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Here you go...

Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Thanks!

:hi:

--p!

[bananas]

7. This wind project will start generating revenue in 2011

You can't just compare total cost, you have to compare cost minus revenue.
The first set of turbines will have completely paid for themselves before a nuclear plant could be built.
It will begin paying for itself two years after construction starts,
it will be generating revenue for 6 of the 8 years of construction,
a nuclear project won't begin to pay for itself until after construction is complete.
If it gets completed - the CBO says the risk of default on new nukes is well over 50%.
Tie up your money for ten years, flip a coin, heads you have a shiny new reactor and a huge debt,
tails you have an empty cooling tower and a huge debt.

[losthills]

8. Sooner or later common sense has to kick in.

Even the rednecks are starting to see which way the wind blows. Mr. Pickens is not throwing that kind of money at wind power out of the kindness in his heart....