Anyone see the ad for the Pickens Plan?

[Not Sure]

I was watching the History Channel series Ice Road Truckers a little while ago and a commercial comes on for the Pickens Plan, with T. Boone Pickens showing his wind farm plans for Pampa, Texas. It runs like a political ad, with the typical "Paid for..." language at the end, so I'm wondering, what's the deal with this?

Here's the website the commercial sends you off to look at:

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Any thoughts on this?

[bahrbearian]

1. Beautiful.

[eleny]

2. He's heavily invested in natural gas and wants to use lots of it. What's to think about?

He stands to take it in with the long rake. Nuff said.

[bbinacan]

7. The OP is talking about wind power

what's with the natural gas angle?

[bahrbearian]

8. for T Boone it is a Win -Win,

Oil, Gas , Wind, I bet he is probably is long on the Nuke Commodities

[bbinacan]

14. So what,

if wind power helps. What's your problem with T Boone?

[wtmusic]

17. Any underwriter of the swift boaters

deserves careful scutiny.

[Not Sure]

25. Wow.

I remember reading that some time back. I can't believe I forgot he was one of the douchebags who pushed that crap everyone's throat back in 2004.

I never confused this opportunist with a saint, but damn, I'm disappointed in myself for forgetting that one.

[spag68]

27. How about a link to Pickens being in that group.

My understanding is that it was a Dallas real estate guy. Further Nat gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Be sensible, he is building the biggest wind farm in the US, and he is doing it without taxpayer money. To get to energy independence, we need to find better ways to use what is there, Everyone bitches about coal, but if someone can't come up with a way to make it burn cleaner, and quickly, the chinese will use it the dirty way. If you don't have answers for a problem, how can you criticize someone, even Pickens, who is actually trying?

[wtmusic]

29. Lots of 'em.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111707dnnatkerrypickens.de9d26.html

onedit: I do have an answer, but most people here don't want to hear it.

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable.

I hold no special brief for nuclear power. If there were another way of providing our energy needs without destroying the Earth, I would support it. I am not, I must admit, happy about the dangers of nuclear radiation. I know that, in the hands of engineers at, say, Sizewell, nuclear power is extremely safe, but I can think of many places that would not inspire me with the same confidence. There is always the fallibility of human nature, and the danger that politics will domineer engineering prudence, although the same could be said of all modern technology. Strict controls and eternal vigilance are therefore the price we must pay for its benefits."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2;jsessionid=5E1EF992499C6CBFCF99344A8171AB74

[spag68]

32. Obviously you don't live on Long Island

Here they built an 8 billion nuke plant . Then the nimbys went into action and after certification, they spent another 2 billion to shut it down. I have worked in 3 nuke plants in W Pa. and Homestead Fla. they take about 8 years to build, but could be cut maybe to 5. I'm not against nuke power either, but it won't come close to the power we could get by conservation and renewable pv, wind, and thermal, which can come on line in a much shorter time frame.

[wtmusic]

36. So you think we can find 500 km2 every week

to build windmills? Not realistic.

As described in the link, building a nuke plant each week (worldwide) not only is realistic, it already happened.

[spag68]

33. The link

says nothing about the 527, only that Pickens had some crazy bet he wanted to make. Like him or not, wind farms are good.

[wtmusic]

52. He also gave the 527 $3M and reneged on the bet

"Rich Texas bastard T. Boone Pickens boasted that he would give $1 million to anyone who can disprove "even a single charge" leveled by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who he funded to the tune of $3 milion. Kerry offered to meet with Pickens and do so, with the million dollars going to veterans' charities.

But now Pickens is reneging:

Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry's race against President Bush, responded by saying he won't consider giving Kerry the reward unless he surrenders his combat films, additional military records and wartime journal."

http://firedoglake.com/2007/11/16/john-kerry-to-swift-boat-funder-t-boone-pickens-wheres-my-million-dollars/

[kristopher]

39. Yes we can "find the space"

There are about 1200 coal plants in the US with a nameplate generating capacity 390GW+-. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t23p1.html and
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t45p1.html

Coal plants average about a 79% capacity factor. The production by coal of 390GWx79% equals 308GW that we need to deliver to 'technically' replace coal - the worst offender for climate change and pollution bar none. That would be a total production of 2,698,080 TWh/year.

Lets leave natural gas and nuclear as is for the moment.


Current generation turbines are 1/5-2 MW onshore and 2-3.6MW offshore The onshore probably will be slow to achieve further increase because they are limited by the ability to transport the rotors overland. But the next generation of offshore wind farms are between 5-7MW per unit nameplate and can be expected to operate at 40+% capacity factor. Figure the build-out in the corridor Picken's speaks of to deliver about 30% capacity factor.


In near shore <50meter deep waters, and allowing exclusion areas for fishing grounds, beach replenishment borrow areas, avian flyways, shipping channels and visual buffering for the tourist areas, there is just off the coast of tiny Delaware enough room to place:
19GW with GE 3.6MW turbines
26GW with 5MW turbines (vestas?)
37GW with the RePower 7MW turbine

Using a capacity factor of 40% (it is actually estimated to be 44%) that yields:
7.6GW for the 19GW with GE 3.6MW turbines
10.4GW for the 26GW with 5MW turbines (vestas?)
14.6GW for the 37GW with the RePower 7MW turbine

So just off the 25 mile coast of little old bitty Delaware, we can get an output equal to between 7 and 14 nuclear reactors - with no waste storage problems or risks of proliferation.

As for finding the space for solar - why don't we start with roofs?
As of 2000 in the US residential sector alone there were about 83 million buildings with a combined square footage of roughly 170 billion square feet or 18 billion meters^2 or 1.8 billion km^2.

Using an average capacity factor of 14% against the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight gives us 252kWh/year/m^2.

18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

And we can let the homeowners be responsible for cleaning them.

Finally, we add in storage through the batteries of V2G EV and similar battery packs for the home so that those majority of those 83 million homes are mostly self sufficient and there is also plenty of storage to maximize wind and large solar thermal arrays.

What is the rush to nuclear with its KNOWN pitfalls? Why not a goal like described above first and then see what the need for nuclear ends up being? Of the two choices, we are much better off in the long run (in money, energy security, national security, energy returned on energy invested and environmental footprint) to do this without nuclear if we can.

So again, what is your rush to promote nuclear?

Data on buildings drawn from http://www.btscoredatabook.net/?id=search_table_title&q=Single-Family+Homes&t=5
Tables 5 and 21

[JohnWxy]

59. I just wish T. Boone would call up Bill Gates and let him know there are Global Warming and energy

independence issues to face.

Where are you Gates. YOu could help enormously and go down in history as helping to save civilization.

[bahrbearian]

18. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Wind power is very variable

Unless you have lots of hydro to use as a backup, natural gas is used to fill in the gaps. If you look at the wind & gas usage in Spain and Denmark, you'll see the link.

[bbinacan]

16. So should we

give up on wind power?

[Dead_Parrot]

35. No, just don't ask too much of it

Hydro currently produces around 8% of US electricity, and I'm sure there is plenty of scope for more, particularly for small to midrange installations: Call it 15% as a target.

You could, by building in redundancy, get another 15% from wind and use the hydro as spinning reserve: There's 30% of your electricity. Go a little mad with conservation and you could probably eke it out to 40% - Which isn't bad at all, I reckon.

[Not Sure]

10. Yes, I did mention wind power, but

what struck me as odd was the way the ad looks like, sounds like and even includes the typical language at the end that makes it a political ad. What is he trying to accomplish (i.e., any legislation or candidates he's backing) with this?

He doesn't need any ads to make money here in north Texas. For those who know who he is around here, he's very favorably received. And the natural gas thing, well unless I'm misinformed, most electricity in Texas is generated by natural gas. Most people I know have gas wells or gas leases. There's plenty of natural gas in Texas, and it's cheap to extract from the ground, so I don't see why anyone in that game would stop playing it while there's money to be made. I don't have to like it, but you can't argue with any of the local politicians about natural gas drilling around here. The city governments get checks from drilling on park lands, and it's the kind of money nobody argues with, least of all residents of the ultra-red DFW metrosprawl.

So, with the economics of Pickens' gas and wind projects locked down whether anyone has a say in it or not, what's with the ad? Why is it necessary? Am I missing something because I'm in Texas and this looks like yesterday's news?

[bbinacan]

19. As we speak

I'm in the process of buying right of way easements for a NGL running west of Ft. Worth down to Houston. I think the ad is designed to get people thinking of other energy sources.

[Not Sure]

24. Then you've heard of the TTC

Trans-Texas Corridor, I take it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_texas_corridor

One of the key components of the TTC is the vast amount of land reserved for utilities. I wonder if it's a boilerplate for a system that might be necessary for connecting the "largest wind farm in the world" to the rest of the ERCOT grid.

[spag68]

30. Pickens on CNBC

last week for a whole morning. Said he is not endorsing any candidate ,not even McCain. The ad is financed with his own money, to convince people to pressure pols. to move more quickly to wind power. Of course it might have been a pack of lies, however it should be easy enough for doubters to find out if he is donating to any 527 or other group.

[eleny]

11. Natural gas is one of the components of his plan

[wtmusic]

21. Natural gas would provide backup power

and he is pushing natgas transportation.

Which is pretty much a wash as for as CO2 goes. What would he think if we replaced the natgas cars and power utilities with electric cars and nuclear generation? :shrug:

[eleny]

22. He'd be happy as long as he could make his bundle

[bbinacan]

3. I think it's a good plan. n/t

[Submariner]

4. After profiting to the MAX from Bush/Cheney oil policies

he sees that the game is up, so he's making himself out to be some sort of innovating enviro-hero. He's putting lipstick on the pig to point the blame elsewhere as we discover the thievery of Bushco.

[Extend a Hand]

5. I wish he would also call for rebuilding our light rail infrastructure

[SharonRB]

6. I give him a lot of credit

I'm not naive enough to think he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart -- there's definitely money to be made, but he's ahead of many others and is definitely on the right track. I hope his plan gets some traction.

[skids]

12. Yeah saw it. Pickens is an interesting character...

He's an oilman and a hedge fund jockey, but at the same time one that likes to keep a good reputation and knows its good business to spend a few extra pennies on boons.

Basically his angle is going to be to inject himself into the climate/energy crisis and run up a rep as a serious player. At that point, people will start hanging off his words. That's when he cleans up by having verbal control of key stocks and market segments -- people rushing out to invest in companies he mentions... ahem... in passing.

He's got major natgas holdings and probably views wind as a good way to drive up demand for natgas, since natgas is a preferred fuel for spinning reserves, which will be more needed to fill the gap when wind goes low. As to whether he would go so far as to stomp on competitors for the reserve power/frequency regulation market (basically all the new power storage startups like VRB Systems and Beacon Power) I don't know enough about him to know whether he'd do that or just try to buy in.

I'd take him over a psychotic Cheney style oilman any day, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near my retirement fund. I'd say I might even consider working at a company he owned, but that would require me to swallow the whole Swift Boat Veterans problem which would probably be rejected by my unforgiving spleen.

[wtmusic]

13. Pretty vague.

A one time cost of $1T, but windfarm communities will continue to benefit? After turbines are built, how will they benefit if no money is being brought into the communities?

How many miles of new transmission lines are required to bring each mW of power online reliably? Is that environmentally/aesthetically acceptable?

And the bottom line:

"Spinning reserves are not the only kind that are expensive. Machines that can start quickly enough to respond to hourly changes are normally simple cycle gas turbines burning natural gas. The cost of operating such machines can vary greatly depending on the market price for fuel. Since wind power in many areas will disappear on hot, muggy, high pressure days, spot gas prices are often very high at the same time that the wind disappears from the grid.

In the current market in Texas, there are times when the spot price for electricity has reached $2-4 per kilowatt-hour, often because a large portion of the wind generating capacity is not available at the same time. The geographic distribution of low wind regimes on certain days can be very widespread.

Mr. Goggin of the AWEA would obviously like to portray wind energy in a favorable light, and I happen to agree that it is a low cost, low emission fuel source - when it is available.

However, no amount of forecasting, engineering or wishful thinking will change the fact that wind velocity varies and is not under human control.

The ERCOT study quoted in the link provided by Mr. Goggin was performed by another entity with excellent engieering and marketing qualifications. GE is the largest supplier of wind turbines in the US. It is a $3 billion dollar and growing business for that company.

I, too, have my biases, but I tend to favor zero emission energy sources that can be controlled to a large extent by skilled human operators.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that nuclear power has no relationship to oil use, but its ability to replace natural gas fired combustion is well proven. If displacing gas generation with wind reduces dependence on oil, then replacing gas with nuclear does the same thing.

Unlike wind, which humans have understood to be a useful energy source for several thousand years, nuclear fission was able to capture a large share of the electrical market in just a couple of decades. Without dedicated opposition, it could be doing far more to produce clean, reliable, moderate cost power.

Rod Adams
Atomic Insights
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/17/boones-farm-oilman-asks-feds-to-help-distribute-his-wind-power/

[Finishline42]

45. Why are you ignoring the Solar part of his plan?

Pickens in his whiteboard presentation talks about:

$700 billion leaving the country each year for imported oil - this is a financial death wish for the US.

Windfarms - he's building the largest - from Texas to the Dakota's. Pickens doesn't mention off-shore though.

Solar - from Texas to Calif. - already seeing a big push in this area. When the wind is typically at it's lowest, in the summer, solar would be at it's peak.

As electricity from Wind and Solar come on line - move Nat Gas production of electricity to the transport sector - buses - local delivery - fleets - all easy targets - to replace imported oil. Is there an economical way to convert a diesel engine to use nat gas?

and now the most important part - HVDC transmission lines to efficiently get the electricity to the people that need it.

What could be added - programs for utility companies in conjunction with Federal, state, and local govts to install PV on buildings at a rate of 5-10% of yearly utility bill.

[wtmusic]

46. Because it's not part of it.

I see no evidence that Pickens is funding solar. And solar is even less economical than wind, and requires more transmission lines.

[Finishline42]

47. No Pickens is not funding solar - but it is part of the picture he draws

Pickens may not be investing directly, but it is part of his overall plan.

Solar is not as developed as wind, but concentrated solar plants are being coming on line and the desert Southwest of the US is just about perfect.

The transmission lines need to be built anyway - old style, HVAC, are very inefficient and are unable to move the power to areas when needed.

[ElectricGrid]

57. We know that../.

why fight this proposal because of that? Even Pickens said that nuke was in play and that his plan is only going to be part of the solution. We have to work together and compromise to get this done.

[wtmusic]

61. "I want it to be nonpartisan...I'm always going to vote Republican, of course."

Pickens is full of shit. He sees a Democratic administration on the horizon and he's trying to greenwash a major move into natural gas.

Either that, or senile...he ranks nuclear below solar in terms of being able to bring new power online.

Should be working on improving his handicap.

[ElectricGrid]

63. He would be right about nukes... He was reffering to

time to market. Solar destroys nuke in the time to market arena.

[wtmusic]

65. For what? A backyard solar cooker?

We're talking about power generation.

Solar has never made a significant contribution, so where do you get the idea that solar "destroys" nuclear?

[skids]

15. Actually, K&R this folks...

I think we all pretty much reached the same conclusions and the greater DU would benefit from the E/E fanatics take on it. It's obvious he's going to saturation bomb the airwaves and likely he'll hire an astroturf outfit or three.

[Strelnikov_]

20. We would be better off using the natural gas for home heating

to maximize exergy.

92% for home heating

15% (or less) as a transportation fuel

Battery electric EV's or PHEV's are ready today for personal transportation (70%)
Electrified rail for mass transit (90%)

[spag68]

31. Do you understand that nat. gas

produces about10% of the pollution out the tailpipe as gasoline? Anything that produces less pollution should be used, as it's going to be a long time for electric vehicles to overtake fueled motors. Also that particular corridor, is reputed to be the steadiest wind in the nation. This is capitalism kids and if there is no profit there is no solution. I would like it if the oil company's would be nationalized, however we all know thats not going to happen. So get over it and try to see the good someone like this can do, you don't have to like him.

[wtmusic]

34. Not to mention

85% of America's natural gas is produced domestically. So it would be a big step towards reducing dependency.

But...keeping transportation reliant on it doesn't do much to prevent global warming. And IMO that's far more important than dependency issues.

[spag68]

37. I'm not disagreeing,

but anything that helps has to be considered.

[4dsc]

42. Peak natural gas anyone??

I hope everyone knows that natural gas production peaked in the USA in 1998 and that 50% of our current NG production comes from wells drilled in the past 3 years.. Should make you wonder just how much longer we can continue to do that little feat..

[Strelnikov_]

44. Yes. That is the other part that makes no sense to me

I am beginning to think the wind aspect of his plan is simply 'look see pigeon' to lure in environmentalists to his natural gas centric plan.

If his plan addressed electrification of transportation, then it would be something.

[wtmusic]

49. In the last year natgas production is up 9%

"Natural gas production in the Lower 48 States has seen a large upward shift. After 9 years of no net growth through 2006, an upward trend began that generated 3% growth between first-quarter 2006 and first-quarter 2007, followed by an exceptionally large 9% increase between first-quarter 2007 and first-quarter 2008."

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/natural_gas_production.cfm

Typically natural gas wells are productive for about half as long as oil wells. It won't last forever, of course, so this is a stopgap measure.

The US has 1% of the world's proven oil reserves but about 30% of the proven natural gas reserves.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

[4dsc]

66. Here's why...

"One indicator of the transition from conventional to unconventional production is the number of rigs drilling "horizontal wells." "

With gas prices so high, more and more drilling is going for gas in non-conventional sources.. Lets see how we can keep this up..

[Strelnikov_]

43. What is to 'get over'. The natural gas part of his plan makes no sense

As I pointed out, exergy 92% for home heating, 15% for transportation.

Using natural gas for transportation makes no sense, whatsoever, considering the alternatives (EV, PHEV) available.

[ElectricGrid]

56. that could be true.. but who is offering up a serious plan that

accomplishes this? That's the problem. No leadership from anyone outside of T boone.

[Strelnikov_]

64. Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute for one

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.htm

It ain't perfect, but IMHO it's better than Pickens.

I guess the question is, what do you consider serious? Someone with enough money to promote his plan to waste valuable natural gas resources to maintain the highly inefficient transportation paradigm currently in effect?

Sorry. As I stated above, electrification of transportation is the way forward. His plan (natural gas portion) simply leads us down another energy infrastructure box canyon.

Perpetuating the 12% to 15% efficiency of ICE based transportation infrastructure is no way forward. But, hey, that's just me.

[kristopher]

67. No, it isn't just you.

V2G is gaining strong traction with utilities around the world and they control at least as much of the future direction of the policies as T Boone.

[Fledermaus]

26. We could accomplish the same thing by reducing our consumption

to European and Japanese levels.

Then, if we do some sort of Pickens plan, we could reduce our energy imports to zero.

[wtmusic]

28. For Americans that may come harder

than spending the trillion dollars.

[NickB79]

38. It's funny that people here seem upset that he'd make a profit off of cleaner energy production

Would anyone or any corporation invest in building massive alternative energy infrastructure if they DIDN'T make gobs of money doing it?

So what if he makes billions off of wind turbines? It's better than making billions off of coal or oil sands. In the end, all that matters is that we cut CO2 emissions, FAST.

[wtmusic]

40. Natural gas makes plenty of C02 emissions

That's the other half of Pickens' equation.

[NickB79]

41. Yes it does, but it's less than virtually all other fossil fuels

At this point in the game it is the "least-evil" of the available fossil fuels to use to plug the gaps whenever the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. Using it in conjunction with wind, solar, hydro and (gasp) even some nuclear power is far preferable to the continued use of coal and oil. And, as we scale up the carbon-neutral power sources, we should scale back the use of natural gas until it is a minor component of the energy mix, if used at all.

Of course, I think this is still a pie-in-the-sky prediction. I have largely given up hope that we as a species are even capable of enough foresight to move away from coal, much less fossil fuels altogether.

[Finishline42]

48. Funny thing is - he can make a bundle but he can still sell his electricity for less

Funny thing is - he can make a bundle but he can still sell his electricity for less than the competition because he already owns the land.

Going rate for royalties to the land owner for one windmill - $500 per month per windmill.

Pickens ordered 667 from GE and that is only 25% of the planned windfarm.

667 x $500 per month x 12 months = over $4 million per year advantage.

[ElectricGrid]

58. IT's $2000/mo here in KS..... but

your point is still wrong. Land lease is a very small portion of this cost equation. Owning the land has a very small impact on the profits.

[kristopher]

60. Only if you disregard the initial investment in the land. nt

[ElectricGrid]

50. It's a better plan than anything Obama or McCain have put up

neither of them seem real interested in the subject. Keep in mind that the main goal of pickens plan is to get the US off of forgein oil. We send out $700B per year in paying for forgein oil. That is the crux of the plan. Pickens is more concerned about the US economy and keeping that $$ here than the environmental aspects. They are just a good benefit. I think it is the best of both worlds, the billionares of the world made this problem let them invest to fix it. Pickens says we could be at 22% wind power in 5-10 years if there was clear leadership from Washinginton. He is right. If you want to see more in depth detail about his plan watch this series of 6 videos on youtube of an MSNBC interview. I will link the first one and you can watch the rest with links on the right side of the youtube window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yztOgaxS_7Q&feature=related

His plan is far from perfect and his goals are almost primarily related to finance, but in a market driven enconomy like ours you have to use these sorts of folk to get things done. The reason he is doing this is because he needs the government to create the corridores to transmit the power east and west. He says that's all he would need from the government, he and other investors would take care of paying for the actual lines and wind farms. Now on a side note imagine what could be added to the treasury if that $700B per year was being kept inside the US. What, 25% of that would be sent to the government? That could be invested in alot of research or... hold your breath.... paying down the debt.

[phantom power]

51. Why is he attempting to drum up public support?

Does he need tax breaks from Congress?

[ElectricGrid]

53. He needs clear leadership from Washington....

to get it done fast. He also needs them to open up the power transmission cooridors to the east and west coasts. Keep in mind this guy is 80 years old and has Billions in the bank. I don't think this guy is doing this simply to make more money. I think he does have some nobel intentions.

[phantom power]

54. I'm just trying to figure out what he's after, in the sense of support...

As you say, he's embarrassingly rich. He can build whatever he wants, and I assume he can purchase whatever land he needs, although perhaps he'd prefer to site it on government owned land.

That isn't the first time I've heard talk of transmission corridors in connection with his project. I'm getting the impression that's something he can't build unilaterally, either that or he really doesn't want to.

[ElectricGrid]

55. See my link in my post just above your first post in this series...

It is a link to an interview he did about his proposal. He goes into alot of detail there, you can decide for yourself what you think.

[Finishline42]

62. Power lines crossing different fiefdoms...

In Texas, I think I read that he was having problems getting a transmission line built due to some Texas Utility Commission rule about lines crossing a service area of another utility. Pickens offered to build it himself, the problem was getting the OK to do so.

I think all T Boone wants is for govt to clear the path with approvals.

[Not Sure]

68. That's about the size of it

And I'm betting you'll have to lease a share of a dedicated utility corridor - a la the Trans Texas Corridor project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_texas_corridor) - in order to play ball with ERCOT.