Granted, there are wind farms in many other places besides Sweetwater, Texas and I will admit that "ground zero" may not be the best choice of words. This is a short video (3-4 minutes) produced by T. Boone Pickens & The Pickens Plan focusing on wind farming in the town of Sweetwater.
I thought it might be nice for people to see what a wind farm actually looks like, for those that haven't had the benefit of being up close and walking beneath the gigantic towers.
"It can be done, and it will be done, because it has to be done." T. Boone Pickens
Showing posts with label PickensPlan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PickensPlan. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Brother, can you spare 22 terawatts?
I just ran across a good article on ReasonOnline by Ronald Bailey "Brother, can you spare 22 terawatts?" - with great "big picture" figures from Daniel Nocera, a professor at MIT. He looks at current figures, and extrapolates them out to the year 2050 with a global population base of 9 billion.
He also compares world energy consumption at three levels: 1] U.S. levels; 2] Western European levels; and 3] Indian subcontinent levels. I find this very useful in getting my head around the "quality of life" and "living standards" issues.
Here's an excerpt from the article:
However, Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writes a sobering analysis of the challenge of supplying adequate energy to the world in 2050. In his article, "On the Future of Global Energy" in the current issue of Daedalus (unfortunately not online), Nocera begins with the amount of energy currently being used on a per capita basis in various countries and then extrapolates what that usage implies for a world of 9 billion people in 2050. For example, in 2002 the United States used 3.3 terawatts (TW), China 1.5 TW, India 0.46 TW, Africa 0.45 TW and so forth. Totaling it all up, Nocera finds, "the global population burned energy at a rate of 13.5 TW." A terawatt equals one trillion watts.
Nocera calculates that if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of power—more than seven times current production. If people adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standards, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050." This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.
Here is Ronald Bailey's conclusion:
Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.
I agree, we need to keep the Federal government out of this. They haven't managed to come up with a comprehensive energy policy to date, and they have managed to screw up virtually every aspect of "government", all while wasting our tax dollars.
Plus, they would probably give the contract to Halliburton and put Dick Cheney in charge.
He also compares world energy consumption at three levels: 1] U.S. levels; 2] Western European levels; and 3] Indian subcontinent levels. I find this very useful in getting my head around the "quality of life" and "living standards" issues.
Here's an excerpt from the article:
However, Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writes a sobering analysis of the challenge of supplying adequate energy to the world in 2050. In his article, "On the Future of Global Energy" in the current issue of Daedalus (unfortunately not online), Nocera begins with the amount of energy currently being used on a per capita basis in various countries and then extrapolates what that usage implies for a world of 9 billion people in 2050. For example, in 2002 the United States used 3.3 terawatts (TW), China 1.5 TW, India 0.46 TW, Africa 0.45 TW and so forth. Totaling it all up, Nocera finds, "the global population burned energy at a rate of 13.5 TW." A terawatt equals one trillion watts.
Nocera calculates that if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of power—more than seven times current production. If people adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standards, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050." This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.
Here is Ronald Bailey's conclusion:
Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.
I agree, we need to keep the Federal government out of this. They haven't managed to come up with a comprehensive energy policy to date, and they have managed to screw up virtually every aspect of "government", all while wasting our tax dollars.
Plus, they would probably give the contract to Halliburton and put Dick Cheney in charge.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sustainable Energy :: Without the hot air :: a book by David J.C. Mackay
My prior post referenced a link that MsHedgehog (thanks mshedge!) sent me with regard to someone running the hard numbers on energy/sustainability. The guy who wrote it is David J.D. Mackay, who is also publishing a book titled "Sustainable Energy :: Without the Hot Air". Mr. Mackay is a professor in the Department of Physics at Cambridge University.
The book is actually available free, in rough draft, in the form of PDF files (color and printable black and white versions) that you can download. There is also a four page Executive Summary.
7MB Color Version :: PDF Download
Executive Summary :: 4 pages :: PDF Download
Main Website :: www.withouthotair.com
And, he's got a blog.
The book is actually available free, in rough draft, in the form of PDF files (color and printable black and white versions) that you can download. There is also a four page Executive Summary.
7MB Color Version :: PDF Download
Executive Summary :: 4 pages :: PDF Download
Main Website :: www.withouthotair.com
And, he's got a blog.
Monday, July 28, 2008
From lingerie, to total oblivion...in one post.
I just left this comment on a thread on the PickensPlan. A guy wrote to me about all of the little things we can do to save energy - turning out lights is a start, plus a hundred other things we can/must start doing to individually save energy.
Here is my comment back...
Hola Marty,
I definitely agree that there are a multitude of "little things" we all need to be doing to reduce our individual energy consumption. But, I would actually like to see someone run the numbers. Turning off lights and tweaking the t-stat a few degrees one way or the other is one thing, but I fear that true, meaningful savings will only be achieved by drastic, monumental, incontrovertible, involuntary, inevitable means.
There are simply not enough resources on this planet/blue marble for everyone to have/use unlimited power. How much silicon and other potentially toxic raw materials does PV manufacturing require? What of our primitive battery technology? Are there toxic waste streams that will be generated from solar PV, battery storage and wind turbine manufacture of the gigantic scale that will be required to fuel the world? T
The wastes/risks of nuclear power are known. Nukes supply 15-20% of our power in the U.S. now. What if we go to 80% like France? What if the entire world goes to 80% nuke sourced? Has anyone run the numbers on how much yellowcake this possibility would require? Has anyone run the numbers on how much radioactive waste this will produce, how many millions of hectares it will require world-wide to store it? If we are using vast amounts of land to store radioactive waste, how does that impact arable land and world food production? How can we be sure water supplies will be safe for 10,000 years, and not tainted by radiation?
Perhaps we are on the crux/flux of a new technological/intellectual/scientific era, but the absence of real education even in the United States will likely preclude that. Even though we humans think we are pretty smart, and can put a man on the moon, we collectively have done some pretty stupid things in the past 100 years, like becoming dependent on the internal combustion engine, polluting our oceans to the point of impacting fisheries and the natural balance of ecosystems in a major way, just to name a few. Not to mention global warming.
Who knows? I suppose we must all start taking baby steps.
I see two really, really big things we need to start the ball rolling on post haste - education and birth control - worldwide.
Without those two, we are doomed.
There are simply too many people. Too many stupid people.
Here is my comment back...
Hola Marty,
I definitely agree that there are a multitude of "little things" we all need to be doing to reduce our individual energy consumption. But, I would actually like to see someone run the numbers. Turning off lights and tweaking the t-stat a few degrees one way or the other is one thing, but I fear that true, meaningful savings will only be achieved by drastic, monumental, incontrovertible, involuntary, inevitable means.
There are simply not enough resources on this planet/blue marble for everyone to have/use unlimited power. How much silicon and other potentially toxic raw materials does PV manufacturing require? What of our primitive battery technology? Are there toxic waste streams that will be generated from solar PV, battery storage and wind turbine manufacture of the gigantic scale that will be required to fuel the world? T
The wastes/risks of nuclear power are known. Nukes supply 15-20% of our power in the U.S. now. What if we go to 80% like France? What if the entire world goes to 80% nuke sourced? Has anyone run the numbers on how much yellowcake this possibility would require? Has anyone run the numbers on how much radioactive waste this will produce, how many millions of hectares it will require world-wide to store it? If we are using vast amounts of land to store radioactive waste, how does that impact arable land and world food production? How can we be sure water supplies will be safe for 10,000 years, and not tainted by radiation?
Perhaps we are on the crux/flux of a new technological/intellectual/scientific era, but the absence of real education even in the United States will likely preclude that. Even though we humans think we are pretty smart, and can put a man on the moon, we collectively have done some pretty stupid things in the past 100 years, like becoming dependent on the internal combustion engine, polluting our oceans to the point of impacting fisheries and the natural balance of ecosystems in a major way, just to name a few. Not to mention global warming.
Who knows? I suppose we must all start taking baby steps.
I see two really, really big things we need to start the ball rolling on post haste - education and birth control - worldwide.
Without those two, we are doomed.
There are simply too many people. Too many stupid people.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Pickens Plan :: Resources
If you are interested in more information on the subject...
EIA :: Energy Information Agency :: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html
U.S. Department of Energy :: Wind Powering America
National Renewable Energy Laboratory :: Wind Research
Wikipedia Article on Wind Power in Texas :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
Note that Texas has the largest current capacity (5,300 MW) and has been doing research since 1970. California is second in capacity at 2,400 MW.
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES ::
Mesa Power [T. Boone Pickens]
FPL Energy [Florida Power & Light]
Seawest Windpower
AES Wind Generation
Airtricity
Shell Wind Energy
BP Alternative Energy [British Petroleum]
Cielo Power [Austin, TX]
Edison Mission Group [Irvine, CA]
American Electric Power
Luminant
RES Americas
Invenergy, LLC
[In general, I would look to, and expect, all electrical utility companies and all major oil companies to become involved in wind/alternative energy development in the coming years...in some way, shape, or form...]
WIND TURBINE MANUFACTURERS ::
GE
Siemens Power Generation
Mitsubishi
Vestas
ASSOCIATIONS/GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS ::
West Texas Wind Energy Consortium
The Wind Coalition
American Wind Energy Association
Alternative Energy Institute
Industrial Wind Action Group [Great site for wind power in the news...]
Global Wind Energy Council
Wind Law Institute ??
TRADE MAGAZINES/NEWSLETTERS ::
North American Wind Power
Mahalo Search Result :: [Some good info here on Pickens & Mesa Power...]
Renewable Energy World
YouTube Video :: Making Wind Power a Reality
Juan de Bedout, a scientist at General Electric's Global Research Center discusses wind power at a recent energy briefing at the Technology Center.
The Pickens Plan :: More Detail
Okay, so T. Boone Pickens is building a big wind farm near Pampa, Texas with 2,700 wind turbines generating a combined total of 4,000 megawatts. The cost is estimated be $1.2 billion. In the construction business we call an estimate "an opinion of probable final cost". (grin)
So, to get wind power up to 20% of our total, that would be 9,600,000 MW (megawatts). So, we would have to build 2,400 wind farms just like this one at a cost of $2,880,000,000,000 (two trillion, eight hundred eighty billion dollars).
Damn! We're already over budget! Pickens said it could be done for $1.2 trillion.
So, to get wind power up to 20% of our total, that would be 9,600,000 MW (megawatts). So, we would have to build 2,400 wind farms just like this one at a cost of $2,880,000,000,000 (two trillion, eight hundred eighty billion dollars).
Damn! We're already over budget! Pickens said it could be done for $1.2 trillion.
Okay, I gotta get my head around this :: The Pickens Plan
Do you ever start thinking about something and it just boggles your mind and bothers you?
I had to run some rough numbers to get my head around this whole PickensPlan wind energy thing.
This appears to be a useful resource :: EIA :: Energy Information Administration :: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government ::
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
Total U.S. electricity generation capacity is currently at about 4,065 million megawatt hours [MWh].
Here's the breakdown ::
According to PickensPlan (info gleaned from the home page), wind turbine power is currently at about 48 million megawatt hours [MWh] or 1% of total U.S. power production. Doing the math, that would put the figure at 4,800 billion kWh.
So, for argument's sake, let's say total current capacity is at 5,000 billion kWh.
First and foremost, which I don't ever hear anyone talking about, is the concept of maximum energy production. Under the current state of "affluenza", it's all about more, more, more. We need MORE power, more this, more that. But we don't. Can we all agree that we can't continue building power plants and extracting resources infinitely for ever and ever.
We need to come clean with the concept of using less energy, figuring out how to live the American dream consuming LESS energy.
So, given that, let's say 5,000 billion kWh is our max - the concept that we should never need more power than that.
Also according to the PP home page, the average American household uses roughly 10,000 kWh (per year). I backed into the figure by using the statement that "4,800 billion kWh is enough power to supply 4.5 million households...".
Keep in mind though, that infrastructure, commercial and industrial power needs are in the 5,000 billion kWh figure.
Now moving on to the dollars.
Pickens says $1.0 trillion for enough wind farms to bring the wind power proportion to 20% of total. Plus $200 billion for the electrical distribution/power grid.
So, corporate sponsorships with little decals on the blades of the turbines aside, let's start talking about where we are going to come up with $1.2 trillion dollars. Or let's say half that as a start - $600 billion.
The momentum of this movement will solve the land challenges - that is the easy part to me.
$600 billion...plus the manufacturing capacity to build millions and millions of turbines.
According to this article on Wikipedia - "Wind Power in Texas", "The Wildorado Wind Ranch is located near Amarillo and consists of 161 MW of wind turbines (70 Siemens Mk II turbines each with a rating of 2.3 MW). These turbines have the capacity to meet the electricity demand of more than 50,000 households."
I'm not sure of the conversion from MW to MWh, but it it's linear, that would mean it takes seventy one [71] 2.3 MW turbines to generate 161 MW of power. It seems to me from driving by Wildorado, that there are more than 71 turbines, but let's go with that figure.
We need 10% from wind (remember, I am going with half of the 20% figures to start out) - so 500 billion kWh. 161 MW = mega is 1,000,000 right? Kilo is 1,000. So 161 million kWh?
I'm lost now. Any engineers out there care to help?
I'm trying to figure out how many 2.3 MW turbines it will take to provide 500 billion kWh....? I've got units/conversion issues going on. Let's just say that's a lot of turbines that need to manufactured - not to mention the manufacturing facilities that need to be built to do it. I'm sure the production capacity is not there right now.
Also, to get your head around the dollars involved, a $250 million dollar construction project is huge - like Coors Field (baseball stadium) in Denver. $4.8 billion is the final cost of the Denver International Airport. So, $600 billion dollars is huge - the equivalent of building 125 huge airports.
So, now I have my head wrapped around the problem...did this help you at all?
I had to run some rough numbers to get my head around this whole PickensPlan wind energy thing.
This appears to be a useful resource :: EIA :: Energy Information Administration :: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government ::
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
Total U.S. electricity generation capacity is currently at about 4,065 million megawatt hours [MWh].
Here's the breakdown ::
According to PickensPlan (info gleaned from the home page), wind turbine power is currently at about 48 million megawatt hours [MWh] or 1% of total U.S. power production. Doing the math, that would put the figure at 4,800 billion kWh.
So, for argument's sake, let's say total current capacity is at 5,000 billion kWh.
First and foremost, which I don't ever hear anyone talking about, is the concept of maximum energy production. Under the current state of "affluenza", it's all about more, more, more. We need MORE power, more this, more that. But we don't. Can we all agree that we can't continue building power plants and extracting resources infinitely for ever and ever.
We need to come clean with the concept of using less energy, figuring out how to live the American dream consuming LESS energy.
So, given that, let's say 5,000 billion kWh is our max - the concept that we should never need more power than that.
Also according to the PP home page, the average American household uses roughly 10,000 kWh (per year). I backed into the figure by using the statement that "4,800 billion kWh is enough power to supply 4.5 million households...".
Keep in mind though, that infrastructure, commercial and industrial power needs are in the 5,000 billion kWh figure.
Now moving on to the dollars.
Pickens says $1.0 trillion for enough wind farms to bring the wind power proportion to 20% of total. Plus $200 billion for the electrical distribution/power grid.
So, corporate sponsorships with little decals on the blades of the turbines aside, let's start talking about where we are going to come up with $1.2 trillion dollars. Or let's say half that as a start - $600 billion.
The momentum of this movement will solve the land challenges - that is the easy part to me.
$600 billion...plus the manufacturing capacity to build millions and millions of turbines.
According to this article on Wikipedia - "Wind Power in Texas", "The Wildorado Wind Ranch is located near Amarillo and consists of 161 MW of wind turbines (70 Siemens Mk II turbines each with a rating of 2.3 MW). These turbines have the capacity to meet the electricity demand of more than 50,000 households."
I'm not sure of the conversion from MW to MWh, but it it's linear, that would mean it takes seventy one [71] 2.3 MW turbines to generate 161 MW of power. It seems to me from driving by Wildorado, that there are more than 71 turbines, but let's go with that figure.
We need 10% from wind (remember, I am going with half of the 20% figures to start out) - so 500 billion kWh. 161 MW = mega is 1,000,000 right? Kilo is 1,000. So 161 million kWh?
I'm lost now. Any engineers out there care to help?
I'm trying to figure out how many 2.3 MW turbines it will take to provide 500 billion kWh....? I've got units/conversion issues going on. Let's just say that's a lot of turbines that need to manufactured - not to mention the manufacturing facilities that need to be built to do it. I'm sure the production capacity is not there right now.
Also, to get your head around the dollars involved, a $250 million dollar construction project is huge - like Coors Field (baseball stadium) in Denver. $4.8 billion is the final cost of the Denver International Airport. So, $600 billion dollars is huge - the equivalent of building 125 huge airports.
So, now I have my head wrapped around the problem...did this help you at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)