T. Boone Pickens

independent_thinker2002 · 07-11-08, 02:51 AM

Though he isn't running for office, this is an election issue. This man should be taken seriously. Check this out.

PickensPlan

MC.no.spin · 07-11-08, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Though he isn't running for office, this is an election issue. This man should be taken seriously. Check this out.

PickensPlan

Solar can accomplish the same thing (or concurrently), and even completely supply all electric power needs in the future.

Quote:

BOSTON — He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. He predicted the explosive spread of the Internet and wireless access.

Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years.

There is 10,000 times more sunlight than we need to meet 100 percent of our energy needs, he says, and the technology needed for collecting and storing it is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. That law yields a doubling of price performance in information technologies every year.

Kurzweil, author of "The Singularity Is Near" and "The Age of Intelligent Machines," worked on the solar energy solution with Google Co-Founder Larry Page as part of a panel of experts convened by the National Association of Engineers to address the 14 "grand challenges of the 21st century," including making solar energy more economical. The panel's findings were announced here last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Solar to compete in five years

Solar and wind power currently supply about 1 percent of the world's energy needs, Kurzweil said, but advances in technology are about to expand with the introduction of nano-engineered materials for solar panels, making them far more efficient, lighter and easier to install. Google has invested substantially in companies pioneering these approaches.

Regardless of any one technology, members of the panel are "confident that we are not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be [economically] competitive with fossil fuels," Kurzweil said, adding that it could happen within five years.

The reason why solar energy technologies will advance exponentially, Kurzweil said, is because it is an "information technology" (one for which we can measure the information content), and thereby subject to the Law of Accelerating Returns.

"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he said. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years."

Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years, Futurists Say | LiveScience

chevydriver1123 · 07-11-08, 09:49 AM

I saw him on CNN, all candidates need to heed what this guy is saying.

UtahBill · 07-11-08, 11:53 PM

There is a serious flaw here. Natural gas makes up 22% of the fuels used to produce electricity. He wants to stop using natural gas in the production of electricity, and instead use that in our cars. He wants to use wind power to replace the gas that was used to make electricity.
Makes sense at first. But consider this....natural gas is the fuel we use for combined cycle gas turbine plants. The advantage of the gas turbine plants is that they can be used as peaking plants. Peaking plants get cycled on and off as load demands dictate. They can be started and shut down almost as easily as starting up your car. Coal and nuclear supply most of our base load, natural gas is used for peaking plants.
And peaking plants will be needed to produce electricity when the wind stops blowing.......
So, if we don't have natural gas to run the peaking plants, how to we maintain electrical generating capacity that is responsive to demand?
What do we do when the wind stops blowing?

tryreading · 07-13-08, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

There is a serious flaw here. Natural gas makes up 22% of the fuels used to produce electricity. He wants to stop using natural gas in the production of electricity, and instead use that in our cars. He wants to use wind power to replace the gas that was used to make electricity.
Makes sense at first. But consider this....natural gas is the fuel we use for combined cycle gas turbine plants. The advantage of the gas turbine plants is that they can be used as peaking plants. Peaking plants get cycled on and off as load demands dictate. They can be started and shut down almost as easily as starting up your car. Coal and nuclear supply most of our base load, natural gas is used for peaking plants.
And peaking plants will be needed to produce electricity when the wind stops blowing.......
So, if we don't have natural gas to run the peaking plants, how to we maintain electrical generating capacity that is responsive to demand?
What do we do when the wind stops blowing?

That isn't a flaw. His plan is to start with wind generation, and as that replaces natural gas for power generation, natural gas can then be used for cars:

...

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.
...

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil - WSJ.com

This will happen over a ten year period. Meanwhile, we will be investing in our own power transmission infrastructure and paying Americans to do the work.

UtahBill · 07-13-08, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

That isn't a flaw. His plan is to start with wind generation, and as that replaces natural gas for power generation, natural gas can then be used for cars:

...

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.
...

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil - WSJ.com

This will happen over a ten year period. Meanwhile, we will be investing in our own power transmission infrastructure and paying Americans to do the work.

I understand all that, but what do we use for peaking power? Do we dismantle all the combined cycle gas turbine peaking power plants, the ones that are the best at coming on line quickly?
With wind power, we need peaking plants all the more.....when the wind stops, we need something to come on line, more or less instantly.
We can't take gas away from our peaking plants and maintain the availability that we currently enjoy.

tryreading · 07-13-08, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

I understand all that, but what do we use for peaking power? Do we dismantle all the combined cycle gas turbine peaking power plants, the ones that are the best at coming on line quickly?
With wind power, we need peaking plants all the more.....when the wind stops, we need something to come on line, more or less instantly.
We can't take gas away from our peaking plants and maintain the availability that we currently enjoy.

That type of math has to be done by people smarter than me. But the thing is to overbuild. Having built the existing gas peaking plants is an example of that. Install more than you need to cover for the times when capacity is high and normal output is inadequate. Even keep a minimal number of the gas peaking plants operational as backup for wind turbine power and existing coal generation, etc.

...use a probability-based estimate of wind contribution during important periods, taking into account a long wind resource record, and install, for example, a 20 MW backup? In this way the utility can rely not only on the installed wind backup (gas or whatever), but on the natural diversity of outages in other units. This reasoning is roughly the justification for the ubiquitous use of the 7% spinning reserve fraction, which requires the utility to spin an additional 7% over its load.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/20493.pdf

UtahBill · 07-14-08, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

That type of math has to be done by people smarter than me. But the thing is to overbuild. Having built the existing gas peaking plants is an example of that. Install more than you need to cover for the times when capacity is high and normal output is inadequate. Even keep a minimal number of the gas peaking plants operational as backup for wind turbine power and existing coal generation, etc.

...use a probability-based estimate of wind contribution during important periods, taking into account a long wind resource record, and install, for example, a 20 MW backup? In this way the utility can rely not only on the installed wind backup (gas or whatever), but on the natural diversity of outages in other units. This reasoning is roughly the justification for the ubiquitous use of the 7% spinning reserve fraction, which requires the utility to spin an additional 7% over its load.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/20493.pdf

I agree with the overbuild concept. If we have multiple sources of electrical energy to choose from, we can easily pick from the least polluting. As long as the wind is blowing, we use wind generators. When the wind don't blow, we should use nuclear first, coal next. Just bear in mind that while the output of nuclear and coal plants can be varied to some extent, those type plants cannot be turned on and off as easily as gas turbine plants. It will certainly allow us to burn less coal, and gas, but it won't save the consumer much money. Having excess capacity sitting idle only saves on fossil fuel costs, all the other expenses will remain, and the more power plants we have, the more we pay.

winston53660 · 07-14-08, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Though he isn't running for office, this is an election issue. This man should be taken seriously. Check this out.

PickensPlan

Mr. Pickens has been one hell of an opportunist . On this I agree with but I still think he he is up to some Hunt tricks.

DeeJayH · 07-14-08, 03:24 PM

I found this part interesting

Quote:

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.