Pickensplan.com And Its Possible Economic Impact On North Dakota
Published by gwen July 8th, 2008 in Business, Energy.Pickensplan.com has links for people who want to increase wind energy production across the nation. Economically speaking, being involved in spreading the pickens plan could be a good move for North Dakotans.
North Dakota already has a significant surplus. Much of the extra money is due to oil development and the many good-paying jobs it’s brought into the state.
Increasing wind energy production would mean more jobs in the clean/renewable energy industry. This could help balance the ups and downs the state experiences in the oil industry, although the Bakken area and southwest North Dakota are both experiencing oil booms right now.
As I said earlier, North Dakota could have a significant role to play in the Pickens Plan. The state is in a great position to help the entire nation by increasing wind energy production, biofuel production and oil production. The fact that the nation is beginning to recognize North Dakota as a strong energy resource in all those areas can only be good for the state’s economy.
The Pickensplan makes sense, and offers us a course of action, while our leaders in Washington offer us nothing but politics as usual.
I joined but know wind turbines need an upgrade in efficiency. To maintain 60hz the turbine must dump the extra electrons. Better engineering needed!
Wind power is only one SMALL source that we should use due to its high cost for building and installation and it small return of energy for the cost.
We have a growing consensus that we need to drill, onshore and off. But partisan intransigence and absurd environmental claims prevent us from utilizing them. Instead, we’re offered bromides like wind.
Wind contributes more every year to our energy mix. However, it still provides only 1% of our electricity – compared to 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear and 7% for hydroelectric.
Wind power is intermittent, unreliable, noisy and expensive (even with subsidies). Many modern turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot-long, 7-ton blades that slice up raptors and other birds.
They operate only 8 hours a day, on average, compared to 85% of the time for coal, gas and nuclear plants. They rarely provide power during peak summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but wind speed is low to nonexistent.
Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require some 300,000 1.5-MW turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” acreage equivalent to South Carolina. The noise, scenic impacts and bird kills caused by such an “eco-friendly” energy source defy imagination.
Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build far more reliable coal or nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in the financing, steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the effects multiply.
That means vastly more quarries, mines, cement plants and steel mills to supply those raw materials. But radical greens oppose such facilities. So under the Pickens proposal, we would likely import more steel and cement, instead of oil.
Moreover, since adequate wind is available only a third of the time, we would also need expensive gas-fired generating plants that mostly sit idle, but kick in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement and steel – and still higher electricity prices.
A successful oilman, investor, deal-maker and speculator, Pickens’ large natural gas holdings position him to make billions from selling gas for backup electricity generation under his wind energy proposal – especially if drilling bans remain in effect, keeping gas prices in the stratosphere.
Launching the enterprise with the backing of federal mandates and subsidies minimizes his financial risk and attracts “free market” investors, by putting the risks for this fanciful scheme on the backs of taxpayers.
In short, Pickens’ proposal is “true green” – in the financial and public relations arenas, though hardly in the ecological sphere.
Pickens says we can’t drill our way to freedom from foreign oil. But that’s true only if we keep our best prospects off limits to drilling.
Open ANWR and the OCS, and the situation changes dramatically