Oilman T. Boone Pickens drops $2 billion on wind power
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 20th 2008 11:48AM
posted May 20th 2008 11:48AM
It looks like wind power in the United States is getting a boost from a somewhat unexpected source, with billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens recently announcing that he's spending $2 billion to build a 667 wind turbine-strong wind farm in Texas. That would translate to roughly 1,000 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power about 300,000 homes, but Pickens says that is only the start of what he has in mind. As he tells CNN, Pickens says he plans to expand the wind farm to a full 4,000 megawatts by 2015, which would likely make it the biggest wind farm in the world. What's more, in addition to pumping out electricity, the wind turbines would give a boost to the pocketbooks of anyone willing to put 'em on their property, with Pickens estimating that each turbine will generate about $20,000 a year in royalty income, although they apparently won't get electricity straight from the turbine in their backyard.Read - CNN, "Billionaire oilman backs wind power"
Read - Reuters, "T. Boone Pickens orders 667 GE wind turbines"
More oilmen should do this, with the fall of gasoline alternative power is a must. If they can't adapt their business, then they will die.
The reality is that this planet still has more oil than we already consumed.
We just need to be allowed to drill for it.
Wind power only makes money because it is subsidized, not because it's cost effective.....
And the carbon dioxide argument is getting holes blown in it constantly.
Al Gore, your lies are coming to haunt you!
It still doesn't excuse the fact that we do have clean alternatives that we can seek out. Even if it means a higher cost, it's worth it to keep the only planet we live on a cleaner place.
Personally, I'm tired of breathing car exhaust in.
@kjb434....
I don't know where you live, but try living in New York City and tell me that breathing in all that car exhaust is good for your health.
As for allowing to drill in other places for oil, how about we install an oil drill right in your backyard since you're so willing to do that. I, for one, do not want anymore oil refineries in our state parks, conservations, ocean, or near the New Jersey Turnpike.
And also provide some proofs and evidence to your statement that the carbon dioxide argument (I assume you're thinking of Global Warming). And also note who funded these scientists and researchers who are against this argument. And finally, provide the numbers of scientists who are for and against this argument.
@kjb434: come on, seriously, what are you going to do when all of a sudden you realise you had just burnt the last drop of oil, and then finding yourself powerless because there has not been enough work on renewable energy?
Think again: wind power will eventually become cost effective ONLY if you allow its development. You gotta start somewhere, and preferably as soon as possible.
This billionaire is probably planning to make all that money back by planning on carbon credits being forced on other companies.
I do have to say it is a rather interesting proposal to offer payment to people if they allow one of these turbines on their land, might reduce the cost a bit while creating an incentive to farmers.
I wonder if these wind turbines are going to be backed up by diesel turbines like the ones in my state are. After all the wind doesn't blow all the time, and sometimes it blows too hard.
n00b. oil is subsidized too--highways, roads, Iraq.
"I don't know where you live, but try living in New York City and tell me that breathing in all that car exhaust is good for your health."
I prefer the exhaust smell in NY. It keeps down the smell of dirty water hot dogs and urine.
Actually,
I have a two oil wells about 100 yards from my house!
Extremely clean operation. Oil refinery is about 15 miles away.
Also, the REALITY is that we will not see oil run out of supply within our lifetime.
Please take you heads out of Al Gore and Greenpeace's ass and start thinking for yourself. Read more than news stories and actually dive into real scientific journals.
A student with a second grade science education can realize that carbon isn't a pollutant and that humans, human creations, and human influences make up a portion that is less in a lifetime than one volcano eruption.
@kjb434:
"Also, the REALITY is that we will not see oil run out of supply within our lifetime."
I hope you Do have children so they can say "yeah my dad is a fucking moron and a selfish prick"
@kjb434: wow, you sure don't give a damn about your future generations.
"Also, the REALITY is that we will not see oil run out of supply within our lifetime."
So you're saying we should just keep burning oil and let someone else deal with it in the future? How nice of you. And with what proof do you dare say the above statement is "reality"?
In fact, what's more important is that we need to reduce polluting gases from burning fossil fuel. No one said carbon is a pollutant (do you even know what you are talking about?), but carbon dioxide and many sulphuric compounds do contribute to acidic rain and greenhouse effect.
I agree with kjb434.
drill more and end our oil worries today, whilst at the same time research for new energies. you people should know that the minds on this planet are more than capable of the research and development of new technologies.
Um. @kjb434, what the hell are you smoking? Yes, there is more oil in the ground than everything we've ever consumed so far. That's why people talk about "peak oil": the moment when we reach the half-way point, and production can only decrease while demands increase and everything goes to hell. It's not like you're sitting on the one big secret that all the environmentalists are trying to hide from you; instead, it's the very basis for all their arguments.
Unless you're just trying to justify your lifestyle by being ignorant, watch this talk by Albert Barlett and try again. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5051121482067161853&q=%22Arithmetic%2C+Population+and+Energy%22&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
About time to drop wind, solar, and bio, and switch to nuclear and hydro.
Thumbs up! About time!
Exactly, perfect example for every other miljonair/biljonar!
Also, it looks like he was about to sneeze - that will produce some wind too. Good man.
About time to drop wind, solar, and bio, and switch to nuclear and hydro.
he could've used maglevs
Green power is good, but this green power still makes fatcats fat. I want a low-profile relatively inexpensive personal turbine that can handle most of my homes needs so I don't have to pay the man.
"I want a low-profile relatively inexpensive personal turbine that can handle most of my homes needs"
I want a power system that can handle all of my power needs, not just most.
Also, the efficiencies of large wind turbines, justifies individuals not each having there own, you seem to want everything for nothing...
Jared, how do you extrapolate nothing from, "relatively inexpensive." Honestly if I can use my own money to do what I want with it rather than lining yours I am going to pick mine every time. And who says small-scale = efficient? Isn't usually through mass production that cost efficiency is greatest? Basic economics Jared, Basic economics.
David, it is the size of the turbine that produces the biggest efficiencies, not mass production. In any case the bigger turbines are also getting more efficient and less costly over time.
Also, I cannot afford the £25,000 plus maintenance Jandolf suggested later in a later post.
Don't ever tell someone its basic economics when you don't understand the big picture. I have taken advanced economics courses and courses in alternative energies. When it comes to turbines and cost per kilowatt, big is certainly better.
Man, I'll take what I can. Fat cats, pollution, whatever... One step at a time! I'm just glad to see progress.
"but this green power still makes fatcats fat"
He's building turbine at a cost of $3,000,000 per turbine with an income stream of $20,000/year/turbine. That's a 150 year year payback....for an old guy! It seems to me that he is investing in the future. Props to him.
@nd
I'm not sure that you're doing that right. He's dropping $3,000,000 on a turbine *plus* paying $20,000 a year to the land owner. That initial three million cost will increase incrementally each year.
I think he'll make his money back by selling the electricity - and I'm sure it'll happen a lot sooner than 150 years from now.
nd: the $20,000 dollar figure isn't the annual return on the wind generator. That's the 'rental fee' the land owner is going to receive for leasing the land for the footprint of the generator's base. The same usually goes for when people let cell phone companies put a tower on their land.
The generators he's going with are likely GE's 1.5 MW turbines. If generating peak efficiently, that means each one will output 1.5 MW an hour. The average Texan pays between 10-12 cents per kWh, giving the generator a potential revenue of $180 an hour at peak efficiency. Most industrial wind sites annually generate 60-80% of their rated max capacity. That would give each wind generator an annual revenue of $1 to 1.25 million dollars.
This guy is smart, he's investing 2 billion to build these wind turbines, and will make between 600 and 900 million annually from the power they generate, at current market value. The land to lease them costs 12 million annually. And maintenance is likely 4-5 million annually. He'll pay the investment off in 3-4 years and be raking in the dough as energy prices go up for the rest of the lifetime of the turbines, which should be around 30 years total. Everything after 4 years will be just pure profit.
Yeeeee Hah!
seriously, we need something where we can buy it at home depot and set it up in our backyards.
Aha, well, good thing you got the Doctor Strangelove reference, too. Maybe Slim was his grandfather.
Yes but can it generate 1.21 gigawatts?
I believe that the correct scientific measure is spelled "Jiggawatts" (or "Djiggawatts" if you're in Belgium)
I HAVE TO GET BACK TO MY OWN TIME! I NEED THE DELOREAN!
About time to look to the future and drop wind, solar, and bio, and switch to nuclear and hydro. More efficient and less harmful to produce
A win for everyone, I'd say, though I agree that this probably a money-making scheme more than anything else.
@ David: OK, it's not exactly cheap, but check this out: http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/11/15/quiet-revolution-wind-turbine/
Yeah, go Oilman T. Boone Pickens! The electricity grid cares not the source of the energy on it, it's only a distributer. The more alternative fuels pumping electricity to out Grid, the less of a dependence on oil. Converting the electricity grid is the best way to get every single American to go green. Most Americans will have to do nothing. While David has a point, that requires more people to do more, not many people really care. If you want green to happen, it's people with a lot of money and a lot of power that will be the first to make it happen on a large scale.
David's comment, which this partially (but not fully) responds to, reads as follows:
Green power is good, but this green power still makes fatcats fat. I want a low-profile relatively inexpensive personal turbine that can handle most of my homes needs so I don't have to pay the man.
Once again, I agree with you entirely, but that's not going to make it happen for everyone. This will
Holy shit, is someone somewhere making money? This must be stopped now!
Free caves and fire for everyone!
Seriously though, while this is excellent news, wind turbines (of the current design) have sadly been proven to kill a lot of birds. Why can't he invest in solar instead? It's less intrusive (wind turbines may block some people's views) and solar is harmless too.
Solar is harmless? Have you seen the list of toxic chemicals required to build a panel with a limited life span (not that I'm suggesting that these turbines are immortal)?
Wind isn't any better. Migratory fowl are greatly harmed by wind turbines.
Several California counties are dealing with the fact that their turbines are hurting endangered species such as the California Condor.
What's so intrusive about a wind farm in the middle of Nowhere, Texas? It's not like they're going to slap 466 turbines in the middle of a highly populated suburb. Solar, while great, and aside from not being "intrusive" has some drawbacks: Wind turbines work during the day AND night...solar, not so much. Turbines easily adjust to the direction in which they will draw the most energy; tracking systems for solar panels are expensive. There is certainly room for both, but at this point wind is more worthwhile.
Migratory bird kills were an issue with small, and fast spinning wind turbines (like the ones in California). Modern, large wind turbines, which are the size of the Space Needle @300-400 feet tall, spin at a much slower rate. They max out at a speed of 30 RPM, after which they begin slowing down to avoid damage in high winds. Even to get to 30 RPM, you have to have a wind speed above 40 mph. Large wind generators usually lope along at 5-15 RPM in 20-30 mph winds. Not exactly a bird hazard.
Not enough! We need 12.1 Jiggawatts!
Epic fail.
Fantastic. Finally as the sun sets on your ridiculous president, and his administration, green energy gets going.
When green energy is actually green, I'll support it.
pwned
And what's not green about this?
You happened to miss the part where T Boone Pickens is in this to make more money -- while still being "republican".
Your nation is built on capitalism... it is what you do best! Can't blame a man to try and make a buck. I still think praise is due.