Texas wind power initiative to blow other states away

Oh sure, Rock Port, Missouri managed to snag the title of being "100% wind powered," but Texas' new plan will make the Show Me state's gusty initiatives look awfully weak. Officials at the Public Utility Commission recently okayed a plan to "build billions of dollars worth of new transmission lines to bring pollution-free energy from West Texas to urban areas." The ginormous Lone Star state is already the nation's leader in wind power, but when said plan is fully implemented (pending final approval), it'll produce more wind energy than the next closest 14 states combined. Granted, customers will be paying a touch more ($4 per month is the current estimate) for all this clean energy, but pundits assert that the cost is minor when looking at just how much this will help out Mother Earth. Look for everything to go live in four to five years, barring any unforeseen setbacks.

[Thanks, Adam]

[LondonConsultant @ Jul 18th 2008 6:38AM]

After last night's lamb madras and peshwari nan with lime pickle, our office is now 100% wind powered.

[Rogue_Genius @ Jul 18th 2008 11:30AM]

I see what you did there...(+ 1)

[Rogue_Genius @ Jul 18th 2008 7:12PM]

What, low ranked!? C'MON!!! U gotta admit London's comment was funny!!!

Someone?

ANYONE!?

*sadly puts his "low rank" sign around his neck, trudges back to his cubicle* LOL

[jh00d08 @ Jul 19th 2008 11:41PM]

Damn... I thought it was funny too...

[collegekid13 @ Jul 18th 2008 6:45AM]

you know these are probably just to mount cameras on to catch them border jumpers on

[unreal mccoy @ Jul 18th 2008 9:26AM]

this isn't even close to the border.

[Rob @ Jul 18th 2008 8:45AM]

Whatever it takes, right?

[Austin @ Jul 18th 2008 6:57AM]

A sad day for kite-lovers everywhere.

[Rob @ Jul 18th 2008 8:45AM]

There are plenty of other places to fly your kite. Affordable domestically-produced energy is more important than flying a kite.

[MBN @ Jul 18th 2008 9:22AM]

Apparently your humor flew over Rob's head along with your kite.

[Mike @ Jul 18th 2008 9:31AM]

Along with the fact that the energy we already have is more affordable AND domestically produced. Why do people not get it that coal and natural gas are found HERE, and are extremely cheap, and even pretty clean?This is NOT the same issue as gasoline/oil! It's apples and oranges.

Wind power is NOT pollution free. Those wind farms are rediculous....have you ever seen one in person?

Quit wasting money on this crap and get fusion ready instead. That's the only energy source I'd advocate switching to.

[duffman @ Jul 18th 2008 9:50AM]

@Mike

Coal is NOT clean, and the output from burning it is what causes acid rain, and thereby high mercury levels in the fish we eat. Natural gas is better, but it's also going to run out at some point if there is never an attempt at alternative energy. Did I mention that NG has more than doubled in price recently?

The reason for all of this is, guess who? T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire CEO of BP. So cry all you want, but you have big oil to blame for this one.

[Mike @ Jul 18th 2008 10:26AM]

Duffman:

Actually, coal is much cleaner than it used to be. No, it's not pollution-free, but coal power plants contribute very little to overall pollution. There are only about 600 of them in this country. Compare that to automobiles, and you'll see the point. Changing from one coal plant to one wind plant has almost zero impact. However, it has a major economic impact.

Don't point at China as evidence.....they are using extremely old technology with their power production.....and they are burning more coal than the next 3 largest coal burning nations combined.

Natural gas plants are better than coal in many ways except cost, although they're cheaper than wind and solar.

If you're gonna spend this kind of money, build 2 nuke plants instead! Nuclear is cheaper than coal!!! It's the cleanest form of energy we have (wind power pollutes just by existing, and making/transporting those turbines pollutes enough to make up for their gains).

[MBS @ Jul 18th 2008 10:46AM]

Oh go fly a kite!

[nanomatrix @ Jul 18th 2008 11:18AM]

I feel bad for all the birds... sucks to fly into one of these bad boys!

[The 3rd Hot Dog @ Jul 18th 2008 2:12PM]

@Mike

If you're using the "manufacturing wind farms pollutes" argument - and I'm not sure if you are - then you have to consider that the pollution ends after manufacturing ceases.

In a coal plant, pollution begins with construction of the plant and goes on through its entire lifespan.

[Mike 2 @ Jul 18th 2008 4:49PM]

What happens when you stop the wind?

Each turbine extracts some energy from the wind (lets assume it blows constantly).

At some point there will be no useable energy in the wind, then seeds and pollen from plants won't spread, toxic gas build-ups won't be dispersed, weather patterns would be drastically affected.

One car doesn't contribute to pollution, millions and billions do. Do you think wind power would be "environmentally friendly" if you replace every car with a turbine? (Spoiler: The answer is no)

[andres @ Jul 18th 2008 7:00PM]

one car does contribute to pollution. do you see that hole in the back of yours, thats where it exits. turbines do cause some pollution in their creation, but its not like a coal powerplant is magically created without pollution. once a turbine is created, thats it. and if every car was replaced with a turbine, we wouldnt get anywhere because you dont ride in wind turbines, and wed have a shitload of energy from all of them.

[Ethan @ Jul 18th 2008 6:59AM]

Motivated by the price of crude, but very welcome.

[EdgeOne @ Jul 18th 2008 10:29AM]

This wind farm push, while innovative and welcome by many (including me), is still motivated by profits, political pressure, and large federal and state subsidies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAR6SpYoaE

[dagamer34 @ Jul 18th 2008 2:13PM]

So? That's how things get done in a capitalistic country. Investors will put in MILLIONS of their own dollars if they see that the US Government will enforce much harsher environmental standards. If a company's R&D department gets far enough long to make long-lasting, quickly rechargeable batteries, then the shareholders will benefit from that.

While price gouging is horrible in and of itself, greed drive innovation.

[notYou @ Jul 18th 2008 7:27AM]

"but pundits assert that the cost is minor when looking at just how much this will help out Mother Earth"

Where were those pundits during the last ice ages and their corresponding warm ages? If only we had them around then to give their assertions, maybe we could have saved Mother Earth!

I, for one, welcome our ever-asserting pundit overlords.

[Josh L @ Jul 18th 2008 7:54AM]

Obviously, our SUVs are now polluting SO MUCH that we've affected the climate in the past!

Great Scott, Marty!

[Josh L @ Jul 18th 2008 10:30AM]

Wow, I guess nobody on this blog has a sense of humor.

[Chuck @ Jul 18th 2008 11:01AM]

Oh they've got a sense of humor, but when someone ruins their theories so easily said sense of humor disappears completely.

[Nytrojen @ Jul 18th 2008 7:24AM]

Won't someone please think of the pigeons!

[Rob @ Jul 18th 2008 8:43AM]

There are plenty of those crapping all over the city in any town USA.

[dBs @ Jul 18th 2008 1:13PM]

Maybe the flying squirrels and bats then:
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200805171816

[TIMMAH! @ Jul 18th 2008 2:48PM]

Mmmm... yes they're delicious!

[iHoppipolla @ Jul 18th 2008 7:43AM]

Well done. And the bedrock of the Republican party no less.

[erislover @ Jul 18th 2008 8:55AM]

You can tell it is in a republican area because it is going to cost people more for the same amount of energy, instead of less, and still be called an improvement.

[M @ Jul 18th 2008 9:37AM]

erislover -
Do you think they have volunteers building these new power lines? Even if they didn't increase their power bills by the proposed 4-5 dollars a month and paid for it with a big govt. subsidy then they'd probably increase taxes to cover that.

Nothing's free. But atleast we're paying our own companies instead of Riyahd.

[erislover @ Jul 18th 2008 10:27AM]

@ M

Of course nothing is free. But if it costs more to implement this then it is the wrong time to implement this. One seeks alternatives when the current method is not efficient. If a new television makes me happier than my current one, it doesn't necessarily cost me more even if the new television is more expensive in strict dollar terms.

So therefore, perhaps someone could argue that the market price of energy is currently not properly accounting for externalities, and so this is an improvement. It might be a good argument, if the data is available. But then it wouldn't be "costing more" to do this.

And, sure we're paying our own companies. Not that I think that matters much in the grand scheme of things. Free markets, free trade, and all. Of course, it is more convenient for our companies to have us take the long view when it costs us more, but the short view to justify them doing it so they can collect.

I guess there's no law to demand consistency in energy policy.

[iHoppipolla @ Jul 18th 2008 10:37AM]

First off, I'm unable to vote so the whole Republican/Democrat/Independent partisan debate does not affect me.

Second, they're all the same, except maybe the Independent party but I cannot see America EVER moving that way so it's like that hot, talented female basketball player who somehow makes her way into the NBA but still gets destroyed every game who you want to root for but who you know should not be on the court.

it's against the Republican stereotype to invest into environmentally-friendly energy-alternatives so your Republican jab makes no sense.

Further, $4 a month more means less demand on oil, meaning more supply, meaning you pay less for oil.

Finally, this is an initial investment that will eventually pay for itself.

Check out Rockport, MO.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/rock-port-missouri-celebrates-being-100-wind-powered/

They save money.

[Technex @ Jul 18th 2008 7:56AM]

Good luck, this is the good future.

[Mic2000 @ Jul 18th 2008 9:01AM]

Exactly, this is a great example for all these other countries!

[Keisha Kornbread @ Jul 18th 2008 10:01AM]

Most of Europe has been using this form of energy production for decades. The US is sooo behind the times and it's about time this country started to think more about it's global affect and not just on cost.

[ryanb @ Jul 21st 2008 5:12AM]

most of europe doesn't. Germany and the nordic nations are the biggest producers of "wind energy" and they only cover a fraction of their energy used by the wind energy. France on the other hand covers 80% of it's electricity use from nuclear power plants and are building more so they can export power. That is one good thing the French do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/07/flamanville_normandy_northern.html

[rock99rock @ Jul 18th 2008 12:00PM]

This is the present, and the future :) Green Mountain Energy here in Houston, fully utilizes this solution already, and I love the fact that i use clean energy. Once I get my EV, my skin color will be grinched.

[AUTiger89 @ Jul 18th 2008 8:37AM]

Liberal idiocy.

It will only cost an additional $4 per month per customer in Texas.

Aren't alternative forms of energy supposed to cost people less?

Wake up, America!

[Oh Dear @ Jul 18th 2008 8:45AM]

Paying an extra 4 dollars a month in order to lessen the amount of $$$ that gets sent overseas to radical islamic havens is money well spent and an alternative energy that TX and the USA should embrace. Kudos to the great state of Texas!

[The 3rd Hot Dog @ Jul 18th 2008 8:47AM]

Alternative forms of energy are *supposed* to do something better for us as a whole than what we're using right now. If the opportunity cost for less pollution is less than $50 a year, then sign me up.

That way I don't have to feel bad about not donating to any non-profits.

[Rob @ Jul 18th 2008 8:52AM]

I agree. However, considering that this will be clean energy instead of energy produced by burning other products, I think it's a start. My only concern is that with all the "incentives" and tax breaks energy companies get from federal and state governments, why are our energy costs going up, by double digits, all over the country? Deregulation was supposed to make energy cheaper due to "competition" they claimed. But, if it's almost impossible to get fair competition in the cable tv field, what makes you think that we'd have that in the energy sector. It's not like it takes a couple of million dollars to do that.

We need an energy policy today. We haven't had that in decades. Our country is going down the crapper left and right, but all our "elected officials" worry about is bailing out big banks, with our own tax money.

[Mark @ Jul 18th 2008 8:55AM]

If you think $4 is too much, you're drinking the wrong cool-aid. All the objections I've been hearing is that renewables cost too much and will ruin our economy. At $4 (less that a gallon of gas) let the market work!

[rDub @ Jul 18th 2008 8:58AM]

I happen to live in Texas and have the pleasure of occasionally seeing the blades for these monsters as they are being delivered (the sight alone tends to slow traffic a bit). They are ridiculously huge and thus, probably cost a pretty penny which explains the extra $4 a month.

The savings from renewable energy is always a long term result not immediate. Long term, since unlike a coal plant this will not require any fuel to be purchased; and not immediate because obviously someone has to fund the initial development.

All said though … way to go Texas (and frankly considering how much history this state has as in oil I am pleasantly surprised to see this happening here) but then again Texas has an ego it has to maintain … everything larger etcetera

[Tom Gray @ Jul 18th 2008 9:12AM]

The $4 per month (which won't be billed until around 2014) is for the cost of the transmission lines. It does not include the cost savings that will result from wind displacing natural gas. Those savings are estimated (by ERCOT, not by me) to be three times as large.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.powerofwind.org
www.awea.org
www.20percentwind.org

[Brad @ Jul 18th 2008 9:10AM]

Since when did anyone say alternative energy was going to be cheaper. I think everyone has been pretty aware for a while now that going green means spending it.

[ds @ Jul 18th 2008 9:19AM]

Stupid nonsense.

I'm not sure why you think alternative fuels are supposed to cost people less. I think the idea is that they are alternatives to the conventional
fuel.. The price for all fuel can't logically be identical so alternative fuels will be either more or less than conventional fuels, but I have never heard reasoning that all alternatives must be less than the standard..

Wake up, AUTiger89!

[Dan L @ Jul 18th 2008 9:27AM]

I learned to speak conservative watching the last election so let me explain in your own language:

You must be a terror loving, al Queda jihadist to want to see America crushed under the heel of muslim oil control for the next 100 years.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

[Mike @ Jul 18th 2008 9:46AM]

Well $4/person doesn't seem like much, but it's $4/month per person. According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html there are about 24 million people in Texas (23.5 million in 2006). If every 4 people makes the average "customer" size (actually it's more like 3.5 or so on average), that means Texans would be paying $24 million extra PER MONTH. That's $288 million per year!!! That just doesn't make sense to me. It's a minimal gain in pollution from coal/natural gas (the big polluter is cars, not power plants!!!). I for one think T. Boone is an idiot.