Use of wind energy expected to grow dramatically

[RandomGuy]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 12, 7:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Two decades from now Americans could get as much electricity from windmills as from nuclear power plants, according to a government report that lays out a possible plan for wind energy growth.

The report, a collaboration between the Energy Department research labs and industry, concludes wind energy could generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030, about the same share now produced by nuclear reactors.

Such growth would pose a number of major challenges, but is achievable without the need of major new technological breakthroughs, said the report released Monday.

"The report indicates that we can do this nationally for less than half a cent per kilowatt hour if we have the vision," said Andrew Karsner, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for efficiency and renewable energy.

If achieved, it would be an astounding leap.

Wind energy today accounts for only about 1 percent of the nation's electricity, although the industry has been on a growth binge with a 45 percent jump in production last year.

To reach the 20 percent production level, wind turbines would have to produce 300,000 megawatts of power, compared to about 16,000 megawatts generated today. Such growth would envision more than 75,000 new wind turbines, many of them larger than those operating today. About 54,000 megawatts would be produced by turbines in offshore waters.

And it would require a major expansion of the electricity grid system to move power from high-wind areas to other parts of the country, the report said.

"The United States possesses abundant wind resources," said the report spearheaded by DOE's National Renewable Technology Laboratory in Golden, Colo., and a 20 percent share of electricity production "while ambitious, could be feasible."

But the report cautioned that its findings were not meant to predict that such growth would, in fact, be achieved, but only that it is technically possible. And it acknowledged "there are significant costs, challenges and impacts" associated with such rapid growth.

It would require improved turbine technology, "significant changes" and expansion of power line systems and a major expansion of markets for wind energy to accommodate an annual growth rate of 16,000 megawatts of electricity a year beginning in 2018, more than five times today's annual growth.

Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, said the report confirms that wind energy "is no longer a niche" in the power industry.

Dan Arvizu, director of the department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said that the 18-month study provides a "vision" of the kind of wind energy growth technically possible.

"First of all, it's doable, second of all it's desirable," said Arvizu at a news conference.

"It's time for America to change the way we think about wind power," said Bob Lukefahr of BP Alternative Energy North America. The oil company is a leading wind developer, said Lukefahr.

If wind energy's share of power production grows to 20 percent, natural gas consumption is expected to decline by 11 percent and coal consumption by 18 percent in 2030, said the report. As a result carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming would be reduced by 825 million metric tons a year.

"This is the equivalent of taking 140 million cars off the road," said Swisher.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wind_energy)

This is where I am sticking a good chunk of my IRA money. Find a smallish player in a massively growing industry and balance a couple of those investments in a large-cap company like GE.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it's funny you say GE. look who owns Enron Wind. Yes, that Enron and GE owns NBC. Remember Green Week(s) on NBC pushing this alleged global warming? now what kind of an uproar would happen if it was Big Oil week? double standard i say.

[ChumpDumper]

Every week is Big Oil week.

Besides, GE has an oil and gas division too.

win-win

[clambake]

Every week is Big Oil week.

damn you, you beat me to it.

[boutons_]

Old McFlopPanderKeating flopped yesterday, coming out VERBALLY for wind, but a couple years ago, he VOTED to kill subsidies for wind.

Election year FLOP, perhaps recognizing the US people are very pro-environment, very worried. Principles? Grovelling and pandering

http://seekingalpha.com/article/29592-ethanol-tracking-the-presidential-candidates-john-mccain

Lots of encouraging "breakthroughs" in non-carbon energy production, eg:

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/05/08/sunrgi-xcpv-solar-system/

[RandomGuy]

Every week is Big Oil week.

Besides, GE has an oil and gas division too.

win-win

Ultimate win:

Vestas incorporated, a soon to be not so small company from Denmark that has a hand in natural gas, and is primarily a wind turbine manufacturer. See investor relations page here (http://www.vestas.com/en/investor)

European: win for exchange rates
Gas: win for gas prices
Wind: win for being a manufacturer of wind turbines

I bought this for one of my practice portfolios in August of last year at 342, and it is currently trading on the Oslo exchange at 577.

Kinda wish it had been real money, but the kids gotta eat. :depressed

[Don Quixote]

Can I hold you responsible if the stock tanks? And you make a ton of $$$ selling it before it tanks?

[RandomGuy]

Can I hold you responsible if the stock tanks? And you make a ton of $$$ selling it before it tanks?

I have no actual cash invested in it.

As for the stock tanking, that could only be determined by the time window of my recommendation: 20 years+
If you invest in it, and it tanks in that period of time, look me up, heh.

I will not try for short term advice, as I don't know what the short term will do. I am a long investor.

It is traded at the Oslo stock exchange (http://omxnordicexchange.com/priceinformation/microsite/Shareinformation/?InstrumentId=CSE3258), affiliated with the Nasdaq, but not traded in the US due to cost concerns related to the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

It used to be a pink sheet stock, but dropped that about a year ago.

As I said, I wish I had some money in this one.

The EU has mandated a certain % of energy be from renewables.

If you are a country and want renewables, look for solar and wind.

If your country looks like this:
http://www.wordtravels.com/images/map/Denmark_map.jpg

or this:

http://geology.com/world/sweden-map.gif


You have a buttload of coastline for wind power. Most countries on coastal Europe have large coastlines compared to total square area, and given the northern latitude, wind WILL be the primary choice to fill this mandate.

[RandomGuy]

I mentioned GE, and here is something to consider:

http://www.reuters.com/article/OILPRD/idUSN1521224020080515

Pickens' Mesa Power orders GE wind turbines

NEW YORK, May 15 (Reuters) - Oil investor T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power LLP said on Thursday it ordered 667 wind turbines from General Electric Co (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) as part of the $2 billion first phase of a planned Texas wind farm.

It said the turbine order was the world's largest for a single-site wind power development.

The 667 turbines are capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes, Mesa said in a release.

The four-phase Pampa Wind Project would be the world's largest wind energy generator, with more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 1.3 million homes, when completed in 2014, Mesa said.

GE will deliver the 1.5-megawatt wind turbines in 2010 and 2011 to the site in the Texas Panhandle, which has been identified as one of the fastest-growing wind-power-producing regions in the nation over the past decade because of its strong, steady winds.

While attractive for its wind potential, the Texas Panhandle is not connected to the electric grid that serves Texas' largest cities, meaning new transmission lines will have to be built to allow power to flow to electric-consuming areas.

Mesa has already filed a letter with the Texas grid operator indicating it plans to connect the first 1,000 megawatts with the Texas network.

Mesa will look at its options to move additional wind-generated power to markets outside Texas, said a Mesa spokesman

The state leads the nation with 5,300 megawatts of installed wind generation, an amount expected to swell to more than 9,000 MW by year end.

The grid operator has struggled in recent weeks with reliability issues related to the intermittent nature of wind power and some Texas market participants are beginning to question the need and cost associated with rising levels of wind.

"There is room for more wind, but we don't know what the upper limit is," said Kim Casey, executive vice president at Houston-based Fulcrum Energy.

"You have to balance the economic impact," Casey told members of the Gulf Coast Power Association. "If the cost of natural gas stays where it is, wind generation will be a benefit."

Upon completion, the Pampa project will grow to more than 2,500 turbines, Pickens said.

"It will be about $8 billion in wind turbines and $2 billion in transmission (lines). It will probably be over $10 billion," he told CNBC. (Reporting by Matt Daily and Eileen O'Grady, editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Derek Caney, Gary Hill)

[JoeChalupa]

My brother told me last Sunday that he switched from CPS to some wind energy utility and he actually had a credit on his last bill. Anyone else do this? I don't know the name of it though.

[RandomGuy]

If you are thinking of rushing out and setting up a turbine on your property, look here at the energy departments wind maps first:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/images/windmaps/us_windmap561.jpg

or for texas:
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind_maps.htm

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/Images/re_wind-class2008.jpghttp://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/Images/re_wind-class2008legend.gif

[RandomGuy]

Central Texas is ill-suited to build wind generators. All of these projects are either up in the panhandle, or on the coast. Solar on the other hand, works fairly well.

[xrayzebra]

Every week is Big Oil week.

Besides, GE has an oil and gas division too.

win-win

Yeah you bet. Read this dummy, it will make you feel so much better. Your
government at work, especially those in Gore's camp.


Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon
Inhofe, Sessions blast massive costs of global warming legislation.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/15/2008 5:44:34 PM

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.



Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.



“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).



Inhofe spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on May 15 to introduce the “We Get It!” campaign – a program founded by evangelical Christians that question the merits of global warming alarmism. According to Inhofe, the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate on June 2.



“So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,” he said during the press conference. “To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?”



Sessions, a member of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, went a step further. He cited sources that suggest the increase could be as much as $5 a gallon.



“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks,” Sessions said to BMI on May 14. “In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon.”



Sessions proposed that money should be spent on energy investment versus a regulatory bureaucracy to enforce the provisions of the Lieberman-Warner bill.



“So instead of actually coming forward with any idea about what to do about rising prices, we’ll soon be voting on a bill that has already passed committee, has some Republican support, that would surge the price of energy, create a bureaucracy – and I just don’t think is the right thing to do,” Sessions said. “I’d rather spend our money in investing in the new the technologies, helping get nuclear power online, improving batteries, researching cellulosic ethanol. Let’s spend our money on that without creating cap-and-trade bureaucracies that have not worked in Europe.”



According to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of a gallon of gas in Europe ranges from $8 to $9 a gallon.



Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher.



On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.



“Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”



The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.



Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.



“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”


Now doesn't that make you feel better.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, I am all for drilling in ANWAR at this point, because it will prove me right that it won't make a spit's worth of difference in the long run.

Republicans in the congress harping on it are trying to score cheap political points, just like the Dems that oppose it.

Cheap.
Political.
Theater.

[xrayzebra]

Dude, I am all for drilling in ANWAR at this point, because it will prove me right that it won't make a spit's worth of difference in the long run.

Republicans in the congress harping on it are trying to score cheap political points, just like the Dems that oppose it.

Cheap.
Political.
Theater.

Yeah, let's drill and prove that it wont help us. I like the idea, can we start
today? I wish.

[JoeChalupa]

We need to get off our dependence on oil. period.

[xrayzebra]

We need to get off our dependence on oil. period.


Well Joe, until we do, what do you propose. Horse and buggies, walking,
a streetcar named Desire? More ethanol? How bout more wind energy, it
is so efficient. Oh, and don't forget the environmentalist and Teddy, the
lifeguard, Kennedy don't like that idea. It kills birds and ruins the view.

Oh, I know. Like most you just think the government, with all their expertise,
should pass more laws and regulate us out of the problem. I know
conservation will do it. Ask Nancy and my most wonderful Congressman,
Charlie Gonzales. That is what they tell everyone.

[RandomGuy]

Tar sands on the other hand, are such a shitty solution all around, that I will never stop opposing them.

1) Strip mining vast tracts of land. This wouldn't be a mine here and there, but hundreds to thousands of square miles.

2) One ton of sand for ONE barrel of poor quality oil. Grossly inefficient.

Give a read on energy economics:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp

Solar is estimated to be about 4 times more efficient as an energy source and wind is estimated to be 3-7 times more efficient.

WHY DO REPUBLICANS KEEP PUSHING FOR THIS STUPID IDEA?

I want more energy. The choice is in spending money/energy efficiently, or wasting it on a horribly inefficient boondoggle.

Tar sands and shale are boondoggles. Period. Please stop pretending otherwise, unless you can repeal the laws of physics and magically make it more efficient than it is.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, let's drill and prove that it wont help us. I like the idea, can we start
today? I wish.

Find three figures.

1) Total global oil consumption.

2) Total US oil consumption.

3) Total technically recoverable oil in ANWAR.

Then get back to me.

[JoeChalupa]

Well Joe, until we do, what do you propose. Horse and buggies, walking,
a streetcar named Desire? More ethanol? How bout more wind energy, it
is so efficient. Oh, and don't forget the environmentalist and Teddy, the
lifeguard, Kennedy don't like that idea. It kills birds and ruins the view.

Oh, I know. Like most you just think the government, with all their expertise,
should pass more laws and regulate us out of the problem. I know
conservation will do it. Ask Nancy and my most wonderful Congressman,
Charlie Gonzales. That is what they tell everyone.

I propose we all do our part. I for one don't drive an SUV. I ride my bike to the store when I can. I know it ain't much but I also don't want the environment all tore up just for oil. That is just me. Unless we change our thinking, and yours, we are headed to higher and higher gas prices.

[xrayzebra]

Find three figures.

1) Total global oil consumption.

2) Total US oil consumption.

3) Total technically recoverable oil in ANWAR.

Then get back to me.

RG, just the simple fact we let the rest of the world know we are going to
start using "what" oil we have and not import it will affect price and
supply. OPEC and the nations who participate, but not members, have in
the past always kept supply at a point where it would not be economically
feasible to go after hard to get supplies of oil. But now they think/know
that our government will not allow drilling under any circumstances and
have limited supply. And to add insult to injury, speculators have driven
the price up to record levels.

The East coast, West coast and Gulf coast regions have a great amount of
oil. Let's go get it. It can be done with limited danger to our environment.

[RandomGuy]

We need to get off our dependence on oil. period.


We will. Eventually, we will go increasingly to renewables. Free-market capitalism at its best. Coal, oil, and gas will become more expensive than alternatives, and money and capital will flow towards renewables.

Interestingly enough, the first real photovoltaic cells produced over 50 years ago are STILL capable of producing power.

A lot of cost analysis of solar energy assumes a useful life span of 10-20 years, but no one really knows how long they can produce electricity, because they haven't been around long enough to really wear out yet.

This says to me that solar power from photovoltaics (like the little solar cells in small calculators) is far more efficient an energy source than current estimates suggest.

[RandomGuy]

RG, just the simple fact we let the rest of the world know we are going to
start using "what" oil we have and not import it will affect price and
supply. OPEC and the nations who participate, but not members, have in
the past always kept supply at a point where it would not be economically
feasible to go after hard to get supplies of oil. But now they think/know
that our government will not allow drilling under any circumstances and
have limited supply. And to add insult to injury, speculators have driven
the price up to record levels.

The East coast, West coast and Gulf coast regions have a great amount of
oil. Let's go get it. It can be done with limited danger to our environment.

We are drilling in these places already. Show me where environomental laws are keeping us from extracting oil. Seriously. I haven't seen it, and maybe you are seeing something I'm not.

How do you balance the jobs in tourism, fishing, and everything else with such resource extraction?

The Exxon Valdez spill put THOUSANDS of people out of work, and destroyed whole industries.

If your whole argument is based on the economics of NOT drilling, then you MUST address the economics of going ahead, and that MUST include the inevitable costs of spills, and other damage.

[RandomGuy]

Oil is a very useful substance, and not just for energy. It is worth noting that the chemical industry in the US uses as much oil in any given year as all the cars on the road (source was radio piece on NPR's business section I heard a while back).

I am not against oil extraction.
I am against bad ideas.

[xrayzebra]

We are drilling in these places already. Show me where environomental laws are keeping us from extracting oil. Seriously. I haven't seen it, and maybe you are seeing something I'm not.

How do you balance the jobs in tourism, fishing, and everything else with such resource extraction?

The Exxon Valdez spill put THOUSANDS of people out of work, and destroyed whole industries.

If your whole argument is based on the economics of NOT drilling, then you MUST address the economics of going ahead, and that MUST include the inevitable costs of spills, and other damage.

The whole of the East Coast and West Coast and most of the area off
the Florida coast are off limits to drilling, period. None, zip, zilch.

Let me ask you a question. What is the toll for the high price of gasoline
for the average working man or woman who makes 10 bucks an hour. Do
they count for anything? I don't want to hear about mass transit, because
mass transit is not a complete answer. When Europeans had the chance to
move to private (their own cars) they did so in droves. And they had a
mass transit system in place that is far way beyond what we have or will
have for years. You cant do a weeks shopping going by bus or light rail.
So be realistic in any answer you may offer.

[RandomGuy]

The whole of the East Coast and West Coast and most of the area off
the Florida coast are off limits to drilling, period. None, zip, zilch.

Let me ask you a question. What is the toll for the high price of gasoline
for the average working man or woman who makes 10 bucks an hour. Do
they count for anything? I don't want to hear about mass transit, because
mass transit is not a complete answer. When Europeans had the chance to
move to private (their own cars) they did so in droves. And they had a
mass transit system in place that is far way beyond what we have or will
have for years. You cant do a weeks shopping going by bus or light rail.
So be realistic in any answer you may offer.

I am all for realism, and cars of some sort MUST be part of the mix.

BUT

By the same token that you can't do a weeks worth of shopping by bus or light rail, you don't need a vehicle capable of holding a weeks worth of shopping by bus or light rail to transport a person to and from work everyday, do you?

[RandomGuy]

I don't want to hear about mass transit, because mass transit is not a complete answer.

No, it isn't. But then neither are cars a "complete answer".

But don't say "I don't want to hear about mass transit".

That rejects part of the answer for ideological reasons at the expense of practical solutions.

Better:

"Don't say mass transit is the whole answer"

You will have to include mass transit in the mix, because gas at $10 a gallon in the sooner-than-you-might-think future, people earning $10 an hour won't be able to afford it.

Mass transit is simply THE most energy efficient way of moving people from point A to point B. Energy costs WILL go up, and this WILL make energy concerns climb higher and higher on lists of priorities and considerations when cities plan their transportation mixes.

[boutons_]

WP will grow if the finance class, aka the sub-prime criminals, want it to grow.

It looks to me like advances in solar-electric cell efficiency and cost reductions will be more useful and wind.

But solar-thermal looks like the leader.

All 3 will make a contribution, but somebody has to pay for the massive construction investments. Finance people seem to have no trouble financing dirty coal plants.