Reply With Quote
T Boone Pickens can't get financing? Hmm...
Pickens backs off wind farm project: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090708/...ckens_windfarm
(Reuters) – Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens has called off plans to build the world's biggest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, the Wall Street Journal said.
Pickens said the wind farm project was scuttled partly because of the lack of adequate transmission lines to carry the electricity from remote locations to cities, according to the paper.
The oil tycoon had hoped to build new transmission lines but could not secure financing, the paper said.
Pickens plans to find new homes for the turbines that he already agreed to buy, the paper said, citing a statement.
Pickens could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters.
(Reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
There she blows!!
T Boone Pickens can't get financing? Hmm...
Conspiracy? If anything can get financing NOW, you'd think it would be alternative energy.
More like the lack of one. The banks can't be forced to lend money they don't have or won't lend.
Or maybe Pickens got cold feet.
That Blows!
Oh well. I vote we just build nuclear power plants instead. Screw wind power.
And I like the pun Drachen.
Pickens will leverage someone or some organization to partner with him around here to secure the financing. Dude didn't get rich by spending all his money.
The problem is that the only "alternate energy" we seem to have is actually "supplemental energy" because it cannot be relied on. Still have to have coal, oil, or gas plants running at idle or better in "hot standby" to produce electricity as the wind weakens.
i'll be interested in how this story turns out. i just can't whole-heartedly believe he can't get financing........
Because nuclear power plants have proven so much more cost-effective and cheap compared to other forms of power...
You do realize that NO nuclear power plant in the US has actually been built for less then about 4 times its original estimated cost, right?
(ok, a couple were actually built at only 2 or 3 times the original projected cost, but most of them went a *bit* overbudget)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-08-2009 at 11:17 AM.
I would normally agree, but these things are ing expensive as , especially when folks are doubting the efficiency.
I refuse to get into the power plant discussion with you again, but one line off of a wind tubine costs $300,000 per mile. Not to mention the substation cost, and that folks aren't jumping through hoops to buy the energy right now anyway.Because nuclear power plants have proven so much more cost-effective and cheap compared to other forms of power...
You do realize that NO nuclear power plant in the US has actually been built for less then about 4 times its original estimated cost, right?
Source?
I helped estimate one. My source is me.
Wind and solar are highly efficient and require very little land use.
i thought everything that came out of obama's mouth is from The Burning Bush.
Repectively, I think your figure is for transmission capacity for an entire farm (large group), and not a single generator.
I would also note that the same costs would have to be borne for any new power plant.
Your thing is more that the transmission would have to be alot farther and generall incur more costs in building the transmission lines than nukes, which could conceivedly be built a bit closer.
On the whole, I still prefer wind to nuclear, simply because the costs are waaay more predictable.
If one could overcome NIMBY and standardize nuke designs where they wouldn't need to use quite so much water, and not have a lot of fuel/waste shipments running around as security risks, I woudl be all for nukes, as a safe, cost-effective form of energy.
The manufacture and transportation of wind farms and solar farms has zero carbon footprint.
Ever seen a tractor trailor hauling ONE windmill blade? Nice.
Why is that?Because nuclear power plants have proven so much more cost-effective and cheap compared to other forms of power...
You do realize that NO nuclear power plant in the US has actually been built for less then about 4 times its original estimated cost, right?
From what I understand, the cost overruns were due to design changes during construction, screwy operating licensing causing long delays, and each plant having its own design, causing them to have to be built with custom parts.
If those issues were/are addressed, why would nuclear power be unfeasible?
yep. those blades are huge.
I no longer argue the necessity for wind turbines as they are making me a pot of money, so I don't care one way or the other if they work.
Having said that, a nuclear plant would cost ROUGHLY 5 billion or so? So what's that compared to the 750 billion we are throwing at stuff on a regular basis.
God knows I'm happy that we will finally have a distinguishable border seperating Mexico and the United States through the gulf of Mexico like the last "stimulus" bill had in it, but that money could have been used to pay a years salary for 9 or 10 ironworkers building a power plant.............I'm just sayin.
Not to mention that due to environmental restrictions and regulation, it takes almost two years longer to build one in the US then it would in many overseas countries.
Labor is expensive these days......... es got to get paid.
If solar and wind farms are quadrupled, maybe they'll show up as a somewhat thicker line on this pie chart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
