T. Boone Pickens' Epic Wind Fail 53 comments
Hard Assets Investor
From HAI:
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Julian Murdoch
It's all over the headlines: T. Boone Pickens' huge wind farm has been scrapped - or at least postponed. After warning last year that he was having difficulty securing financing for the project, and was terminating land leases in March, this week's announcement isn't a huge shock, but it does bring up some things to think about, and for Pickens' detractors, an opportunity for schadenfreude. After all, Pickens reportedly spent nearly $60 million last fall just advertising how awesome his plan was.
Why It Didn't Work: A Perfect Storm
Between the credit crisis, falling oil and natural gas prices, and a general decrease in energy demand due to the state of the economy, it frankly would have been more surprising if the large wind farm in Texas got up and running as scheduled.
Wind farms are expensive to build. The 667 wind turbines that Pickens' company purchased from GE came to a grand total of $2 billion. The total cost for the project was to be $10 billion. With credit tight everywhere and energy prices down, lining up financing just for the turbines was a bit more difficult than expected, but Mr. Pickens said he did it, and will in fact be looking for homes for those 667 turbines. Anyone want a small backyard wind farm? Pickens may be calling.
The next challenge was transmission lines.
Wind farms tend to be out in the middle of nowhere. To get the electricity from the middle of nowhere to the middle of somewhere, transmission lines have to be strung. Without those lines, the power is like a tree falling in the woods - it may make a sound, but who cares?
This has long been brought up as a roadblock to increasing green energy usage - the electrical grid in the U.S. is old and in need of repair and upgrading. New high-capacity transmission lines cost between $2-4 million per mile, according to a recent report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. If the goal is to increase wind's percentage of energy production to 20%, the amount of new transmission lines needed to handle the electrical load is estimated to be between 12,650 and 19,000 miles - over $60 billion worth. When I wrote about the stimulus plan in February (Is Alternative Energy Dead?), I mentioned that the U.S. had only $11 billion earmarked for investment in transmission projects.
As far as Pickens' Mesa project is concerned, the Public Utility Commission in Texas had a plan to invest $5 billion in transmission lines, but the lines wouldn't have gone all the way out to the Mesa project. Whoops.
Energy Prices
Oil is sitting around $60, and natural gas is a steal at $3.35. In fact, natural gas is so cheap that coal - the down and dirty go-to fuel for cheap electricity - will likely see a downtick in consumption. The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised its coal demand outlook for 2009 downward, and is now forecasting U.S. power plants will burn 987 million tons of coal.
"The 5.2 percent decline in coal consumption in the electric power sector is the result of lower total electricity generation coupled with projected increases from other generating sources, including natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind."
But just because the Mesa project is no more doesn't mean wind is done for, though even the American Wind Energy Association is expecting development to move slowly this year. 2008 saw 8,358 new megawatts come online, but 2009 is forecast to only see around 5,000 megawatts installed. All across the globe, companies are bringing wind farms online. From an offshore Welsh wind project that is scheduled to start this week, to China's push to grow from 12 GW to 20 GW by 2010 - more wattage is coming on line all the time.
But it is not all smooth sailing, and manufacturers are suffering. Guillermo Ulacia, chairman of Spanish turbine maker Gamesa, said, "... the industry will slow its deliveries to match supply with demand and avoid entering a dangerous spiral of price reductions," Reuters reported on Wednesday.
But even with the industry seeing a slowdown, two wind industry ETFs have shown gains since the beginning of the year. First Trust Global Wind Energy (FAN) and PowerShares Global Wind Energy (PWND) both invest in companies across the world that are involved in producing wind energy directly or providing machinery or services related to the generation of wind power. FAN holds 57 companies, including some companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell that don't, at first glance, seem like wind plays. PWND has more targeted holdings, with 31 companies - most of which are also covered by FAN.
It looks like a more targeted, narrow-focus approach is paying off in the wind industry, with PWND doing about 10 percentage points better than FAN since the end of April. And both ETFs have had a much better time of it than the S&P 500 since mid-April as well.
So even though it doesn't look like Texas is going to get its huge wind farm at this point, as we get through the rest of 2009 and look toward 2010, expect to keep seeing windmills in the distance.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 53 comments:
Wind is a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Once it reaches critical mass in places besides the halls of Congress (in the form of hot air, not practical alternative energy legislation) it may be a low-cost alternative that will achieve economies of scale. But for now, the only time profits in this area will be will be made if the national government announces plans to use taxpayer money for the next ethanol boondoggle.
The markets – energy providers, utilities, and consumers – know what the politicians just can’t seem to figure out: natural gas at $3.35 is nearly as clean and a WHOLE LOT cheaper than alternative energy sources. People are voting with their wallets.
It took vision, courage, and a good chunk of his own money and time to make the case for wind as a way for us to free ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. Maybe it wasn’t quite yet time for a massive wind power project on this scale, but as the technology becomes cheaper and the bugs are worked out of the smaller-scale facilities already out there, T. Boone will be remembered as the pioneer others followed on this trail.
www.junkscience.com/By...
The reason is that transmission and distribution costs are very high. The practical issues related to new transmission lines, environmental studies, and NIMBYism will cause delays, and no one knows how long these delays will be.
That's why distributed generation solar -- panels on the rooftops of buildings that need the power -- is inherently more cost effective. Yes, it costs a bit more (but not that much more) to put a 10 kw system on a roof instead of a 5 mw system in the desert, but there is ZERO transmission and distribution cost needed. There are also virtually ZERO line losses since you don't need to move the power.
There’s a lot of hype about centralized power generation — wind, solar, thermal. The hype comes from the manufacturers of the equipment, and the utilities that charge for the power. But the economic trends support rooftop solar over centralized power. Sort of reminds me of what happened to the mainframe and mini- computer industry when PCs took off. Anyone remember Univac, DEC or Data General?
Too bad if their ROI isn't up to snuff.
Some interesting facts:
Iowa currently has the largest wind power fraction of total power generation in the 50 states at about 20%.
Each wind turbine displaces about 12% of an acre of land from farm production (my estimate) for which a farm is paid rent. The vast majority of the land is still farmed. Farming is a high volatility business, so some stable rent payments is a good thing.
The turbines simply plug into the the excess capacity of the existing power transmission system. This is in fact the limiting factor for the number of installed turbines.
The noise level is very low. When driving very near to a turbine, one must open a window and slow down in order the hear the gentle whoosh.
Some obvious points:
Wind turbines generate substantial power at dusk and at night-time when solar is off-line.
Gaps in wind power can be filled quickly with nat. gas powered peaker plants. If we can avoid $13/MBtu or higher gas this a good combination & uses less gas than a solar installation would.
Wind power is a nice idea, but problematic.
I too frequently drive past the wind farm east of LA in the I-10 mountain pass and have been following them closely over the years.
My biggest problem with wind power is not the fluctuation, but the maintenance required for the installation. Unlike a steam turbine near a city center, these are remote locations where maintenance is expensive.
I think the transmission issue is overblown. I read the Pew report, but many seem to feel an up-to-date transmission system provides for moving blocks of power long distances between major load centers. Very few situations justify the losses involved in this and most are seasonal. One example is the Rocky Mtn Intertie to bring cheap power from the northwest to the southwest in the summer when it's not needed and vice-versa.
In most cases, a new line is part of the generator installation. The line brings the new power to a load station in or near a city or to a major dispatch point, usually near a larger generating plant. For wind farms, turbines can be clustered around one transformer and one line.
Citing lines apparently is a big environmental issue even in remote locations, such as the desert of southeast California. I've seen lines through farmlands all over the midwest where the farmer planted under the lines and was happy for the income.
It's a stretch to cite transmission as a reason for failure. As you said yourself, without the lines, the turbines are useless.
This year, the technology is no doubt still getting better, but the oil prices are much lower, wind is no longer competitive.
Yet going forward, what will happen?
1) Renewable Mandates: Utilities are being forced to embrace renewables. The cheapest option is wind.
2) Feed in Tariffs: In many countries, utilities are forced to pay more for renewable.
3) Improved technology: Its fairly mature technology, but it still has room for improvement, and therefore reductions in cost.
4) Better Infrastructure: Ok it'll take time, but smarter infrastructure will be built.
5) Higher oil prices: I for one certainly expect prices to rise over the medium term.
All of this adds up to a great future for wind.
Just kidding. There are always pros and cons. We'd be much better off I think funding wind turbines then ethonal.
Thank you.
By Johnathan Vrozos
johnathanvrozos.ca
johnathanvrozos.com
Speaking of wind, when it blows with great velocity, the T. Boone's of the world fly like cruise missiles. There is no need to present the counter position in that the outcome here is obvious.
On Jul 10 03:10 AM A Barrel Full wrote:
> Last year, wind power crossed the point where it became competitive
> with fossil fuels. This was a combination of steady development of
> the technology, and ever higher oil prices.
>
> This year, the technology is no doubt still getting better, but the
> oil prices are much lower, wind is no longer competitive.
>
> Yet going forward, what will happen?
> 1) Renewable Mandates: Utilities are being forced to embrace renewables.
> The cheapest option is wind.
> 2) Feed in Tariffs: In many countries, utilities are forced to pay
> more for renewable.
> 3) Improved technology: Its fairly mature technology, but it still
> has room for improvement, and therefore reductions in cost.
> 4) Better Infrastructure: Ok it'll take time, but smarter infrastructure
> will be built.
> 5) Higher oil prices: I for one certainly expect prices to rise over
> the medium term.
>
> All of this adds up to a great future for wind.
On Jul 10 09:09 AM IndidnaJohn wrote:
> Mabe he found out that the wind don't blow well at night when I want
> the lights on. Sometimes it don't blow in the day when I need to
> have the whole place working. Next; a plan to bag congressional wind
> and White House Wind. Yeah!
No matter the price of oil, nat gas is going to rise also.
Hmm, makes me wish that they were even farther in the distance.
More likely, the collapse in energy prices changed the economics of everything to do with generation.
Well lets wait a few more year and see what happens, politicians are more interested in farm lobby ideas like ethanol - what foolishness.
LNG first, wind second.
Tidal and wave action production third. Most of the population lives near the coasts. Put the production near the users and save $trillions on the distribution net. Duh. And the tides and waves work 24/7/365. Another Duh.
Folks, there is no energy source or way of consuming it, that can cut the corners of physics!! To get from point A to point B requires a specific amount of energy. Period. Often, a more efficient engine costs more to produce. We end up not much different. The real way to have environmental impact is to simply be smart about usage -- how much and when you travel, etc. Not the neo-Marxist dictatorship of what vehicles can/must be produced, and how energy can be produced and consumed. Cap & Trade and this whole environmental whack-job being foisted on us is simply a profiteering and power-grab by Greenie Libs and profiteers like Pickens.
The solution for moving the power of remote wind (and solar) farms to the cities is high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The established HVDC technology is more efficient than high voltage alternating current (HVAC) at distances of over 600km (373 miles). This is because the HVDC transmission line cost is lower than HVAC, but the convertor (AC to DC) and inverter (DC to AC) costs of HVDC are high but fixed. However, the new HVDC Lite from ABB and HVDC Plus from Siemens has reduced this efficiency crossover distance dramatically by using advanced and cheaper electronics in the convertors and invertors.
Another advantage of HVDC is the cables can be buried along highways. www.renewableenergywor... . Gone are the ugly towers and the “not in my backyard” problem.
According to the article linked above, there is a HVDC line running today that carries electricity from Utah to Los Angeles, about 500 miles. There is a proposal to extend it into southern Wyoming for wind farms.
Thus, there is a solution today for getting energy of remote wind and solar farms to where the energy is used.
On Jul 09 08:26 PM softomic wrote:
> Too bad. I drive by the wind farms in the Southern California desert
> all the time and think of how great of an achievement it was to build
> a renewable power plant. They are a sight to be seen www.youtube.com/watch?...
>
> Too bad if their ROI isn't up to snuff.
It's cng, not lng. There are already cng fueling stations in many metro areas. Corporate fleets have been using cng for years. One of the problems with conversion is getting EPA authorization. And if done right, it can be expensive.
Low nat gas prices have put a lot of ae projects on hold.
On Jul 09 05:57 PM Wisdom vs. Information wrote:
So, those of you praising T for altruistically pushing wind, you really need to get up to speed on the entire plan-- it would have made T another fortune.
see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's been there since the 70's.
Shuttling large blocks of power around is not real practical. I've heard it all, including sending PV power to "the dark places".
Considering long distance (over 100 miles) AC or DC transmission is usually done at >500KV (half a million volts), burying it is a technical challenge that urban utilities have been struggling with for years under the streets around the buildings. see PILC cable www.electricenergyonli...
Typically underground transmission is less than 25KV and short haul and is very expensive cable because of the insulation required. Many people don't realize the conductor in overhead transmission lines are bare, uninsulated aluminum. Those ceramic discs between the tower and the conductor are the insulator.
Despite all this pie-in-the-sky, whiz bang, smart grid stuff, the transmission lines will typically go direct from the generator to a dedicated load.
BTW I really don't think T. Boone forgot the lines.
The wind doesn't blow 24 hours a day, and there is no way to store any of the excess energy, so you still need traditional power plants to provide power when the wind isn't blowing. It's the same with solar, what do you do when it's dark? You have to have the capacity to make up for these significant shortfalls.
Also, you would need millions and millions of acres of wind farms to even make a dent in our energy production. The entire wind farm in Palm Springs California, which is MASSIVE, only provides less than 1% of the energy for California.
Nuclear power is the answer for electricity.
Much easier to do centralized production and distribution.
On Jul 09 07:11 PM rooferguy wrote:
> Why didn’t we build one giant nuclear plant in Nebraska — then run
> wires to everyone?
>
> The reason is that transmission and distribution costs are very high.
> The practical issues related to new transmission lines, environmental
> studies, and NIMBYism will cause delays, and no one knows how long
> these delays will be.
>
> That's why distributed generation solar -- panels on the rooftops
> of buildings that need the power -- is inherently more cost effective.
> Yes, it costs a bit more (but not that much more) to put a 10 kw
> system on a roof instead of a 5 mw system in the desert, but there
> is ZERO transmission and distribution cost needed. There are also
> virtually ZERO line losses since you don't need to move the power.
>
>
> There’s a lot of hype about centralized power generation — wind,
> solar, thermal. The hype comes from the manufacturers of the equipment,
> and the utilities that charge for the power. But the economic trends
> support rooftop solar over centralized power. Sort of reminds me
> of what happened to the mainframe and mini- computer industry when
> PCs took off. Anyone remember Univac, DEC or Data General?
> T Boone is a pioneer - has game chaning ideas - NG fueled cars ,
> Wind turbines etc - all are very viable ideas - he is simply ahead
> of times. NG fueled vehicles should have taken off a long time ago
> but the conversion/acceptance has been very low despite all the effort and investment on his part.
I disagree. His ideas are not "game changing". They've been around. However, I do give him credit for attempting to bring them to the forefront ... granted, he wasn't doing out of the goodness of his heart .. but that's what drives innovation .... PROFITS .. maybe someone should teach that to the current Admin
With that being said, the success of alternative energy (in my opinion) will ultimately depend on a real or (at least) perceived necessity for it. With oil prices heading lower again and natural gas being "dirt cheap", what demand or nessecity would there be to invest in alternative energy at this time? Unfortunately, I'm not all that convinced that investors (or government) will have the patience or tolerance to spend time and money on new technologies unless oil prices get up too much higher levels. Its a shame but i think that is reality.
2. He implemnted NG vehicles very soundly - approaching big fleet operators - providing conversion kits and fueling terminals. It was sound but somehow could not get buy in from a lot more operators. You can read about it in his book: The First Billion Is the Hardest: Reflections on a Life of Comebacks and America's Energy Future
www.amazon.com/First-B...
On Jul 10 03:36 PM Storm Cat wrote:
> On Jul 10 10:49 AM Fighting Yoda wrote:
I also saw a comment that wind power is now grid competitive; look at the FINAL cost of the project, $12B, and the amount of power produced, 4,000MW. I am a proponent of distributed power but let's do the math: it's terrible! what we need to move forward is rational discussion on the facts, not emotional pleas based on YOUR opinion
FPL had also planned to plug the transmission gap left by the PUC.
So the economic changes left several renewable players with unrecoverable outlays.
Nuclear waste is a big problem. Fusion seems to be the answer...but we're not quite there yet apparently.
In other words, only build nuclear where it has a clear advantage over alternate energy, and do it at a modest pace to not financially stress the utilities which leads to very high electric rates for consumers. Note that my belief is that solar will be at or below grid parity and batteries will be much better and cheaper in 10 years making nuclear look much less attractive.
The new small, modular nuclear reactors that use waste nuclear fuel are very promising. But, even so, they require much more development and testing and certification which means we won’t see these as a working option for at least 10 years.
I’m sorry to say the nuclear fusion is still very far off, like 25 years, from being commercial so it can not even be included in conversations. This is very frustrating for me because when I was an electrical engineering student in the early 80s when the talk was that we were going to have fusion power by now, 2009.
My take was that he was at the point where old men lose their edge and have over optimistic thoughts and plans because they have one foot in the grave.
Warren Buffet is there too.
I hope I die before I get to that point, or am sitting in a rocker looking wistfully into the distance instead of blowing my money.
The NorNed HVDC link, an underwater power cable from Norway to the Netherlands, just came online in May of 2008, and is proving to be a big success.
pepei.pennnet.com/disp.../
Here are some highlights about the cable.
The NorNed HVDC link has a maximum capacity of 700 MW and an operating current of 824 A. It transfer cheap hydroelectric power from Norway to the Netherlands. The loss for the length of the cable is 4%. NorNed project is said to have cost in the region of €600 million ($760 million), and took ten years of planning and a further three years of construction. At 580 km (360 miles), the NorNed link is the longest high-voltage submarine power transmission line in the world. The FMI cable has a novel design in that it comprises two independent cable cores made of braided copper stands, each rated 450 kV DC, placed side by side into a common steel wire armour.
Even Europe is beating the US in investing in the future. I know, we Americans love to bash the Europeans for being socialist and having high taxes, but all this up-front expensive infrastructure they are building now with pay for itself many times over for many decades. What us Americans have is Nancy Pelosi wanting to throw government money at people and pork barrel projects that have little long-term benefits (high speed rail), and the Republicans who don’t want the government to spend any money even when it has large long-term benefits. Progressive moderates, like me, are stuck between rock headed people (conservative cult zombies) and flaky headed people (California know-nothing-about-eco... not-in-touch-with-reality liberals). Yes, we are “between a rock and a flaky spot”.
Here is a link that shows proposed HVDC links for Australia and southeast Asia.
www.desertec-australia...
The map of the planned Chinese HVDC links, www.desertec-australia... , is just another thing that scares me about China. China’s government is investing in the future is a very big way. Even their stimulus package was infrastructure oriented. Because of this, in my opinion, the size of their economy will catch up to the US in a much shorter period than forecast.
Invest in China. Their growth is going to be much higher than the US for many years to come.
Watch out for a falling dollar. The long-term value of a nation's currency is related to its economic strength. The US's position as the world's dominate economy is going to continue to erode for years to come.
I like the business that ABB is in. I may invest in it after I do some further research. This is the company laying these undersea HVDC cables. It looks like their business is going to continuously grow.
Road Runner: What about a Manhattan Project for fusion? Stick the best minds in the desert and tell them they can't leave until they shrink that 25 year horizon into 7 years?
On Jul 11 12:58 PM Road Runner wrote:
> Michael Clark, I agree that we have to continue with nuclear power
> (fission which is what is in use today), but a nuclear power plant
> costs about $10 billion and take up to 10 years to put into service.
> This is a difficult financial burden for a utility to carry, so utilities
> are very reluctant to build new nuclear power plants. But, where
> massive amounts of electricity is needed, water is plentiful, there
> are no large earthquakes, and solar and wind can not meet future
> electricity needs, like the east coast, nuclear should be pursued
> at a modest pace.
>
> In other words, only build nuclear where it has a clear advantage
> over alternate energy, and do it at a modest pace to not financially
> stress the utilities which leads to very high electric rates for
> consumers. Note that my belief is that solar will be at or below
> grid parity and batteries will be much better and cheaper in 10 years
> making nuclear look much less attractive.
>
> The new small, modular nuclear reactors that use waste nuclear fuel
> are very promising. But, even so, they require much more development
> and testing and certification which means we won’t see these as a
> working option for at least 10 years.
>
> I’m sorry to say the nuclear fusion is still very far off, like 25
> years, from being commercial so it can not even be included in conversations.
> This is very frustrating for me because when I was an electrical
> engineering student in the early 80s when the talk was that we were
> going to have fusion power by now, 2009.
On Jul 11 01:06 PM ebworthen wrote:
> Hi commercials reminded me of Ross Perot.
>
> My take was that he was at the point where old men lose their edge
> and have over optimistic thoughts and plans because they have one
> foot in the grave.
>
> Warren Buffet is there too.
>
> I hope I die before I get to that point, or am sitting in a rocker
> looking wistfully into the distance instead of blowing my money.
The issue is not about a more narrow focus on some obscure aspect of wind power.
The issues are:
1. The White House, let alone Pickens, does not have a viable energy plan. It does not appreciate nuclear's excellent record for three decades and is still buying into the PR stunt entitled "clean coal".
2. Finally, the White House and most potential investors are not grasping the dirty little secret that wind, solar and all alternative energy sources combined cannot deliver more than 15-20% of America's energy needs--even by the end of this century.
Bottom-Line: We need to get out of "trees" like this article and begin to understand the "forest."
A S Prisant/Prism Ltd
Nuclear fusion seems to be in the same group of promising technologies as hydrogen fuel cells – great potential but major technical hurdles to overcome. I believe we should continue research into these technologies at a modest pace so that they will become part of the second act of the energy revolution that will start in about 40 years. That’s the part of the energy revolution where we start to go carbon free. Attempting to go carbon free now would only break our economy.
The massive power of a nuclear fusion reactor will be needed eventually to counter many of the problems of overpopulation like large scale water desalination and pumping, powering cities of 100 million people, etc.
Here’s some links to the 2 types of nuclear fusion reactors that I am aware of. 1) Tokamak which is a extrememly hot plasma (like the surface of the sun) being contained by superconducting (extremely cold) magnets. You can imagine the technical hurdles there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 2) Laser fusion which is firing an extremely powerful laser at a pelllet of fusionable material. Just building a laser powerful enough was a monumental and expensive task. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On Jul 12 01:49 PM Road Runner wrote:
> Michael Clark, I don't know whether the timeline for nuclear fusion
> can be shortened by the huge amount you are proposing by spending
> a lot more money on it, though more money would probably speed it
> up. It takes billions of dollars and many years just to build prototypes.
> There are major technical hurdles that have to be overcome. We know
> how to build nuclear fission reactors and it still takes about $10
> billion and 10 years to build one.
>
> Nuclear fusion seems to be in the same group of promising technologies
> as hydrogen fuel cells – great potential but major technical hurdles
> to overcome. I believe we should continue research into these technologies
> at a modest pace so that they will become part of the second act
> of the energy revolution that will start in about 40 years. That’s
> the part of the energy revolution where we start to go carbon free.
> Attempting to go carbon free now would only break our economy.
>
>
> The massive power of a nuclear fusion reactor will be needed eventually
> to counter many of the problems of overpopulation like large scale
> water desalination and pumping, powering cities of 100 million people,
> etc.
>
> Here’s some links to the 2 types of nuclear fusion reactors that
> I am aware of. 1) Tokamak which is a extrememly hot plasma (like
> the surface of the sun) being contained by superconducting (extremely
> cold) magnets. You can imagine the technical hurdles there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> 2) Laser fusion which is firing an extremely powerful laser at a
> pelllet of fusionable material. Just building a laser powerful enough
> was a monumental and expensive task. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On Jul 09 05:57 PM Wisdom vs. Information wrote:
> T Boone's scheme was larger than wind. Half of the plan is to require
> semi's (currently diesel) to switch to NG. This would raise the prices
> of NG significantly, thus electricity, which would then be offset
> with wind generated supply. Remember, T heavily invested in NG before
> this plan came out, and this scheme would have raised NG prices significantly.
> Unfortunately for T, the price of oil (for the semi's deisels) and
> NG collapsed and everyone lost interest in the NG powered semi scam,
> oops I mean scheme. So, those of you praising T for altruistically
> pushing wind, you really need to get up to speed on the entire plan--
> it would have made T another fortune.