Mesa Power Orders 1,000 MW of Wind Turbines

Mesa Power is in the news with its recent wind farm purchase:

Mesa Power LLP, a company created by T. Boone Pickens, has placed an order with General Electric (GE) to purchase 667, 1.5 megawatt wind turbines for the worlds largest wind farm, capable of generating 1,000 megawatts, nameplate, of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes. The order is part of the $2 billion first phase, see previous post, of the Pampa Wind Project planned in the Texas panhandle by Mesa.

When all the phases of the project are completed it will become the world's largest wind energy project, with more than 4,000 megawatts, nameplate, of installed capacity. When completed, projected to be in 2014, the wind farm will be five times as big as the nation's current largest wind power project, now producing 736 megawatts.

Pickens' claim that the project is dependent on Federal Production Tax Credits is disappointing. It is too bad that wind power is not commercially viable without subsidies on a project of this size. Others have claimed that it is competitive with natural gas power plants, which I suppose is dependent on the cost of power where the plant is built.

Pickens said, “I believe that Congress will recognize that it is critical not only to this project, but to renewable energy in this country, that they enact a long-term extension of the Production Tax Credits." The WSJ commented ". . . state-level incentives, such as laws requiring utilities to purchase clean energy, are bolstering growth in the sector."

To avoid some comments, it must be remembered that with wind power, most of the news uses the nameplate or nominal capacity, the power produced when the wind is blowing at some stated value, rather than the actual power that is produced. The actual production is 25% to 35% of the nameplate capacity because the wind does not blow hard enough all of the time.

This means that wind power especially, and to nearly the same extent solar power, must be backed up by some other generation means, unless it is tied into an extensive grid that uses geographical distribution over a large region or even nationally, or combined with energy storage, to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar power. Solar has the advantage of being fairly predictable as to when the sun will shine.

Without backup power, energy storage or geographical diversity, it is usually estimated that sun and wind power can only be used for 20% to 30% of total power requirements. Tidal or wave power have some advantages that I will not go into here because their use is very dependent of favorable geographical conditions. Progress is being made on energy storage, but it is not quite ready for prime time. I support using hot dry rock, HDR, geothermal power as baseline power to reduce the expense of interconnecting transmission lines, which will always be required to some extent.

Comments

[Steve Kramer:]

Interesting, but not quite on the mark. I work for a major utility and agree that the production tax credit is needed for wind development now but when oil prices rise to a certain level, bringing gas prices with them, wind will become viable without the PTCs.

You're also right that resources (either quick-start generators or demand-response) need to be available to offset the intermittent nature of wind. Please note that I said "intermittent" and not "unpredictable," as wind is predictable to a significant degree. However, even more vital to the development of wind is a more robust transmission infrastrucure to get the power from the windiest areas (the Dakotas and Minnesota come to mind) to the population centers where the power is needed, such as large midwestern cities and even the eastern seaboard.

When it comes to developing necessary transmission, single states like Texas and California have it easier that regions like the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Why? Because a power line must be approved by the utility commission of every state it crosses, and virtually every state has a law that says it must be shown that a utility facility will benefit the residents of that specific state before it can be approved.

Such laws are, I beleive, antiquated to the extent that we no longer have relatively small, discrete areas served by specific utilities. Today, much of the nationl is served by large, interconnected regional grids -- generally the eastern US, the western US, and Texas. There is no "nation-wide" grid at this point (and probably never will be) but the nation's electrical system is indeed regional and, if we're going to get where we need to be in terms of meeting our ever-growing hunger for electricity, we as citizens and our elected and appointed leaders need to look at the greater good and not just our own backyard.

2008 May 18 07:59 AM

[richjoy:]

When the price of any required product/technology gets great enough, innovation and alternatives arrive.

Unfortunately, various government "incentives" are required to assist in meeting start-up costs and reduce risks. (Unfortuantely, the 100+ year-old oil industry is still getting various and huge incentives.)

Bring on the hot rocks!...and all the other new energy technologies!

2008 May 18 08:03 AM

[jim collins:]

Have they solved the bat-killing problem yet? Bats can't see the turbines and get thwacked.

2008 May 18 11:41 AM

[maxbid:]

"The actual production is 25% to 35% of the nameplate capacity because the wind does not blow hard enough all of the time. ".......

You've never been to Pampa, TX have you?

2008 May 18 05:03 PM

[Enochs:]

I grew up in Pampa. The wind blows a lot because it's flat land but I remember plenty of hot Texas summer days that I would have paid top dollar for just one freaking breeze to blow across my face. I still think it is a great idea and I hope it helps bring needed revenue to the area.

2008 May 18 08:36 PM

[richjoy:]

We traveled Texas, from Texarkana to Presidio in February. We were surprised and amazed at the number of large wind farms in West Texas.

2008 May 18 08:46 PM

[Mark Henwood:]

1000 MW, not bad, equivalent to a CC or two. I'm sure the PTC will enhance the project return so of course it's "necessary". The reality is there are limited choices for new generation at scale and each has issues.

Nuclear - cost, public opposition, siting, waste disposal, incredibly long lead times.

Coal - lots of emissions, siting problems, transmission

Gas fired CC - great technology, cost tied to gas and hence oil, still cranks out CO2

Gas peakers - no big problems since they don't run much, good thing with intermittent stuff like wind and solar


Coal gas - uses coal, costs are huge, still kinda R&D

Wind (grid level) - works, not very costly, needs some transmission but this is getting done in some places like CA. Like utilities can rate base the transmission so why wouldn't they be all for it.

Solar (grid level) - cost and technology still being worked on, siting shouldn't be too bad, some transmission will need to be built, has potential

Solar (inside the meter) - costly but no siting issues so its getting a lot of play, still small quantity-wise in the big scheme. But easy enough to do that SCE is piling on the bandwagon to rate-base a couple of hundred MWs of rooftop solar at some huge cost......smart for their investors.

Biomass - resource constrained, but will get built where there are resources (if not already built)

Hydro - resource constrained and too painful environmentally.

Geothermal - the good stuff is resource constrained, will get build if not already built.

So wind looks good, PTC or not since something has to get built.

And the storage thing, that can be address progressively and later. The US has installed close to 1,000,000 MW (100,000 MW in WECC, 80,000 or so in ERCOT, and the rest in the EI) of capacity, plenty to dispatch around a little wind and solar for a long time.

2008 May 18 10:27 PM

[User 130657:]

IS T BOONE PICKENS WIND COMPANY (MESSA POWER) GOING TO BE PUBLICLY TRADED?

2008 Jun 06 11:57 PM