I would recommend that anyone who believes in the Pickens Plan has a look at who he is, how he has been involved in politics in the past, what he owns, and how he is positioned should the plan be implemented. There is more to it than initially meets the eye.

Picken's plan is to persuade others to spend billions on retrofits and infrastructure so that he can make millions selling them natural gas. It would be better to use natural gas to replace coal in generating electricity. We can judge his committment to energy independence and the environment by noting that he brought his West Texas wind farm plan to a screeching halt six months ago when money got tight.

While his numbers may be wrong, attack the numbers, not his motivation.
It is fallicious to argue that because someone positioned themselves to make money from a change in the way energy is used. Anyone who has the means, and sees that a change is necessary would be foolish not to position themselves in such a way.
If I had more money I would be investing in wind and solar as I feel that is the way of the future. Would solar and wind power be 'bad' simply because I was making money if it succeeded?

The point is he wants government to pay big bucks for the major transmission lines (and condemnation of an access corridor) that would be necessary to carry electricity from wind turbines he would put on lands he owns in north Texas down to major metro areas. If it's such a great idea, let him pay for it. There are already major lines running through west Texas and along the Gulf Coast that can accomplish the same purpose, without additional cost. They just don't happen to benefit Pickens.

Valid arguement. But it has nothing to do with the 'his numbers are wrong arguement'.
As for your argument, does the government build the transmition lines (or pay or help pay for them) for other power producing plants (coal, nuclear, other wind farms, etc)?
I honestly don't know, but that seems the next logical question. If the government never does this, then as you say 'let him pay for it'.
If they do, why is it outrageous that they do so in this instance?

I'm really not an expert in this stuff, but it is my understanding the lines in West Texas are massive interstate lines and infrastructure that are there just because that's where it made sense. A byproduct of that is that now that wind farms are being developed, it makes parts of west Texas an ideal location, since it is close to the existing major distribution lines and has the right climae and geography for the turbines. You have a lot of happy ranchers getting some nice lease checks for allowing them on their property. Pickens would like to get in on the action with his lands further north, but it would require a massive investment to create the lines and infrastructure etc. just to serve one small area of potential wind energy. It is not economically viable and amounts to corporate welfare. There are plenty of other places to establish wind farms that are already near major transmission lines.

I attended a Texas Public Radio energy town hall meeting on 26 August where an interesting point was brought up concerning West Texas wind.

Only 10% of the electricity generated by current wind farms reaches San Antonio and points east - because there isn't enough infrastructure to bring the electricity to consumers.

Boone hasn't dropped any of his wind farm plans. He wanted to build the next phase in the Panhandle, but the back-ordered turbines (not arriving until 2011) will still arrive before the infrastructure is in place. The turbines will be used in other projects where the infrastructure exists so the power can flow.

It's my understanding that Texas' SB20 doesn't require that infrastructure improvements be in place until sometime in 2012.

Google "seco sb20" or "texas wind transmission constraints" for more info.

Andy

Retired USAF
Small business owner
Electric motorcycle operator
100% Windtricity subscriber
Pickens Plan Coordinator TX23

Ok. So Mr Pickens is going to make money and is looking out for his own interests. His ideas are sound and not too many others are taking action on the scale he proposes. We would be better off as a country if we built the infrastructure he needs and even subsidies the windmills then if we did not and they were not built.

We would be also be better off burning natural gas in cars. Even Mr Pickens's gas. His main selling points are true:

Less co2 output.
Nearly all domestic energy replacing foreign oil.
Lower ongoing costs vs oil.
More US jobs.

I don't believe that is a correct assessment. The capacity isn't there currently and getting the access for something this size is the role of govt. Utilities, railroads, pipelines, etc. have all had to lobby for such things. That is a fact of life. This is an issue in more places than one. Our regions with strong sustained winds don't coincide with the cities.

To really put this in perspective: We've got multi-trillion dollar "investments" in the Middle-East and elsewhere for what amount to energy access plans for ourselves and our allies. I can't see any reason to s*** a brick over transmission lines for clean power that doesn't benefit the nationalities and interests of persons who would do us harm.

The point is we don't need to spend huge amounts of public dollars to put expensive distribution facilities in North Texas when there are already plenty of other places to put wind farms that are near existing distribution infrastructure.

Again, that is NOT correct.

As I said above, I'm not an expert and am open to seeing factual, objective info or studies that show otherwise. Based on my current information, I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of people getting $10,000 a year lease payments that are very happy their property is already in good wind generating areas near existing major distribution lines.

There's a significant debate happening here in San Antonio because the local energy provider is considering expanding the south Texas nuclear power plant. The city keeps growing, older coal plants need to come off-line, and we can't get enough of the state's wind power 'over here' where we need it.

A number of companies are planting (or planning) wind and solar-thermal generation in the state, but the lack of transmission infrastructure is a challenge. There's a large grid 'battery backup' being installed in South Texas and it's costing an additional $44million to run 60 miles of upgraded transmission capability.

We've sent so much money out of the country each year for oil while ignoring our road, rail, bridge, and power infrastructure (and schools and health care). It's going to be painful to catch up, but it's going to be a lot less painful than more north-east blackouts or I35 bridge collapses...

Thanks, Andy. ggood's claims are BS.

God forbid incandescents be used less ... and 10 year old refrigerators be turned in for rebated incentivized modern ones (they're 200% more efficient) AC upgraded (same efficiencies) and SOLAR subsidies on public & private roofs. You want to save of wasted power? Generate it on the building that's USING it! Now THAT will do away with TONS of killowatts of power loss from transferring it 100's if not thousands of miles, and you won't have to build more hydro, nuke, coal factories. Now THAT'S a savings. MOST power is used during the day. The low hanging fruit (lighting, AC, etc) is the REAL easy savings, and it can drop usage by more than half.

.

Hi Shawn. I'm a little unclear why I'm being personally attacked, since the only things I've claimed are (i) it will cost a lot of public money, (ii) it will personally benefit Pickens, and (iii) there are a lot of windmills planned or already running in West Texas and along the Gulf Coast, located where there are already available transmission lines and distribution facilities. I have no idea where those lines go or whether new distribution lines to Texas cities are needed.

I already said I'm not an expert on any of this. I do know some of this is under study, and that some recommendations have already been made, proposed, and/or confirmed. I also know from a legal seminar I attended that there is a lot of public cynicism about the specific proposals that benefit Pickens' North Texas properties.

I'm all in favor of wind power. I just want objective studies or information showing that (i) any new proposed lines or facilities are at least somewhat reasonably cost effective and (ii) are actually necessary - more specifically, that the same urban areas cannot be served just as well by wind generators placed near already existing facilities.

For anyone interested in doing more reading, I did find the following article, which notes that it will cost $1.5M per mile to build new lines, and has multiple links to other sources of information on the subject:

Texas Wind Transmission Constraints

I have no idea how objective any of such links are, though. Even the seemingly governmental ones are probably influenced to some extent by the existing power industry providers.

ggood,

Your problem is that you claim the transmission upgrades are unnecessary for the alternative energy projects. This is false. You indicate that this is all just about Picken's profit. This is also false. You act like major transmission projects are purely private projects. This is also false.

Your thesis if wrong, yet you continue to push it. If that makes it personal, so be it.

As a former Houston resident I'm really skeptical of claims coming from that city in particular.

Hi again -

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming no transmission upgrades are needed in Texas or that they should be funded by wholly private expenditures. I just asked for objective justification of any particular transmission upgrades or public expenditures, particularly in respect to certain facilities proposed for North Texas (which I thought was the subject of the OP). Actually, I thought Pickens had already gotten some of those facilities approved, but I'm not really sure.

I leave it to the appropriate regulatory bodies and the legislature to work all this out. Of course, the Texas legislature (and presumably the PUC) has a long history of kowtowing to special interests, but that's a purely political issue. Far be it for me to object to corporate welfare! If Pickens profits from any of this, so be it, but there's no harm in being a bit skeptical.

Since this thread now seems to be political, I suggest the moderators move it to the political subforum (which I don't subscribe to...).

It is possible that Picken's real goal is to get the state to condemn a right-of-way, nominally for transmission lines but ultimately to allow him to build a pipeline to bring West Texas aquifer water to Dallas. Does anything prevent him from canceling all those wind turbine orders after the right-of-way is in place?