Give a Gift

Wind Power Plan Is More Than Hot Air

The Pickens Plan is not a panacea for U.S. energy woes, but it will spur lawmakers to rev up the U.S. wind power industry.

By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

August 19, 2008
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

Can wind power provide 20% of the U.S.' electric power needs by 2030? Texas oilman and billionaire T. Boone Pickens thinks so. He wants to displace millions of tons of coal used to produce electricity, slashing emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that's been fingered as a cause of warming global temperatures.

And he's right -- or nearly so. But it will take a lot more than mega investments by him and other deep-pocketed investors to get there. The $2 billion that Pickens' Mesa Power is investing in Texas wind farms and transmission lines will help bring more electricity to the state. But sparking the mammoth national build out of wind power needed to take it from providing 1% of U.S. electricity needs now to 20% will take about $1 trillion over the next 25 years. It means installing acres of wind turbines across many Midwestern and Plains states and thousands of miles of new transmission lines.

What's more, utility companies and investors will need more assurance from governments -- state, local and federal -- that obstacles stymieing transmission line construction will come down before they make the needed financial commitments. "The big driver will have to be policies that encourage investments in wind generation systems and break down barriers" to the construction of lines to transmit the electricity from remote areas to cities, says Walter Nasdeo, research director with Ardour Capital Investments. In our judgment, the needed policy changes will fall into place, although the process may take several years.

The audacious Pickens Plan will help. It will get lawmakers' attention when they focus next year on legislation aimed at improving the nation's energy self-sufficiency and putting the U.S. on a path to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50% or so by mid-century. Odds are new laws will extend the current federal tax credit for installation of wind and other renewable energy systems for at least five years, ending the series of cliff-hangers seen over the past several years, as the credit expires and is renewed for a single year. That on-again, off-again authorization has curtailed investments, since companies are leery to place multimillion dollar orders for wind generating equipment if there's a chance the tax credit won't be available when they're ready to build wind power plants.

Congress will provide a big push for wind by requiring progressively lower greenhouse gas emissions starting around 2010. To help meet the new mandates, electric utilities will be lining up to buy power made by wind turbines -- in most cases, a cheaper alternative than building fleets of nuclear power plants, which produce no carbon emissions, or paying to pipe carbon dioxide many miles for burial in old oil wells or rock formations.

State governments will pitch in in a big way, too. They'll offer more tax incentives for installations, make it easier to build the new transmission lines that will be needed to move power from heartland wind farms to coastal areas, and require utilities to use more renewable resources. Twenty-six states now have such mandates, which are sticks, not carrots: "Utilities who don't meet the standards pay a monetary penalty" to state regulators, Nadeo says. Many other states will follow. The most notable exceptions: southeastern states such as Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi, which have poor wind resources.

Pickens is off base on part two of his plan, though. It envisions a big part of the U.S. auto fleet running on natural gas that's freed up by electric utilities shifting to wind. The technology is readily available -- indeed, many cities now run buses on natural gas, and a number of gas-powered Honda Civics cruise California's highways. The bugaboo is infrastructure: Converting large numbers of autos to run on natural gas would require massive investments to deliver the gas to service stations by pipeline or thousands of delivery trucks. In addition, keeping natural gas-fired power plants humming is a must if the nation is to build out wind power. They'll be needed to sub for wind power when breezes die down.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (13)

Posted by: windycity at 08/19/2008 06:16:02 PM

Current wind engery from ALL sources in the US provide only one tenth of one percent of America's electrical power, that means that an increase of factor of 100 to get to one percent. How many wind mills in total will it take to meet this dream? And Nancy Pelosi owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of this company, conflict? I wonder.

Posted by: Jason Vaira at 08/20/2008 12:20:26 AM

Does Nancy Pelosi and her 150k investment in The Pickens Plan pose a conflict of interest when this is discussed in the House? Will we hear anything from the ethics committee on this or will it be swept under the rug?

Posted by: d hall at 08/20/2008 07:15:22 AM

Wind invites more problems than it solves - 100 to 1 more land use than coal (not counting new transmission lines), intermittent supply, and need for government subsidies. The environmentalists will have issues because windmills kill birds and new footprints consume huge chunks of natural habitat. Lets not knee jerk away from petro until new technologies are practical. Try natural gas.

Posted by: John Miller at 08/20/2008 11:00:09 AM

Oil Shale will provide more immediate relief to the nations energy shortage. Watch for ESSE's patented field test results in October.

Posted by: Richard DeCorso at 08/20/2008 11:37:18 AM

Wind turbines have an extremely low power density (large size for power produced), compared to fossil or nuclear powered plants. A 430 ft tall turbine produces 2.5 mw, when the wind is blowing hard enough. This is expected about 35% of the time so the plant is really equivalent to a .9 mw non wind turbine plant, so you need hundreds or thousands to be equivalent to fossil or nuclear facilities which are a fraction of the size of all those wind turbines. The wind turbines are not economically viable so need government support for the investors to make money. A Better answer is to start a serious conservation program tied to building new or updating existing plants to the highest efficiency and lowest practical emissions(retiring some), and do this with private sector investment capital, not gov't $$$. Wind turbines may be needed at some time in the future but the economics do not dictate them now.

Posted by: Chuck at 08/20/2008 01:19:19 PM

Wind power is obviously a BIG LOSER. It takes big subsidies and big governemant penalties on it's much more efficient competitors. Since the wind doesn't blow all the time, you still need reliable power - gnerally meaning fossil fuel backup generators. It seems like natural gas isn't all that abundant or cheap. If it is much cheaper to operate, people will start using it voluntarily. Let's drill for more oil in the US, which will bring down the price of gas, and also many other things that use oil.

Posted by: mike holly at 08/20/2008 01:34:59 PM

Pickens wants to use wind to replace natural gas, not coal (as claimed in the second sentence), and then use the gas for vehicles. But wind should replace coal and you are right that gas should be used to increase electricity competition, not for vehicles.

Posted by: PB McDonough at 08/20/2008 01:58:48 PM

Good review of Pickens'incentive but shortsighted about the fleet of nat gas vhicles. What do you think the industry is going to do w/ gasoline (& likely diesel) consumption down? Invest in nat gas fueling sites and, importantly, electric recharge sites. Both nat gas and electric are viable, and become more so when the source becomes more competitve. Cost of Subsidies is a 'red herring'- what do you think the energy co's - coal ,oil, & nuclear (especially) have been getting all along? Land use for Wind power sites will be less intrusive in a major way (solar also); the 'footprint' for delivery can't be any worse than our system for delivery of petroleum products - tankers, fuel trucks, etc.

Posted by: Allan at 08/20/2008 02:50:06 PM

Nuclear is the only practical answer for electric power generation. The plants can be built near the major consuming areas and the fuel is recyclable. Wind, contrary to what the author states, is nowhere near as economical as nuclear. Having to have natural gas fired "spinning reserves" for power generation when the wind is lacking reduces the concept of wind power to a novelty. Subsidies, not practical application, are driving wind power. As one thoughtful observer noted, wind energy is more dependent on subsidies than wind itself.

Posted by: Bill Schwab at 08/20/2008 04:46:44 PM

Nancy Pelosi should step down as house speaker for her conflicting interest in the deal she was invited to invest in by T. Boone Pickens. Secondly, I'm all for renewable resources, however, looking at the example of how efficient our government has made social security, other than clearing the way for lines and wind mills to be built, they need to keep far out of this venture to assure it runs correctly and at the lowest possible cost. As soon as the government jumps in, calculate the cost, then multipy by 3, which gets passed along to us poor souls trying to make a living.

Posted by: bob at 08/20/2008 08:50:16 PM

OK 100 to 1 more land use? I assume you don't count mining land. Nice. Oil shale is expensive.

Posted by: Carol Neu at 08/20/2008 09:12:49 PM

Natural gas delivery can be easily solved. Since every house has natural gas supplied to the property, a simple at home delivery system could be installed and hooked up to a natural gas line so that you could fill your car at home, sort of like the way electric cars were plugged in at home.

Posted by: Al Lemack at 08/21/2008 12:15:24 PM

If powering automobiles with natural gas takes away that gas from providing electrical power generation (today about 20% of U.S. electrical power comes from natural gas generation) then we find ourselves with a choice of more coal use while wind power builds up to the 20% talked of above or more nuclear power plants. At best and after the wind power provides 20% of our electrical power energy, coal use will remain the same or grow with greater demand unless we do build more nuclear power plants. Four solution are offered. 1. Mr. Pickens claims that there are great reserves of natural gas available in the U. S. If so then perhaps there is enough gas to power cars and power plants. The question needs to be asked and answered. 2. Build more nuclear plants and define once and for all through a Congressionally backed scientifically validated legislation identifying how we are going to handle spent fuel and where it will be stored or processed. 3, Verify through prototype large scale installations electrical power generated through use of clean coal via technology to remove and safely isolate carbon and other impurites of coal from going into the atmosphere. 4, Use some or all of the above to provide a planned comprehensiv conversion. Considering these four options, we need to remember that an appropriate timeline for transitioning to any one or all of these needs to be considered to assure sufficient energy as we move ahead.



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
RSS