Cape Wind Delay a Big Win for Dirty Energy Interests

[kristopher]

...the bulk of the opposition to Cape Wind over the years has come from a multimillion-dollar campaign backed by oil and gas money—not Native Americans trying to protect territory they regard as sacred. At the forefront of the effort has been William Koch, who alone has spent more than a million to oppose the farm via a group called the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Koch is the founder and president of the Oxbow Group, and has made his fortune off mining and marketing coal, natural gas, petroleum, and petroleum coke products.

...Koch and his wealthy friends in the area are responsible for more than 90 percent of the contributions to the Alliance, and fundraising documents released in 2006 showed that those major donors gave between $20,000 and $1 million each. In just the last three years the Alliance has brought in $8.6 million, according to its IRS forms. It has spent $2 to $3 million a year to fight Cape Wind. In a 2008 fundraising letter to its wealthy supporters, the Alliance promised that it "will do what whatever it takes to win. We will never allow Cape Wind to become a reality." Despite all the income from well-heeled dirty energy interests like Koch and Yearley, the Alliance describes itself on its tax forms as a "nonprofit environmental organization."

...Though they have different stated concerns, Koch, the Alliance, and the tribes have united in opposition to Cape Wind. Yet both Audra Parker, president of the Alliance, and representatives of the tribes deny that they are mounting a coordinated campaign. Parker called the idea of them working together "media spin."

...Yet there's evidence to suggest the Alliance and the tribes are working more closely together than Green or Parker acknowledge. For instance, the tribes used Alliance letterhead to send at least one letter to the state historic preservation officer in Massachusetts. And the Alliance was clearly enthused to have the tribes step up with the historical preservation claim; Parker said it "would be great news" if their claim for historic preservation was what finally killed the project altogether.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/cape-wind-delay-big-win-dirty-energy-interests

[fascisthunter]

1. People love misery

especially when they can make a few bucks doing it. This country is run by sociopaths.

[TxRider]

2. Rediculous

[joshcryer]

3. The report or the fact that dirty fuel interests (and elites) who are in a vast minority, are...

...stopping a good plan to bring clean energy to the region? The people of the state are for it by majority, it should go up, it should not be up to some local rich people who don't want their view messed up.

(The fishermen may have a legitimate complaint, but it could be being exaggerated, I haven't looked in to it enough. NMBY.)

[TxRider]

8. The NIMBY excuses

[NNadir]

4. You mean, um, like, RFK, Jr? Last I heard this great NRC lawyer was in favor

of the natural gas terminals off Malibu, but didn't want to ruin the scenic views at Martha's Vineyard.

It's pretty typical, though, of the mindset of a particular class of anti-nukes, all NIMBY, no guts.

I'm sure that RFK - and you - will be very enthusiastic about building windmills in the pristine last bit of a shred of a fragment of the California Condor habitat though.

Neither of you never met a rare bird you couldn't dream of hacking to pieces as long as it's somewhere else.

Whattya think, condor or chicken?




I note with due contempt, that the 40 year old nuclear power plant at Oyster Creek, despite continuous assaults by mindless anti-science types, produces more energy, more reliably, than all the windmills in Denmark.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953">The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

We've been hearing about Cape Wind here for many, many, many, many years, so long that I have had plenty of time to change my mind about the thing.

I won't be built and if it is, it will be sea junk twenty years after its finished. It will do zilch to fight climate change and will merely increase the reliance of New England on its true fuel of choice, dangerous natural gas.

Of course, the dangerous natural gas burning will be accompanied by an endless series of equally stupid proposals to build giant temporary dangerous natural gas waste dumps off the coast of the Atlantic. The dumps will leak much faster than the windmills will be built and fall into the sea.

[TxRider]

5. Looks like a hawk or an owl to me

Certainly not a condor

[kristopher]

6. I highly recommend the "analysis" by 'nnads...

I hope everyone reads it carefully and focuses closely on the details.

It is a total success as a piece of rib-cracking entertainment, but if you are looking for a bit of guidance on how to lie with statistics this piece is something of a disappointment. I've pointed out the clumsy tactic of using a non-representative sample to base the claims of longevity on before, but I suppose it is good to touch on it again - in simple terms the author took a set of turbines as a sample and when less than half of the sample had been retired, used the lifespan of the retired units ONLY to claim that as a typical lifespan for all units.

Nuts huh? That would be like taking a group of 4000 children and following them for 20 years and then averaging the age of the ones that had died and then claiming the resulting number represented a typical life expectancy for all children.

But it gets even better (thankfully we have to leave the poor dead children behind here) as there is an additional complicating factor for wind turbines; and that was a dizzying pace of technological innovation that propelled development throughout this past decade. We went from 100kw turbines to 1.5 MW turbines almost overnight. Replacing older small models located in the best wind sites (note to 'nnads - that's the proper use of the word) made great economic sense. So an unknown (but probably very large percentage) of the retired turbines used to miscalculate the functional lifespan of a turbine were actually just pulled down and replaced with a newer more powerful model with the retired units being refurbished and sold on the used turbine market where most are probably still producing power.

So please - go to 'nnads dailykos screed and take your time to savor the purity of a truly dishonest argument. And be sure and remember this example of his "scientific" and analytic expertise.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953

I'd also recommend a full reading of the comments - here is my favorite. It isn't detailed but it captures the spirit admirably"
The diary presents a fundamentally flawed analysis of the data in a condescending tone. NNadir's mistake is so basic yet calls his critics ignorant and other names. I can't understand giving a rec to someone who is so childish and ignorant.

by NRG Guy

[NNadir]

7. I, um, note of course that you make no attempt to review the DATA in the post,

but find instead a poster - just one of the regular dumb anti-nukes who come into my diaries and threads to make rude red herring remarks about the writer.

I showed how to use excel calculations to determine the life time and output of Danish windmills, but um, as you have zero interest in math since it interferes with rudeness and handwaving you ignored that part, and searched out another dumb guy to focus upon.

It is not a lie in my diary to state that the data there gives the lifetime of the average lifetime of a hung of metal leaking grease in the North Sea placed by the Danes has an average lifespan of 15.9 years,

I have followed the lives of 1,927 Danish windmills using data provided on line by the Danish Government, and you say that I am a liar based on the fact that I say what you don't want to hear, since it violates your faith based approach to energy.

I do read what you write and comment on it, because I am cruel and it's like shooting ducks, and not the brightest ducks in the flock either, in a barrel.

[bananas]

9. You misinterpret the data and your math sucks.

And you keep reposting the link to your bizarre "analysis".
You're either intentionally misrepresenting the data, or you're too stupid to understand it, or both.
You're either a liar or an idiot or both.

[joshcryer]

11. Where did he misinterpret data? His post consisted mostly of ranting.

The data itself is sound, as you can verify yourself simply by opening Excel (or O-O Calc, or Google Office Spreadsheet). Whether or not it is significant, I would probably say no. Operating lifetimes are not that big of a deal, as the technology will improve over time.

[kristopher]

12. You really don't see how the analysis is fundamentally invalid?

And thus a misrepresentation of the data?

Perhaps you don't understand what "the data" in his effort means.

[joshcryer]

15. He is quite clear that he is looking at decommissioned wind turbines.

Now if he was claiming that this was the operational lifetime of all Danish wind turbines, then we'd have an issue. But only people who read the title of a posting and go no further would be that foolish.

[kristopher]

19. That is EXACTLY what he claimed.

Yes it is clear he only looked at decommissioned wind turbines, that is WHY it is such a sham.

Title:
The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

You claim it is only "implied" when it is a clear statement. His title sets the goal of the analysis - the fact that his analysis is so fundamentally and fatally flawed is a result of his complete lack of regard for the truth, not an error on the part of readers.

Your support this "analysis" as valid means either you have no regard for the truth yourself or that you lack even the most fundamental analytic ability. I'm inclined to think both since if you appreciated how very wrong it was, you'd not defend it even if you were dishonest.

[joshcryer]

21. Indeed, you read the title and judged based solely on it.

Typical.

[kristopher]

23. No I read the entire screed.

This isn't the first time he has trotted out this tripe.

Here is a challenge - retitle the article so that it describes what you think the analysis is attempting to show.

[joshcryer]

24. Sure.

The Operational Lifetime of Decommissioned Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

I see no where in the actual screed where he claims that these numbers are all time.

What do you consider the operational lifetime of modern wind turbines, btw?

[kristopher]

25. Why did you add "decommisioned"?

Why didn't he?

What is the value of that information or what issue is the author trying to inform?

Remember, he presents his conclusions in the text of his screed.

[bananas]

32. See post #30. nt

[TxRider]

27. Gotta agree with Kristopher

The title claims the post to be what the text of the post is not.

Misleading at best.

[bananas]

30. Intentionally misleading - he explicitly repeats the claim over and over

For example in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=195059&mesg_id=195090

As I pointed out elsewhere, the average lifetime of a wind plant is, um, 15 years in the dangerous fossil fuel Kingdom of Denmark, The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

Even after his junk science "analysis" was shown to be completely wrong:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/33#c33

This diary's main conclusion is flat-out wrong. (18+ / 0-)

I looked again at the numbers, a bit more closely than in my previous comment a few minutes ago. The major conclusion of this diary (that Danish turbines have an operational lifetime of 15 years) is flat-out wrong.

I noted above that NNadir had made an error in his analysis-- he used data about decomissioned wind turbines to draw conclusions about all wind turbines. So let's see what happens when we look a little bit more carefully.

According to the spreadsheet NNadir cites, there were 128 wind turbines commissioned in 1993. If the mean operational life were 15 years, we would expect that about half of the turbines installed 15 years ago would now be decomssioned.

In fact, only 7% were decomissioned.

Among turbines installed in 1992, about 80% are still working, as are 94% of those installed in 1994.

In fact, the data NNadir cites demonstrate that after 15 years, the overwhelming majority of wind turbines will still be working.

(It would be interesting to analyze what fraction of turbines installed in 1970 were still working in 1985, what fraction installed in 1980 were still working in 1995, etc, and to see if there's a trend. But I'm too lazy.)

At any rate, it is clear that NNadir's conclusion is simply not supported by the data he cites. In fact, the data disprove it.

by chapter1 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM PST

and:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/127#c127

This is complete bullshit (1+ / 0-)

Anyone can refute this in 10 seconds. No detailed knowledge of Danish wind industry required.

Just type "denmark wind repowering" into any search engine, and find many links that explain the primary reason for dismantling many small older wind turbines in that country: to erect modern larger turbines on the same land. For example, this snippet from the first link I found:

Denmark was the first country to actively support wind repowering, in part because wind turbine installation began in the early 1980s, so a large number of aging, small (<75 kW) wind turbines exist throughout the country. Denmark recognized that these smaller, aging turbines were an obstacle to new project development, and that removing and repowering those turbines would require an overt and explicit incentive. Denmark’s repowering program has led to the repowering of two-thirds of the oldest turbines in the country.</p>

Denmark’s first incentive program for repowering wind operated from April 2001 – December 2003. For turbines smaller than 100 kW, "repowering certificates" allowed owners to install three times the capacity removed and receive an additional feed-in tariff price of 2.3 cents/kWh for the first 12,000 full load hours (5 years) of the enlarged wind project. For turbines in the 100-150 kW size range, owners could install twice the capacity removed and receive the same treatment.

As a result of this program, 1,480 turbines totaling 121.7 MW were replaced with 272 new turbines totaling 331.5 MW. Some owners of older wind projects also decided to decommission their projects and sell their repowering certificates to other wind developers.

Denmark has continued to encourage wind repowering through a policy enacted via the Energy Policy Agreement of March 2004. ...

It continues, but I think that snippet is sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of your ignorance of the Danish wind industry.

[bananas]

26. NNadir clearly misinterpreted the data.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/33#c33

This diary's main conclusion is flat-out wrong. (18+ / 0-)

I looked again at the numbers, a bit more closely than in my previous comment a few minutes ago. The major conclusion of this diary (that Danish turbines have an operational lifetime of 15 years) is flat-out wrong.

I noted above that NNadir had made an error in his analysis-- he used data about decomissioned wind turbines to draw conclusions about all wind turbines. So let's see what happens when we look a little bit more carefully.

According to the spreadsheet NNadir cites, there were 128 wind turbines commissioned in 1993. If the mean operational life were 15 years, we would expect that about half of the turbines installed 15 years ago would now be decomssioned.

In fact, only 7% were decomissioned.

Among turbines installed in 1992, about 80% are still working, as are 94% of those installed in 1994.

In fact, the data NNadir cites demonstrate that after 15 years, the overwhelming majority of wind turbines will still be working.

(It would be interesting to analyze what fraction of turbines installed in 1970 were still working in 1985, what fraction installed in 1980 were still working in 1995, etc, and to see if there's a trend. But I'm too lazy.)

At any rate, it is clear that NNadir's conclusion is simply not supported by the data he cites. In fact, the data disprove it.

by chapter1 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM PST

[bananas]

28. Here is another post where NNadir explicitly makes that false claim

He keeps spamming this crap everywhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=195059&mesg_id=195090

As I pointed out elsewhere, the average lifetime of a wind plant is, um, 15 years in the dangerous fossil fuel Kingdom of Denmark, The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

edit to add: reading NNadir's posts is like watching Fox News - the more you read, the less you know, because so much of the information is wrong.

[bananas]

13. Here's a couple of examples

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/25#c25

Diary title is highly misleading (12+ / 0-)

because it does not correctly describe the calculation you did.

Your calculation reports the median lifetime of 1927 decommissioned windmills in Denmark-- not the median lifetime of the >5000 windmills in the spreadsheet you cite.

To understand the difference, let's consider my experience with compact fluorescent light bulbs. Maybe 10% of the ones I've bought simply don't work, or else burn out within a couple of days. But every CFL I've installed that lasted a week is still in there.

Using your method of calculation (including only the ones that burned out), the operational lifetime of a CFL is probably a day or two, or perhaps even zero.

But it would probably be more accurate to say they have a lifespan of years.

BTW, what is the operational lifespan of nuclear power plant.. if we use only decommissioned plants to make this calculation and ignore all the ones which are still working well?

(And note that none of this takes into account that wind turbines installed today may actually be better than the ones installed a few decades ago.)

by chapter1 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:52:45 PM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/127#c127

This is complete bullshit (1+ / 0-)

Anyone can refute this in 10 seconds. No detailed knowledge of Danish wind industry required.

Just type "denmark wind repowering" into any search engine, and find many links that explain the primary reason for dismantling many small older wind turbines in that country: to erect modern larger turbines on the same land. For example, this snippet from the first link I found:

Denmark was the first country to actively support wind repowering, in part because wind turbine installation began in the early 1980s, so a large number of aging, small (<75 kW) wind turbines exist throughout the country. Denmark recognized that these smaller, aging turbines were an obstacle to new project development, and that removing and repowering those turbines would require an overt and explicit incentive. Denmark’s repowering program has led to the repowering of two-thirds of the oldest turbines in the country.</p>

Denmark’s first incentive program for repowering wind operated from April 2001 – December 2003. For turbines smaller than 100 kW, "repowering certificates" allowed owners to install three times the capacity removed and receive an additional feed-in tariff price of 2.3 cents/kWh for the first 12,000 full load hours (5 years) of the enlarged wind project. For turbines in the 100-150 kW size range, owners could install twice the capacity removed and receive the same treatment.

As a result of this program, 1,480 turbines totaling 121.7 MW were replaced with 272 new turbines totaling 331.5 MW. Some owners of older wind projects also decided to decommission their projects and sell their repowering certificates to other wind developers.

Denmark has continued to encourage wind repowering through a policy enacted via the Energy Policy Agreement of March 2004. ...

It continues, but I think that snippet is sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of your ignorance of the Danish wind industry.

by retrograde on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM PST

[joshcryer]

16. The comment retrograde responded to is more telling.

NNadir thinks that replacing wind turbines with improved ones necessitates a negative environmental cost, which is why he focused solely on decommissioned wind turbines. But renovating wind turbines (once the established infrastructure exists, good foundations, large enough towers) will be the future paradigm.

From his diary:

One of the conceits of the "renewables will save us" industry - besides the conceit that its members are generous, kind, fair, balanced and motivated only by the highest concern for humanity, while I am the opposite of these things - is that we should continuously replace renewable stuff with better renewable stuff because it's better than the old renewable stuff.

This reads a lot, to me, like the planned obsolesence that did so much to destroy the air, water and land in the last half of the 20th century.

This is a rather neo-luddite position to have, in my experience.

As far as the data "analysis" goes, I simply read what he did and did not find anything wrong with it since he clearly stated he was looking at decommissioned turbines and made no statement (outside of his topic in which it could be implied) that the numbers applied to the industry as a whole, either now or in the future.

[kristopher]

20. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[bananas]

29. That was already debunked - NNadir was just pulling shit out of his ass

That comment you refer to was part of a subthread which started with this:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/28/185825/42/33#c33

This diary's main conclusion is flat-out wrong. (18+ / 0-)

I looked again at the numbers, a bit more closely than in my previous comment a few minutes ago. The major conclusion of this diary (that Danish turbines have an operational lifetime of 15 years) is flat-out wrong.

I noted above that NNadir had made an error in his analysis-- he used data about decomissioned wind turbines to draw conclusions about all wind turbines. So let's see what happens when we look a little bit more carefully.

According to the spreadsheet NNadir cites, there were 128 wind turbines commissioned in 1993. If the mean operational life were 15 years, we would expect that about half of the turbines installed 15 years ago would now be decomssioned.

In fact, only 7% were decomissioned.

Among turbines installed in 1992, about 80% are still working, as are 94% of those installed in 1994.

In fact, the data NNadir cites demonstrate that after 15 years, the overwhelming majority of wind turbines will still be working.

(It would be interesting to analyze what fraction of turbines installed in 1970 were still working in 1985, what fraction installed in 1980 were still working in 1995, etc, and to see if there's a trend. But I'm too lazy.)

At any rate, it is clear that NNadir's conclusion is simply not supported by the data he cites. In fact, the data disprove it.

by chapter1 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM PST

NNadir's response about "planned obselescence" was already shown to be bullshit before he posted it,
it was already shown that a proper interpretation of the data showed that the vast majority of windmills last much longer than 15 years.
He keeps posting his junk science everywhere he can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=195059&mesg_id=195090

As I pointed out elsewhere, the average lifetime of a wind plant is, um, 15 years in the dangerous fossil fuel Kingdom of Denmark, The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

[jpak]

10. Oyster Creek kills endangered sea turtles and a multitude of marine organisms each year

http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/clean-water/oyster-creeek-nuclear-generating-station39s-pollution-of-nearby-waterways

Oh yeah - it's pretty obvious you are not a birder...

:rofl:

[TxRider]

14. This kind of BS is why

Texas leads the nation in wind power now, and will likely lead in solar power as well in a few years.

Between NIMBY attitudes and regulation both state and federal that Texas doesn't have to deal with, it's wonder anything gets done.

Even the oil companies are plowing hundreds of millions into renewable energy in Texas and oil tycoons like Pickens are now just waiting for the grid capacity to be expanded to the panhandle, which is already funded and underway, to boost it even further.

Of course I guess if your population has been used to seeing oil pump jacks everywhere all their lives, and the coastal view dotted with offshore rigs, exchanging them for pristine looking wind turbines and solar panels and mirrors is actually an improvement.

Having your own electrical grid out from under federal control, and one of the worlds best semiconductor industry bases helps as well.

[joshcryer]

17. Texas is a land scattered in dried up oil derricks, they dang well got past their NIMBY stage...

...a long time ago, as far as I can tell. ;)

[TxRider]

18. There's another angle as well

Texans aren't into alternative energy on simply on an environmental basis.

They are in it for the money.

Ranchers, farmers, etc. are all quite used to having oil companies pay leases to use their land to drill oil, and leasing a little area for wind turbines or solar panels comes easy.

Some ranchers even banded together, contracted themselves as a group, took their own anemometer readings and courted the wind development companies showing up at their door with wind data and contracts in hand.

When your land will only support one cow per 5 acres, selling your wind just makes good sense just as selling the oil did.

The energy companies and oil tycoons see the writing on the wall with peak oil approaching, and see the money involved wind, solar, and even algea based bio fuels and are working on them.

Exxon for example is hoping to be able to generate 2,000 gallons of bio oil per acre from algae at some point.

That and as I said, Texas operates it's own grid, so there are no federal regulations or red tape as there is eveywhere else in the lower 48. The Cape wind project is one of those, proposed for federal waters, tying into a federally regulated grid, were it in Texas it would be in state waters and tying into the Texas state regulated grid.

You only have to deal with the state here, which imposes no siting reviews or big environmental impact studies. Even offshore all coastal states only own out to 3 miles offshore, Texas owns up to 10.5 miles, thanks to a stipulation when we joined the U.S. So even offshore wind only has to deal with the state which is no stranger to energy leasing and eager to lease for renewables.

One of the very reasons Texas has kept it's grid seperate from the rest of the nation, and will likely resist attempts to integrate the grid into the East and West grids and bring the grid under federal regulation.

[joshcryer]

22. Colorado is equally poised for wind, we're gradually evolving, but it will take some time.

Most of Colorado's wind would be built out by Kansas, far from the cities, with many ranchers who should be able to be convinced by the Texan mindset to lease out little parcels of their land.

Colorado is supposed to go to 20% renewables by 2020. We'll see if they can pull it off since right now the electrical generation is almost solely coal and natural gas.

[bananas]

31. Texas offshore wind will be something

It's not being developed yet because on-shore windmills go up faster and cheaper.
Offshore will be stronger and steadier winds.