Then I found precisely what I’m looking for on the front page of the paper.
Billionaire Texas oil man makes big bets on wind
By Chris Baltimore Fri Apr 18, 9:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Legendary Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has gone green with a plan to spend $10 billion to build the world's biggest wind farm. But he's not doing it out of generosity - he expects to turn a buck.
The second sentence cracks me up. Why Christopher Baltimore thought it necessary to remind Americans that entrepreneurs make investments in order to turn a profit is beyond understanding. But, of course! T. Boone Pickens should only risk his $10 billion if he can reason a high probability of a profitable return on his investment. Becoming “green”—in the Al Gore sense of the word—is not prerequisite to capitalizing on meeting the energy needs of the free world. Healthy self-interest drives entrepreneurship in a capitalist economy. The only question remaining is, will more private individuals make similar investments before our government crowds private investment right out of the market?
If government takes the lead change will be slow, waste will be abundant, and the building of the necessary infrastructure will be charged to tax-payers, stifling growth in other sectors of the economy while denying entrepreneurs opportunities in the energy sector. If private interests take the lead the progress of change will vary across the country, each major city providing an opportunity for a private energy producer to build a clientele supplying the clean energy needs of the local homes and businesses. The most productive and efficient of the private producers will be rewarded with growing market share and profits for its shareholders. Not since Reconstruction has such an opportunity for growth presented itself: the complete transformation of how America creates power.
T. Boone Pickens chose to invest in wind. That may work best in Texas where millions of acres remain undeveloped. T. Boone’s wind farm will power a million homes and businesses when completed, a greater yield than two nuclear power plants, according to The Energy Blog, with no adverse effects on the environment.
If I had $10 billion to invest, I’d chose to produce geothermal energy. A 2006 study by MIT sold me on the idea.
"The Future of Geothermal Energy" (PDF, 14.1 MB).
Geothermal energy is a product of the Earth’s own heat. Wells [no deeper than the wells we currently drill to reach oil] are drilled to reach the hot rocks underground. The hot rocks are broken up so that water can pass through them. Water poured down one well returns to the Earth’s surface as steam to run electric generators.
According to MIT Tech Talk: “Unlike conventional fossil-fuel power plants that burn coal, natural gas or oil, no fuel would be required. And unlike wind and solar systems, a geothermal plant works night and day, offering a non-interruptible source of electric power.”
Geothermal energy leaves no carbon footprint.
Ultimately, I think solar energy will be the future…but not the way we’re doing it now. The first time I saw solar panels stretched across my neighbor’s roof, I thought, those panels would work much better if they were in orbit where they could absorb the sun’s energy without interference. I wondered if anybody else was thinking like me. A quick Wikipedia search confirmed my thinking.
“A solar power satellite, or SPS or Powersat, as originally proposed would be a satellite built in high Earth orbit that uses microwave power transmission to beam solar power to a very large antenna on Earth. Advantages of placing the solar collectors in space include the unobstructed view of the Sun, unaffected by the day/night cycle, weather, or seasons. It is a renewable energy source, zero emission, and generates no waste. However, the costs of construction are very high, and SPS will not be able to compete with conventional sources (at current energy prices) unless at least one of the following conditions is met:
1. Low launch costs can be achieved;
2. A space-based manufacturing industry develops that is capable of building solar power satellites in orbit, using off-Earth materials;
3. Conventional energy costs increase.”
With oil pushing $120 a barrel, we may be well on our way to achieving the third criteria. In time, the second will be realized.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Donn, it's wonderful to see that this article is timeless so far.
About your idea on cheaply getting up into orbit, have you ever heard about the "space elevator" idea? I feel this would be the cheapest and most efficient way to get into orbit, thus opening up the entire space industry. With the space elevator, parts and materials could be lifted into orbit then assembled. The moon, which is rich in Helium3, (from what I've learned is the ideal fuel for fusion engines) could be harvested. And the plants used to process the He3 could be powered by solar energy. The only flaw with that plan that I have found, is no one wants to make the initial investment of building the space elevator, which would be extremely expensive. It would have such a huge return, but its a risk not many would be willing to take.
Post a Comment