How much land would be needed for the Pickens Plan to work?

But let’s give the benefit of the doubt to Pickens and say that wind could make up the difference. How many windmills and land would be needed for it to work?

From the graph in my previous post, we have a power deficit of 300,000,000,000,000,000 British Thermal Units. This converted to kilowatt hours is 87 921 325 000 000 kWh. You need to get capacity to figure out how much space is needed, which is in units of kilowatts so you divide by the number of hours in a year, specifically 8420. That means you need to have 10441962589 kW of capacity to get this much power in a year.

But wind turbines don’t run 24 hours a day, in fact, they only run about 33 to 50% of the time, so you actually need double the capacity, AT BEST, to get the capacity needed. So you really need 20883925178 kW to supply the power importation needs for the US.

How much land would this require? For that I went here and used their calculator. The end results:

To get the US off foreign energy, we would need 41,767,850 turbines, which would cover 10,441,962.5 acres. This is also 16316 square miles. Or nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire COMBINED. And this is just for the physical items of turbines themselves.

Using a different method, a rule of thumb is that one square kilometer can support 10 to 15 MW of capacity. So using the figure above, we’d get 20883925 MW. So dividing by the best case scenario of 15 MW per square km, we get 1392262 sq. km or 537555 square miles. This is approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and half of South Dakota, including urban areas, highways, mountains, and water.

So when T. Boone says that the Great Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind, you better believe it because if we’re going to use wind to get the US energy independent, the Great Plains will become one giant wind farm.

And this is under a BEST case scenario. Just for fun, lets use the lower end of the power estimates (under the cut):

How Much Does the Government Spend on Energy Subsidies?

Thanks to the Energy Information Agency, I get little email every once and a while alerting me to when they have produced something called “Energy in Brief.” So this week, I got one in the email called:

“How much does the Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support?”

Jackpot.

And the answer to this question: $16.6 billion just in the past year. To put that in pork perspective, that’s 45 to 60 Bridges to Nowhere, depending on which figure you use (total price of bridge to nowhere or just the famous 2005 earmark). That’s right, we can connect 45 to 60 small towns with their airports for just how much the government gives out for energy.

And what does the government do with this money? Not much, by the EIA’s own accounting:

Have Subsidies Affected Prices or Production?

Between 1999 and 2007, the average real price of total energy per British thermal unit (Btu)3 consumed increased more than 80%. Meanwhile, total energy consumption or demand, including imports, grew by about 5%. Most subsidies and support to energy producers should stimulate supply; so too should higher prices and rising energy demand. Yet in 2007, the United States supplied roughly 72 quadrillion Btu from domestic resources, about the same amount as in 1999. This leaves the impression that energy subsidies had little effect on net domestic production other than to help prevent further declines. But the enactment of various production-oriented tax incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequent legislation may have contributed to the slight increase in primary energy production over the last two years.

So as a result of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives, the US might have had a slight increase in energy production. At least with the 45 to 60 Bridges to Nowhere, we would have ACTUAL BRIDGES, not possible things that people would be hard pressed to identify.

You’d think that because of T. Boone Pickens’ ad campaigns that we don’t do anything to support wind energy right now. And, like most things T. Boone Pickens says, this is pretty wrong. Again from the EIA:

Did You Know?
The estimated value of production tax credits to wind producers in FY 2007 was $666 million. The benefit was distributed over an estimated 27.7 million megawatthours, making wind power the largest beneficiary of production tax credits among all renewable technologies.

And this doesn’t even include other incentives given to wind producers that AREN’T tax credits, like direct subsidies. And this doesn’t even take into consideration that wind power DOESN’T produce much energy. So the per unit cost is an astronomical $.02/per kilowatt-hour. Considering that your energy bill is anywhere from $.08 to $.20 / kWh per unit, wind gets a subsidy that’s equal to 10 to 25% of your per unit costs. That sounds like it’s doing a whale of a job.

But believe it or not, wind ISN’T even the worse offender when it comes to government largess. That would be “clean coal”, which gets $2 billion to produce a tiny fraction of the energy in the US. But once again, clean coal and coal-to-liquids have huge backers in the Senate in the form of Robert Byrd and Mitch McConnell. And that’s money that’s not doing a lick of good.

So before we start heaping MORE money on renewables, a la the Pickens Plan, we should look to see what works and what doesn’t. Right now, wind and solar aren’t.

John McCain Uses the Pickens Lie

From John McCain’s acceptance speech last night:

My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. (Emphasis added)

I’ve documented the fact that $700 billion is a bald-faced, economically illiterate number that was conjured up by T. Boone that has no basis on the realities of the oil market or just plain facts. Add to the fact that McCain just lumped natural gas in with solar and wind (“one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is just not the same”), and T. Boone must have been jumping for joy with the speech last night. I’m sure one of the first things McCain will reach across the aisle to Nancy Pelosi is to force private fleet vehicles to run on natural gas.

So if you oppose the Pickens Plan, or don’t like the fact that it’s based on sketchy numbers, has a significant chance of screwing up our electricity market and backed by someone who has a huge financial stake in it, then you don’t have a choice in the election. Well you do, but you won’t hear about it in the media.

I would call on John McCain’s campaign to fully disclose their relationship with T. Boone and fess up to the fact that he cited a horribly incorrect number during a nationally televised speech. It’s the least that he can do “for the country.” But I doubt that will happen.

National Party Platforms on Transportation and Energy – Constitution Party

Continuing the series on party platforms on transportation and energy, we come to the Constitution Party.

They do not have a section on transportation issues, much like the Libertarians. They do have an energy section:

Energy

James Madison said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).

We call attention to the continuing need of these United States for a sufficient supply of energy for national security and for the immediate adoption of a policy of free market solutions to achieve energy independence for these United States. We call for abolishing the Department of Energy.

Private property rights should be respected, and the federal government should not interfere with the development of potential energy sources, including natural gas, hydroelectric power, solar energy, wind generators, and nuclear energy.

Pretty simple when you get down to it. Abolish the Department of Energy (much like the old Republicans, and no government interference. Pretty much a libertarian/free-market approach to energy.

I wish they would have something on transportation issues, but including everything risks having an unwieldy platform. It’s still an important federalist issue that would need to be addressed by any major candidate.

National Party Platforms on Transportation and Energy – Green Party

I have to give credit where credit is due: the Green Party is very, very open about what they want to do. Sure it’ll involve massive government intervention in everyone’s daily life, but they’re putting it out there in very specific terms.

The entire platform (including changes from 2004 to 2008) on energy and transportation policy, which they call “Ecological Sustainability” is available from the GP website. Unlike the Libertarian Party, the Greens are very specific about what they would like to do.

So lets see what they have on energy:

• “Our oil and gas addiction in particular has led to wars and human rights abuses in many countries….U.S. dependence on oil and gas has driven an unparalleled assault on the global environment and on human rights in many nations.” Of course, if we were to not use oil or natural gas anymore, these third world countries would be liberal democracies with no disputes or conflict whatsoever. This, of course, confuses the fact that the countries themselves start these wars. There are plenty of countries that have petroleum resources that don’t abuse their citizens (e.g. Canada), and there are countries that DON’T have oil resources and DO abuse their citizens (e.g. Zimbabwe). Removing the oil would not remove the source of these problems (the backwards societies and the lack of governing structure)
• “We oppose energy utility deregulation…. We recognize that deregulation and its reliance on markets – as opposed to state-based regulations – is incapable of providing affordable, reliable and clean energy…. We support state efforts to regain control over electricity by establishing democratic, public control systems to locally coordinate supply and demand and by eliminating energy trading.” It’s funny how people have no idea how economics (and socialism) work. PUCs are NOT democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and the current market system somehow does enable people to have affordable and reliable energy, and if you’re in a fully deregulated market like Texas, you can have clean energy too. If you’re in California or most other states, you have no choice in where you get your electricity and it’s “cleanliness”. But the Greens see markets as bad, no matter if they actually enable clean energy or not.
• “New construction should be required to achieve substantial portions of its heating energy from the sun.” Man, I’d hate to live in the Pacific Northwest under the Greens.
• “We oppose further oil and gas drilling or exploration – especially that which would occur in other countries, (emphasis mine)” I’d LOVE to see how they’d enforce banning oil exploration in other countries. This further enforces the general criticism of the enviros as wanting to keep the poor countries poor.
• “We call for independent, public-access radiation monitoring at all nuclear facilities.” If you want to do this, do this. Go to your nearest nuclear power plant, set up shop with a Geiger counter, and report your results. I’m not going to stop you and if the government does, then THAT’s your problem. But you don’t need the government to do this for you.

And their section on transportation:

• “We call for major public investment in mass transportation, so that such systems are cheap or free to the public and are safe, accessible, and easily understandable to first-time users. ” hahaha Short of spending TRILLIONS on mass transit, you’re never going to get all three… and since we’re talking about the government running this system, you’re NEVER going to get anything that’s easily understandable. No matter how much you spend.
• “The present-day approach of upgrading streets to accommodate increased traffic generates new traffic because access is now easier, and people will now take jobs further from their homes or purchase homes further from their jobs. Some people shift from public transit to private cars due to the trip time in cars being shorter. As patronage for public transit decreases, public transit loses funding, becomes less viable, and service deteriorates thus encouraging even more people to use their cars. ” This is the best part, the Greens admit that people don’t like taking transit, admit that private transport is faster, and that public transit wouldn’t work without massive subsidies. So, their solution is to make people do something they would prefer not to do in the first place. A winning political strategy.
• “Redirect resources that currently go to enhancing auto capacity into expanding human-scale transit options….Develop affordable mass transit systems that are more economical to use than private vehicles. ” What the hell is a human-scale transit option? And I’d love to see the day when a public mass transit system is more economical to use than a private system. That’s also the day communism will finally work. And pigs will fly.
• “Emphasize the use of light and heavy rail for freight transportation. ” WHY? It’s slower, it has a lot more delays and is constrained in where and how it can go. An airplane or truck can bypass congestion. A train can’t. Just ask anyone who’s taken Amtrak. Speaking of which…
• “Expand our country’s network of rail lines, including high-speed regional passenger service.” Because outside of the Northeast, there is not a single place that is built in a similar way to that region. So you’d be trying to shoehorn a system that works (barely) in one region, where it’s not needed elsewhere. And as most people who take Amtrak can attest to, Amtrak is beset by delays and general incompetence.
• “Ban flights between cities where land-based travel options can get a passenger to their destination within four hours.” Since you have the Acela, all of the Northeast just lost their air service… sorry. Not to mention the whole hub-and-spoke system for the airline industry. So for example, I live in Columbia, SC. Since nobody in their right minds wants to travel to Columbia, there are not many direct flights, so you have to have connections in many cities. Thus, you have alot of flights from Columbia to Atlanta (4 hours away) and Charlotte (1 hour away). Congrats, you no longer can fly that route. So this will either:
  1. Force people to drive up to 4 hours to get to the airport
  2. Force airlines to have you connect from somewhere MORE THAN 4 hours away.

  Either way, you’ve just made the whole air travel system ALOT more complicated and wasteful. But environmentalists are pretty ignorant when it comes to the law of unintended consequences. And to put a cherry on top of their economic backwardness…

• “We encourage the social ownership and use of land at the community, local, and regional level.” The Greens have never studied or heard about the Tragedy of the Commons.

So overall, the Greens have set out an expansive list of things they want to do, which is ballsier than most political parties. Of course, given that most of what they want to do would be economically wasteful at best, it’s not a very smart plan either.

Response to a Barrett Comment

From the comments on the Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid post:

Right on, Mike! I’m with you all the way. Next time I’d like to hear you thoughts on Jane B Dyer the Democratic Party’s candidate for Barrett’s job.
She is the kind of candidate SC needs but the media seem to be conspiring to keep her candidacy quiet. She’s been an Air Force flier, She is now a FEDEX captain on one of those big freighters besides being a Mom and a Grandmother. She lives in Easley and she needs the help of guys like you.
Bill

Well, lest anyone think that I’m partisan in my distrust of politicians (unlike most of the media out there), here’s my thoughts on Ms. Dyer:

Sorry Bill, but it looks like Barrett doesn’t have any kind of competition in this race. Ms. Dyer is parroting the same rhetoric that has become standard for all politicians. But I think she’d get the T. Boone Pickens seal of approval.

Below is a more detailed look at Ms. Dyer and her environmental energy policy.

National Party Platforms on Transportation and Energy – Libertarian Party

In a multi-part series, I am going to find and post the party platforms for all of the national political parties, concerning transportation and energy. Today I’ll start with the Libertarian Party.

2008 Platform

Nothing on transportation. On energy, they have this to say:

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Short and to the point. But this has it’s good points and its bad. You can boil down the Libertarian platform to “free markets good, government intervention bad”. Which is pretty much what they did this year. Even to the point, that they don’t even have a stated position on transportation.

Of course, it isn’t to say that they’ve never had a position on transportation. They even had a position on public utilities once upon a time. That’s something only a policy wonk would love, but framed the right way, the Libertarians could even put this in a winning message:

“You know why you pay $80 a month for 200 cable channels you don’t watch. Government policies don’t allow you to pick and choose the channels you want to watch, even though the technology is available. You can choose an individual plan for your cell phone, but the government forces everyone to have a one-size fits all plan for cable. It’s time to take cable out of the hands of bureaucrats and lobbyists and back where it belongs, the customer.”

So as an idea of where Libertarians stand on more complex issues, below is the 2004 Libertarian Party platform on some key issues.

Another Rent Seeker Using Scare Tactics to Get Government Money

Ladies’ Home Journal’s Red Light Problem – Reason Magazine.

This is similar to another “crisis” where people are agitated about something that had been happening for quite a few years now, but were (blissfully?) unaware of until now.  And now that they have been agitated, they demand action by the government to solve this problem that was never a problem in the first place.

And who’s behind all this?  Someone who stands to make alot of money off of the government’s decision to force people/localities into doing something they didn’t want to do in the first place.

Red Lights meet wind power, just another way to restrict people when there wasn’t a problem in the first place.  And where the cure is worse than the disease.

(Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against traffic lights.  But automated red light cameras will become the 21st century speed limits.  A government policy put in place purely to serve as a revenue generator with no relationship to reality).