NYT takes a look at Texas' wind power boom. One oddity of American geography is that most of the most promising locations for this form of clean energy generation are in the stack of red states running up from Texas through the plains up to Canada rather than in the kind of places where default political conditions would suggest a lot of wind enthusiasm. In the short run, that's an impediment to developing green energy sources, but in the long run it could make for a much more politically sustainable green coalition once places like Texas and Kansas find themselves invested in the idea of building a more ecologically sustainable electrical power infrastructure.
« March Atlantic | Main | Swing Voters »
Texas Wind
23 Feb 2008 11:28 am
Comments (48)
Oklahoma has one of the few wind farms owned and operated by a utility. It makes sense, as you say, given the climate down in these parts. Whether alternative energy sources really take flight, though, depends more on whether local activists can overcome the entrenched oil interests down in these parts, who have a huge economic incentive to wave the capitalist pom-poms.
In the short run, that's an impediment to developing green energy sources,
There might not be the environmental enthusiasm, but if you pitch the prospect of selling back to the grid, you'd have to assume that there'd be takers. My guess would be that you don't get the classic NIMBYism associated with wind farms in more populated upscale areas.
I don't think the knee-jerk oppositional attitude of right-wing media -- 'liberals want it, we must oppose it' -- extends to the wider populace of more conservative states. And if you pitch it as a way to 'take money from hippies', it's an even better sell.
Jay:
It makes sense that in Oklahoma and Texas a problem would be oil interests. But in ND and SD the problem really is not a lack of enthusiasm on anyone's part or a powerful coalition of energy interests. It is simply a lack of transmission lines.
If Krugman is right and the next few years the economy will be in a pseudo-recession than we really should put out the dough and improve our infrastructure. This would be a good place to start.
Yes, if only there was a chance to create a wind farm somewhere like, I don't know... say, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.
Then all of our problems would be solved.
pseudonymous in nc:
Even more than that, SD farmers are rational actors. They are for wind energy like children for ice cream. No "pitch" needs to be made. They are sold on it.
I once interned in Senator Johnson's office in SD. Every time there was a story on the news about wind power we would get inundated with calls for people who wanted windmills on their farms. Seriously. We got more calls on those days than on anything else while I was there.
Yes, you need a BIG investment in infrastructure to move the energy from unpopulated areas to populated areas. Otherwise, I'd say turn all of North Dakota into a wind farm. No one lives there anyway.
Yeah I think you're looking at this the wrong way ... it presents a tremendous opportunity to trade money for votes with Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pat Roberts, etc. James Inhofe isn't going to be a rational actor on this front, but presumably the rest of them are.
Steve Balboni:
Yeah, we know, even liberals let their self-interest come before their political beliefs. So the lesson from that is to either build coalitions to overcome that, and/or, try to harness self-interest to get done what we believe is right. Case in point: build transmission lines out of windy plains states to populated areas. Let the farmers and ranchers put them on their property and reap the benefits.
...rather than in the kind of places where default political conditions would suggest a lot of wind enthusiasm.
I'd be willing to bet my life there's far less "enthusiasm" for, you know, actually building the infrastructure for wind power in the blue states than there is in the God-fearing flyover places where Real Americans actually enjoy turning nature's bounty into cash. My sense is NIMBYism is a far more powerful force in wealthy metropolitan areas, or in the less developed areas abutting them (think "Nantucket Sound" or "The Gulf of Maine"), than in locales like Kansas.
David
I am in fact a liberal. I just decided to throw in some Saturday morning sarcasm as Matt's generalizations about Red States struck me as a bit myopic.
I live in Colorado, I'm well aware of how we can make this work.
Who says the political will exists in blue states? Remember Ted Kennedy killing a wind farm in Mass?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12205906/
Quite frankly, since a lot of us out here in the west/southwest pay significantly higher energy prices, eventually even the Republican redneck contingency will want to be able to buy food instead of paying 400/month electric bills. Then it's goodbye Rush, hello windmill in my back yard.
Even more than that, SD farmers are rational actors. They are for wind energy like children for ice cream. No "pitch" needs to be made. They are sold on it.
I don't doubt it in the slightest. Question is whether the structures exist to allow rational action. The smaller-scale farmers in Iowa know that they're fucking themselves over in the long term by contributing to the corn monoculture, but they also have to eat, and the subsidies are there. And if, for instance, the ethanol lobby considers wind farming a threat to its fiefdom, then dumb stuff happens.
That said, a political pitch that's worth making is the idea of 'bringing home' the expertise on the developmental side. Right now, it's companies from continental Europe with the experience and the infrastructure in place to run these projects.
Steve:
"...Matt's generalizations about Red States struck me as a bit myopic."
As a Liberal from a Red State, I completely agree.
You are getting politics confused with economics and finance (a pretty easy mistake to make, considering the overlap). Texas is a likely place for wind investment because electricity is deregulated here. So any entrepreneur can build wind generation capacity and sell his or her electricity on the open market. This has nothing to do with the political feeling towards renewable energy in the state. It has to do with entrepreneurs and VCs and private equity companies making money.
However, there is one way that wind and politics are colliding in Texas. Michael Skelly, one of those Texas wind entrepreneurs, is running for Congress (7th district) as a Democrat against John Culberson, a well-known DeLay crony. (http://www.skellyforcongress.com/about/. )He helped build Horizon Wind and then sold it to Goldman Sachs, which in turn sold it to Energias de Portugal for $2.15 billion. So I suspect Skelly may be the first "wind millionaire" to run for Congress.
"Question is whether the structures exist to allow rational action. The smaller-scale farmers in Iowa know that they're fucking themselves over in the long term by contributing to the corn monoculture, but they also have to eat, and the subsidies are there. And if, for instance, the ethanol lobby considers wind farming a threat to its fiefdom, then dumb stuff happens."
I don't think you have to worry about farmers or the ethanol lobby. The thing is a turbine takes up relatively little space on the ground and the return is relatively high. More than that, any acerage taken out of production for wind only means less supply (and higher prices) of corn. I don't see a conflict here.
You are getting politics confused with economics and finance (a pretty easy mistake to make, considering the overlap). Texas is a likely place for wind investment because electricity is deregulated here. So any entrepreneur can build wind generation capacity and sell his or her electricity on the open market. This has nothing to do with the political feeling towards renewable energy in the state. It has to do with entrepreneurs and VCs and private equity companies making money.
However, there is one way that wind and politics are colliding in Texas. Michael Skelly, one of those Texas wind entrepreneurs, is running for Congress (7th district) as a Democrat against John Culberson, a well-known DeLay crony. (http://www.skellyforcongress.com/about/. )He helped build Horizon Wind and then sold it to Goldman Sachs, which in turn sold it to Energias de Portugal for $2.15 billion. So I suspect Skelly may be the first "wind millionaire" to run for Congress.
I think wind farms look really cool. You could put one IMBY, no problem.
The big winners are the farmers. That guy's getting $39,000 a month for those turbines. For doing nothing. That is on land that would have sold for $600-700 an acre a few years ago.
I say run the windmills on the median strip of the NAFTA superhighway - kill 2 birds with one stone
For all of Texas's environmental faults--coal plants, the air in Dallas and Houston--we do have a commitment to wind energy, particularly in West Texas, which has several wind farms. I also think there is an initiative to put wind farms along the coast.
Texas is far less of a "Red State" than you label it. Arizona, Oklahoma...much more red.
Texas has a strong commitment to public education (it's in the State's constitution), just voted approval on a ballot initiative for billions in public health research (cancer), has a nearly evenly split Rep-Dem state house, a Republican governor that was elected with only a 40% plurality, and a large portion of the state oppose the border fence. Not really "red state" positions.
You'll probably realize this more when you travel to the net-roots convention in Austin this year.
Wind enthusiasm?
Ha, in green states like Vermont and Massachusetts just try to put a windmill farm - dare I bother mentioning the Cap Cod debacle? No, liberals want things like windmill farms (and oil refineries) in fly-over country
Interesting that the deranged people here suggest that oil interests would block wind generated energy - the biggest drawback to windmills (et al) is that you need these big wires to attach the windmills to the electircal power grid. I've seen the wind farms in places like Germany and Holland where there are genuinely green (and desparate people)
As long as the US politics - and public utility commissions - are dominated by mendacious populists and faux-greens we will not see alternative energy like wind on any real scale
FYI - this country needs to make a huge investment just to replace the sagging, decrepit wires of the existing electrical grid. Who will pay for this? Just wait to here the populists and fauxhemian greens scream when those bills come due
"In the short run, that's an impediment to developing green energy sources"
Matt, do you even visit reality? Compare the problems of building windmills in the midwest and southwest with those faced off Massachusetts. You might want to call Senator Kennedy for a comment.
Sheesh.
Wind power is:
1. Seasonal
2. Unpredictable
3. Unstorable or able to be ramped up with demand. Meaning when you build wind plants, you also have invest to build a backup gas turbine plant and stick consumers with those bills.
4. Most abundant in places with little population and industry, lacking a way to get it to market before significant I2R losses greatly reduce it's efficiency and benefit.
In Europe, wind and solar might become as much as 20% of energy by 2050. That is fine for them because their population is stable (though that really means more Muslims, less low-reproducing native whites). In America, we will go from 300 million to 438 million as immigrants continue to pour in unchecked and have large families.
Wind power here might take care of the energy need of 15 million immigrants - their new, net energy demand. It will do nothing to reduce CO2 output of the existing 300 million or the other 120 million to be added to America by 2050.
Want cheap, reliable energy? Think coal and nuclear. They are the only two major choices once to get past alternate power in the land of rainbows and unicorns and fairy pricesses powered by solar panels in their magical wings...
Want cheap reliable energy that makes no CO2?
Just think nuclear...
Think conservation will solve anything?
Just remember the immigrant flood that drove our population from 225 million in 1973 to 300 million in 2005 wiped out all conservation gains and made us even more dependent on the Arabs. Going from 300 million to 438 million new Juans, Pedros, Abdullahs will wipe out the conservation gains and any little exciting alternative energy source like wind, ethanol, solar..
Here's what I wonder: The left really, really wants to lower CO2 emissions. They also want to let anyone who crosses the border stay here.
Eventually, they'll notice that these two ideas don't work well together - adding more people adds more demand for energy.
So which ideal will get pitched: open borders, or lowering emissions? Will identity politics win, or will the greens win?
"The left really, really wants to lower CO2 emissions. They also want to let anyone who crosses the border stay here."
The first is true, but the second is just stupid.
"Eventually, they'll notice that these two ideas don't work well together - adding more people adds more demand for energy."
Here is the thing, even if your second posulate were true it doesn't conflict at all with the first. Climate change is a GLOBAL problem. The US, despite being less energy efficient than most of Europe, is MORE efficient than Latin America or most of Asia--thus while the American demand for electricity will go up, demand for electricity in the less efficient home country will go down. There is no conflict.
David,
Demand will lower in the home country only if net population drops. I've not seen any predictions of that happening in Mexico:
Mexico's population grew more than sixfold from 1910 to the early 21st century. The rate of natural increase began to rise rapidly in the 1940s because of marked improvements in health care standards and food supplies. There have been drastic declines in the death rate, and infant mortality, although still quite high in comparison with more-developed countries, has been significantly reduced. Although its growth rate slowed during the late 20th century, the Mexican population is still increasing quickly. Given the country's rapid growth, its population is disproportionately young, with more than one-third of Mexicans under age 15. Life expectancy at birth has doubled since 1930 and is comparable to that of more-developed countries.
Outside catastrophic situations like 19th century Ireland, out-emigration doesn't tend to case a population decline - just a slower rate of increase. That's certainly been the case for the places we get most of our immigrants (Mexico and Latin America).
So yes, the two are in conflict. If you want a stark example, look at the desert southwest. There are worries over Lake Mead (Hoover Dam) running dry, as the population of that region grows beyond the local carrying capacity. That will cause huge local problems, both in terms of water access and in terms of power access.
But go ahead - keep wearing the rose colored glasses.
Someone use 'cheap' and 'nuclear' in teh same post. lol.
The wide open spaces of the American southwest aren't a panacea for alternative energies (ie. solar & wind). Electricity needs to be generated relatively near the area of demand, as it essentially bleeds out of the system if it has to be transmitted long distances. So in that sense, building great wind farms in Texas does very little to produce energy for NYC.
The iconic image of the family farm on the plains is 'the little house on the prarie' next to a barn, a silo and a windmill. Why do you think the 'flyover states' would be politically opposed to, or at least not enthusiastic about, wind power when they've been using it for 150 yrs?
The big Utilities corporations like wind power (cheaper the Nuke) so of course there's a boom. Business has discovered the advantage, oh btw this is from inside info I know the story behind this, and believe me this will only grow.
Kolohe, for the same reason that New Yorkers and Bostonians have strong opposition to child labor and abolishing overtime: because things change. I'm not sure Matt's right, but it's bad logic to think that the old use of small, isolated, inefficient water pumping windmills portends a current warm attitude toward large, multitudinous, mechanized, electric generating windmills.
Matt, right, the wind never blows on Cape Cod or Martha's Vineyard or the Hamptons. That must be the only possible reason there aren't massive windmill farms in such pro-environmentalist locales.
"Eventually, they'll notice that these two ideas don't work well together - adding more people adds more demand for energy."
As David pointed out, you don't know what you're talking about. Like he said, climate change is a global problem. Even if emigration doesn't cause a net population decline, it slows the rate of increase - your own statement - which means demand there doesn't grow as fast as it would otherwise. Meanwhile, Mexican-American family size - though above the general US average - has been declining over the last few generations, so it seems quite likely that the descendants of immigrants will have fewer children than if their ancestors had remained in Mexico (I'm assuming that Mexican birthrate will continue dropping (which it has, rather significantly), but behind the U.S. curve)).
Of course, in reality the solutions don't involve nativist bullshit, but alternate energy sources, conservation, sensible choices, etc.
You are getting politics confused with economics and finance (a pretty easy mistake to make, considering the overlap). Texas is a likely place for wind investment because electricity is deregulated here. So any entrepreneur can build wind generation capacity and sell his or her electricity on the open market. This has nothing to do with the political feeling towards renewable energy in the state. It has to do with entrepreneurs and VCs and private equity companies making money.
However, there is one way that wind and politics are colliding in Texas. Michael Skelly, one of those Texas wind entrepreneurs, is running for Congress (7th district) as a Democrat against John Culberson, a well-known DeLay crony. (http://www.skellyforcongress.com/about/. )He helped build Horizon Wind and then sold it to Goldman Sachs, which in turn sold it to Energias de Portugal for $2.15 billion. So I suspect Skelly may be the first "wind millionaire" to run for Congress.
Chris,
Yes, storing surplus wind power and meeting peak demand are issues. Wind power is a part of our energy future, not the end all.
In my neck of the woods, power can be stored by pumping water uphill, and releasing it during peaks or still days.
Ha, in green states like Vermont and Massachusetts just try to put a windmill farm - dare I bother mentioning the Cap Cod debacle? No, liberals want things like windmill farms (and oil refineries) in fly-over country
On the other hand, reliably blue Delaware is positively eager to build a huge windmill farm.
Thing is, most people in Massachusetts want the Cape Wind facility to be built; even the Massachusetts Audubon Society is willing to accept it if additional steps are taken to protect migratory seabirds. But the elite, liberal and conservative alike, who summer on Cape Cod or have friends who do, are against it. Ted Kennedy may be the most high-profile opponent, but the 2006 poison pill amendment to try to kill it in Congress was introduced by Ted Stevens, with Mitt Romney as the man who would have pushed the button. The difference is, the national economic elites see Cape Cod as their summer home and Delaware as an I-95 toll booth that somehow got its own state quarter, so Delaware is far more likely to be allowed to choose its own fate here than is Massachusetts.
Dan S.
"As David pointed out, you don't know what you're talking about. Like he said, climate change is a global problem. Even if emigration doesn't cause a net population decline, it slows the rate of increase - your own statement - which means demand there doesn't grow as fast as it would otherwise. "
First, I'm not at all worried about global warming. However, there are localized environmental issues with unlimited immigration. As I mentioned above, take the desert southwest, which is experiencing large inflows (both of people from other parts of the US and of illegals).
There's a water issue that's getting worse all the time. We simply cannot continue to add people to that area indefinitely - and the problem extends all the way out to the LA area in California.
So again - keep wearing the rose colored glasses.
It's a shocking change from 10 years ago when I last drove through West Texas (from Dallas) when I drove through it last month. The landscape is PACKED with wind-driven propellers.
Largely this is viewed (anecdotally... I don't have any real evidence of this) as aiding farmers who are making less money on their crops. They are powering their farms themselves and then selling the excess power to the power companies.
Nothing works better than money as a motivator.
Re: So in that sense, building great wind farms in Texas does very little to produce energy for NYC.
No, but Texas is not exactly the Empty Quarter. It is in fact one of the most populous states in the country.
James Robertson,
What happens if the rest of us just stop subsidizing the cost of water in the Southwest and let market rates prevail? Just how much would folks in Phoenix or Las Vegas or L.A. be willing to pay for water?
Here in Texas I buy electricity from Green Mountain, thats all wind power. I live in Collin County just north of DFW, part of the 5.5 to 6 million who live around here, and its still growing despite the housing price problems. We've lots and lots of roofs that could add solar to the mix, no worries. The Wallmart up the road here in McKinney is an experiement in making green ideas work--a wind mill, recycling water within the buidling, lots of energy saving lights and so on.
A complete solution, no but that doesn't make wind and solar and those light bulbs a bad idea.
Now if we can avoid a drought like the one that finished about a year ago (and lead to cracking and shifting foundations, watering restrictions and so forth) we'll be fine.
How might we get Iowa to turn their resource-wasting corn fields into wind farms?
Hedley -
http://www.netamu.com/idwgpwindfarm.htm
http://www.iowadnr.com/energy/renewable/windfarm.html
http://www.iowadnr.com/energy/renewable/files/windenergy.pdf
According to the 3rd item, only Texas and California have more wind energy capacity installed.
I'd be happy to let market rates work on the water problem in the southwest - I doubt either party will move that way any time soon. For that matter, I'd like to see market rates deal with non-catastrophic medical care as well, but no one is working in that direction, either.
A government that tries to pay for everything - whether it's water or medical care - ends up being a government that rations. It's not complicated, unless you live in the distortion zone that Matt seems to inhabit.
I was really pleased to see this article in the Times. Boone Pickens likening wind energy's potential to that of the legendary Texas oil fields is a big deal -- great messenger for an energy source that everyone's tired of hearing about from environmentalists. And I bet most landowners in wind-buffeted areas who read this piece did the math on that rancher's wind-power profits -- $77,000 a month for doing nothing other than permitting towers to be built seems like a pretty good business proposition.
Wind farming has taken hold in upstate New York areas bordering on Lake Ontario -- see this story in OnEarth Magazine. Great way for a family to lay in a college fund for their kids, as the story makes clear....
Comments closed March 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt:
There is all kinds of pro-Wind boosterism in South Dakota. There is hardly a couple of weeks that go by without the Sioux Falls Argus Leader having an article about wind. Farmers LOVE the idea (seriously) of putting wind turbines on their land. In fact there is a co-op in NE SD that built a wind farm just to creat momementum. Also, the Indian Reservations are some of the best spots in the U.S. for wind generation. The govenor, the legislature, and both Senators and the one Rep all support wind power. The problem? Not much demand for electricity in the state and the huge power lines needed to ship it out don't exist.
Posted by David | February 23, 2008 11:37 AM