Reply To: Competition from the Thorium reactor

November 14, 2009 at 9:22 pm #5177

Participant

Axil, no offense, but I think you’re being a bit paranoid.

”A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what’s going on”.

First off, it is certainly not the case that all “greens” are against nukes (I would count myself among that number), and it is completely unjustified to claim that greens in general would be against a fusion technology that leaves no long-term radioactive waste and has no chance of catastrophic meltdown.

I was lazy and imprecise here. I painted with too broad a brush.

I like you are environmentalists; like most of the other members of this forum. We don’t want to see our deserts paved over with solar panels and mirrors, or our prairies and mountain ridges tainted with the ugliness of the uncounted windmills. These green machines are not evil in themselves, but when their use is taken to extremes pushed by the profit motive characterized by the power industry in the interest of uncaring men they become destructive to the natural world.

Men who assume the green mantel as a path to amazing profit are hypocrites and charlatans. The do not have the interest of mankind at heart.

Here is and example that will expand on this point I am trying to make; A prime example of this kind of guy is T. Boon Pickens.

From a recent interview as follows:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html

You recently announced plans to build the world’s largest wind farm, in the panhandle. Is that about money or the environment?

Money! First thing, it’s about money. Of course, I’m also a good environmentalist. I can pass the saliva test. But I’m not going to go do a 4,000-megawatt wind farm for the environment first and money second. I’d rather go give money someplace else. You’re talking about $10 billion.

What kind of return do you expect?

A minimum of 15%. It’ll probably be closer to 25%.

Tell me about the project.

It’s huge, the size of two nuclear plants in output, enough to power a million homes. More than 2,000 turbines, each between 2 and 3 megawatts. The first 1,000 megawatts will be ready by 2011, and 1,000 each year or two after that.

And you’ll do all this on your beautiful 68,000-acre ranch?

I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly. The hub of each turbine is up 280 feet, and then you have a 120-foot radius on the blade. It’s the size of a 40-story building.

So whose land is it going on?

My neighbors’, mainly south of my ranch. They’ll get royalties of 4% to 7% on the energy produced, an average per turbine of $10,000 to $20,000 per year. They still can run cattle or farm on the land with the turbines there too. We’ll put in only five per square mile. And unlike oil, this is not a declining situation. Let’s say a guy has a 3 megawatt turbine, and it does $20,000 per year. It’s going to be out there for, say, 100 years. You’re talking about $2 million. It’s not like having an oil well that’s a real pisser for a few years, and then it starts to decline.

What about when the wind doesn’t blow?

[Pickens purses his lips and starts puffing.] That’s the problem with wind generation. You’ve got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation.

So you’re going to build that?

Either we will or someone else, like TXU.

What happens if Congress doesn’t extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind — set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that’s an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity.

Then you’ve got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy. But they’ll probably pass it.

The frankness and audacity of this guy is so extreme that it is amusing.