When one of Texas’s richest oil men bets big on wind energy, it gets attention. Yesterday NPR’s Living on Earth broadcast an interview with Mr. Pickens, who shared the salient facts about his planned wind project:

• It will be the largest in the world, he reckons, at 4,000 megawatts
• It will provide enough power for 1,300,000 homes
• It’s a $10 billion dollar project from which he plans a 15%-25% profit

Asked why he is investing in wind now, Pickens replied:

“For a number of years I’ve watched the wind turbines develop — and I feel like it’s time for it. I think that oil has peaked at 85 million barrels in the world. We’ve got to develop other forms of energy — wind, I think solar will be next, and I hope I’m still around to be in the solar deal.” (Pickens is 80 years old.

But what if Congress doesn’t vote to extend the wind Production Tax Credit?

“Well, I think they’ll vote on it. They’ll either do that or they’ll give some kind of carbon credit because, the wind has to be developed in the United States. We’re now importing 72 percent of the oil we use every day. I think everybody can see that we’re gonna break the country if we pay 700 billion dollars a year for, uh, imported oil……I’ve got a good team of people that are knowledgeable in wind energy, and I don’t worry about it. I think it’s a good project, and it’ll do well and we’ll make money. And it’ll help the country.”

I took a look at Pickens’s bio on Wikipedia. He grew up poor but worked hard. He became a geologist in the 50’s, which “were difficult times for the oil industry and petroleum geologists.” He stuck at it and obviously his bet on oil paid off; Pickens is worth $3 billion now. But he’s moving on — to wind. Find out more about this story in the current issue of Fast Company.

Image credit: www.boonepickens.com

If you think the energy/food potential for hemp is underutilized, wait’ll you get a gander at algae. This little microorganism really packs a punch.

According to The Book of General Ignorance: Everything You Think You Know is Wrong (2006, Harmony Books) (I highly recommend it, by the way — it’s packed with fascinating information and weird insights), algae breathes out more oxygen than all the world’s land-based plants and trees combined. Certain types of algae also deliver a whopping amount of protein and nutrients per farmed acre (20 times more than soy beans, in the case of spirulina).

It’s the energy potential, minus the downsides of corn-based ethanol, though, that’s currently got many projects going full-steam ahead. San Diego-based Sapphire Energy, for example, recently announced it had successfully produced a 91 octane fuel using only carbon dioxide, sunlight and algae. And the Cambridge, Massachusetts firm GreenFuel Technologies Corp. expects to achieve commercially viable production of algae-based biofuel (at least 247 acres’ worth) in the “next few years.” It’s already set up pilot operations at six locations in Massachusetts, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and New York.

Less than two months ago, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin announced they had created a new “super” variety of fuel-producing algae by inserting the cellulose-making genes of a non-photosynthesizing bacteria into cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae.

Where will it all lead? While commercial production of algae-based fuel isn’t upon us yet, a new research-trade organization, the Algal Biomass Organization, recently went into full swing. It’s planning its second-ever Algae Biomass Summit this coming October in Seattle.

In Juneau, Alaska, for example, people are proving it’s possible to change our energy-hogging ways literally overnight and still keep a community up and running. The inspiration in their case: an avalanche that severed the hydroelectric power lines serving the remote Alaska capital, cutting off about 80 percent of the city’s available electricity.

With service not expected to be restored for three or four months, residents have responded quickly and creatively, slashing their energy consumption in a wide variety of ways: turning off elevators, leaving airport runway lights on only when needed, turning off electronics displays in stores, lowering thermostats and hanging up clotheslines.

In the words of Sarah Lewis, who chairs the city’s Commission on Sustainability, the lesson has been to “Turn off, turn down, unplug.”

Across the U.S., other people are taking that lesson to heart not out of necessity, but because they want to. The New York Times recently profiled a young family from Austin, Texas, that’s giving up almost everything they own to adopt an organic lifestyle in a small Vermont cabin without electricity.

The article goes on to quote Mary E. Grigsby, who authored a book titled, “Buying Time and Getting By: The Voluntary Simplicity Movement.” Given the current situations with energy and oil supplies, Grigsby said, “It may be the right time.”

Closer to home, I’ve experienced by necessity what life after peak oil might feel like. After each of the Gulf Coast hurricanes we’ve lived through, my family and I spent days — sometimes weeks — without electricity, refrigeration, clean running water, air-conditioning or electronic entertainment. It wasn’t always comfortable — especially in Florida’s steamy summer climate — but it was doable, at least for a short time.

I think not only oil prices and peaks, but the economy in general, will be pushing more people into more sustainable lifestyles in the near future. In my own case, for example, a recent car breakdown too costly to repair has forced me into car-sharing. And, while I don’t want to risk my safety right now biking the main highway that leads to my town’s grocery stores, I’ll be ready to do that when more cars go idle. Plus, my home garden will make those trips less necessary over time as well.

What do you expect life after peak oil to look and feel like? How are you preparing? I’m interested to hear all of your thoughts.

Wind Energy Systems Technology (WEST) will use old oil platforms to support new wind turbines. Herman Schellstede, CEO of WEST, holds sixty-seven U.S. patents and ten international patents, and is a naval architect and marine engineer. His partner, Harold Schoeffler, is a longtime Louisiana environmentalist, having co-founded Save Our Coast. The company is presently engaging in wind monitoring activities, shown in the picture at left. Still, I haven’t seen any announcement of any turbines actually being built on these recycled oil platforms. Wired has a nice story with great visuals dating from Feb. 2007. If anyone has more recent news, please comment below. Remaking old oil platforms into clean energy sources is a beguiling idea, but it would be even more charming to actually see wind turbines producing wind off the coast of Texas.

Texas wind turbines generated 4,446 megawatts of energy in 2007 — enough to power nearly 1.2 million homes. The state added 1,618 megawatts of new wind power capacity last year, more than double the amount of second-place Colorado.

In terms of total wind power, the top five states last year were Texas, California, Minnesota, Iowa and Washington. States adding the most new wind-energy installations last year were, after Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon and Minnesota.

“The numbers in this year’s rankings … underscore the wind energy industry’s strong growth and the fact that wind is a bright spot in the U.S. economy,” said Randall Swisher, executive director of the AWEA. “Hopefully, federal policymakers will take note and move quickly to extend the wind production tax credit (PTC) incentive, providing the foundation for further investment and job creation going forward.”

True to its reputation for doing everything big, Texas also takes the lead in the largest wind-energy installations operating in the U.S. The country’s biggest wind farms are in Horse Hollow, Texas (736 megawatts); Sweetwater, Texas (585 megawatts); Peetz Table, Colorado (401 megawatts); Capricorn Ridge, Texas (364 megawatts); and Buffalo Gap, Texas (353 megawatts).

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

Texas is numero uno when it comes to wind power generation. The Lone Star state has installed wind power close to 5,000 megawatts which translates to enough electricity to power a million homes. The huge turbines, scattered across wide open spaces, conjure up more progressive feelings compared to those generated at the sight of oil rigs or smoke stacks; they are feelings of a changing world, a cleaner world.

Because of the increased demand for wind power installation, the economies of some small locales in Texas are growing and welcoming the change. But this changing tide in the energy industry isn’t without some bumps in the road. Recently, when an unanticipated cold front killed 80% of the wind power in Texas, electricity for some offices and factories had to be cut.

This is the most obvious problem with renewable energy sources like the wind and the sun. But what if there was a way to store energy when there is a surplus and kick it back out when there is a lag in production or increased demand. I recently learned about a company called Beacon Power that developed a gnarly flywheel energy storage system. The technology seems pretty simple and has probably been around for sometime but I haven’t seen much of it being utilized with renewable energy—where it would be most valuable.

Essentially, what makes the storage capabilities of a flywheel system sustainable is the ability to store energy in kinetic form as opposed to chemical. A wheel spins on a shaft holding energy that can be used when power is lost. An electronics module allocates energy to the motor to drive the flywheel and when power is lost, this motor becomes a generator and sends compatible energy to the grid. Beacon flywheels are specifically designed to withstand extreme rotation speeds that allow for the storage of large quantities of energy. They have a process called Smart Energy Matrix, that is a system on interconnected higher-power flywheels for specific use with utility grade operations.

As renewable energy is further and further embraced, we will likely see more on energy storage systems like the flywheel.

Below is a short CBS special about wind farming in Texas. Enjoy:

sources: ny times, wall street, houston chronicle

photo source: wind power

Both of the “regional building technology application centers” are being funded by a multi-million-dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Florida’s center, to be based at FSEC’s Cocoa headquarters, will work to help state governments, utilities and energy-efficiency programs in 12 Southeastern states move toward more energy-efficient and zero-energy building standards. Its current partners in that effort include the Southern Energy Efficiency Center, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Texas A & M University and the Southface Institute in Atlanta.

Part of the University of Central Florida, the FSEC is the largest and most active state-supported energy research institute in the U.S.

Photo courtesy of Jarhelm via Wikimedia Commons

Citing the latest numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Time Magazine reports that Texas has the distinction of being the state with the biggest carbon footprint in the Union.

Photo courtesy of Ealdgyth at Wikimedia Commons

NRG Energy, Energy Future Holdings Corp., and other utilities have proposed eight reactors, which make up 25 percent of all the ones planned in the U.S. In addition to their enthusiasm for nukes - at a time when coal plants are being canceled around the country because of global warming concerns - Texas makes it easier than other states to put up a plant.

Although reactors can cost up to $6 billion each, Texas created three new measures this year to incentivize more nuclear, including reduced local property taxes and state guarantees for decommissioning and decontaminating nuclear plants when they are closed. Another law created a tax exemption for adding pollution-control devices, which legislators say can include nuclear plants. All that, plus federal tax credits and loan guarantees, has some utilities seeing green of a more controversial kind.

Environmentalists are ready to go to battle - with utilities and each other - over nuclear power. Most notable is probably Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and now a nuclear power supporter. Others may be more inclined to support nuclear if the biggest problem - how to safely dispose of the waste - were solved. A spokeswoman for Al Gore told Bloomberg that while Gore isn’t “reflexively anti-nuclear,” he doesn’t think it can be a major part of the energy mix until the waste problem, nuclear proliferation, and the huge size of the reactors can be solved.

Still others are absolutely anti-nuclear, and expect that more people like them will come out of the woodwork when the news of these proposed reactors starts to spread. Global warming is just a convenient excuse to ramp up nuclear production and ignore its other issues, explained Ken Kramer, Texas director of the Sierra Club. But he’s optimistic about the coming fight in Texas: “Now that we have serious applications for nuclear power plants, you’re going to see fast-growing opposition.”

Bloomberg
Reuters UK

As countless Discovery Channel specials have taught me: Throw enough water at any desert region and in a little more than a few days, you'll be staring at a lush paradise. Such is the case with Texas which -- together with Oklahoma and Kansas -- has received 330 percent its normal rainfall over the past several weeks. Every major river basin in the state flooded -- a feat that has not occurred since 1957.

The result? Dense vegetation is now covering a massive portion of the state as seen in dramatic satellite images taken between June 11 and June 20th. From the article,

The deep, emerald green indicates regions where plants are growing more quickly or robust than average, and the dark, almost-black color marks where vegetation was most dense. Brown spots point to clouds or water on the ground, which in some cases may mask plant growth.

Quite the amazing development. Seeing something so generally "sandy-colored" turn into a lush region is a testament to the power of nature. Before Texans start considering climate change a feather in the cap, however, one must take into account that these massive rains killed more than a dozen people and displaced thousands more. In a time of year when Texans are fighting wildfires, they're now faced with copious water. Too much. Are such devastating unusual acts of nature set to occur more frequently or is this simply a "Every 50 Years" event? Can we afford to sit and ponder?

Why such a glowing assessment? Texas has the sunlight, the land, and the backing of the people to make such alternative energy goals a reality. In a recent survey, 84 percent of Texas power consumers responded favorably to the question “Do you think the Texas Legislature should encourage investment in solar power in Texas?" Combined with rapidly decreasing costs of production and installation of solar cells worldwide, the timing appears right for the Lonestar State to capitalize on its energy potential. Already, plans are coming together to build the largest wind farm in the world in Texas.

The Greater Houston Partnership, an advocate for area businesses and economic development in the city, passed a resolution endorsing the Texas legislature's move to adopt California tough standards on vehicle emissions.

This announcement may come as a surprise and has put some environmental groups on guard as it reverses an earlier decision the partnership made in 1992 to oppose California's standards in Texas.
Another surprise is that this decision comes from the biggest oil producers. 2007 executive partners of the Greater Houston Partnership (a 501 (c) 6 non-profit, member driven organization) include Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell.

By Ecototality blogger A Siegel. Originally published on Thursday, March 29.

Austin’s Mayor, Will Wynn, is a serious plug-in hybrid vehicle supporter. And, he has been a strong advocate of PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) from Austin to Washington, DC. ”We have made our intentions clear that we want to pave the way for the plug-in hybrid …”