North Dakota could have huge new oil field

[GeauxSioux]

Report: North Dakota is now 4th biggest oil-producing state

North Dakota has surpassed Louisiana as the fourth-largest oil-producing state in the nation, the U.S. Energy Department says.

The agency

[Shawn-O]

Report: North Dakota is now 4th biggest oil-producing state

North Dakota Energy.

Roughnecks.

[GeauxSioux]

Roughnecks.

Oilers.

[The Sicatoka]

Oilers.

I just heard the report of thousands of PC-greenie-(weenies) heads explode.

[MplsBison]

Report: North Dakota is now 4th biggest oil-producing state

North Dakota Energy.

Just think if we put the energy used to dig up all that oil into harvesting wind energy!

[Big A HG]

Just think if we put the energy used to dig up all that oil into harvesting wind energy!

It's a waste of time/energy. It's not worth spending millions and millions of dollars to get something insanely less efficient, especially if when an alternate fuel source is discovered, the wind energy could potentially be worthless.

[Uncle_Rico]

Just think if we put the energy used to dig up all that oil into harvesting wind energy!

Get a haircut hippie!

[MplsBison]

It's a waste of time/energy. It's not worth spending millions and millions of dollars to get something insanely less efficient, especially if when an alternate fuel source is discovered, the wind energy could potentially be worthless.

Less efficient than what? Certainly not burning fossil fuels, unless you consider most of the energy escaping as heat into the environment as "efficient"?

Wind energy can never be worthless. You're providing energy that is pollution free and perpetually available for harvest (at least in ND), that is obviously worth something.

[Goon]

It's a waste of time/energy. It's not worth spending millions and millions of dollars to get something insanely less efficient, especially if when an alternate fuel source is discovered, the wind energy could potentially be worthless.

I think those wind towers are eye sores and visual polution.

[Shawn-O]

Less efficient than what? Certainly not burning fossil fuels, unless you consider most of the energy escaping as heat into the environment as "efficient"?

Wind energy can never be worthless. You're providing energy that is pollution free and perpetually available for harvest (at least in ND), that is obviously worth something.

There is no cost-effective way to harness and store wind energy right now. Once that hurdle is jumped I think wind could be a viable source.

[ScottM]

I think those wind towers are eye sores and visual polution.

I never knew you lived on Nantucket.

Linky

[Old Time Hockey]

Just think if we put the energy used to dig up all that oil into harvesting wind energy!

I agree...........that would be great for my wind energy car!

[MplsBison]

I agree...........that would be great for my wind energy car!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

Oh wait, were you trying to be backwater on purpose?

[MplsBison]

There is no cost-effective way to harness and store wind energy right now. Once that hurdle is jumped I think wind could be a viable source.

They're dumping the power on the grid now, it must be cost-effective to someone or all those towers would not be going up.

What is your definition of cost-effective?

[Siouxman]

They're dumping the power on the grid now, it must be cost-effective to someone or all those towers would not be going up.

What is your definition of cost-effective?

And that is a major assumption on your part. I work in the industry, and quite of few of the wind farms are going up as loss leaders and based on speculation on spot market wholesale prices. Right now they are doing very poorly, because the vast majority of the time the wholesale spot market price is below the price needed to make such wind farms cash flow properly. The only thing keeping them afloat is the federal Production Tax Credit, which you are paying for.

Just like we have all these ethanol plants that are making money, right? Not quite. We have a couple new ones that have never fired up because the economics are so bad, yet they were built.

[MplsBison]

And that is a major assumption on your part. I work in the industry, and quite of few of the wind farms are going up as loss leaders and based on speculation on spot market wholesale prices. Right now they are doing very poorly, because the vast majority of the time the wholesale spot market price is below the price needed to make such wind farms cash flow properly. The only thing keeping them afloat is the federal Production Tax Credit, which you are paying for.

Just like we have all these ethanol plants that are making money, right? Not quite. We have a couple new ones that have never fired up because the economics are so bad, yet they were built.

Thanks for the comments. Hey, if I'm wrong it won't be the first or last time.

I 100% support the government subsidizing the construction of new infrastructure. We all know that there is no way the private sector would ever make such an investment on their own. Building expensive infrastructure is not what the private sector does. It gets the government to do that for them.

I can't really see how it would not be cost effective, once built. You're generating power, for basically no cost (other than building the tower in the first place) and getting money for the providing the power. Unless the towers have massive maintenance costs, it would seem that once they're up, it's basically providing power for nothing.

[The Sicatoka]

Unless the towers have massive maintenance costs, ...

Anything big, heavy, mechanical, with lots of moving parts, and especially electrical stuff out in the elements, will have significant maintenance (relative to overall operational) costs.

I was told by faculty at NDSCS that it take two full-time maintenance technicians per ten wind towers.

[Shawn-O]

Thanks for the comments. Hey, if I'm wrong it won't be the first or last time.

I 100% support the government subsidizing the construction of new infrastructure. We all know that there is no way the private sector would ever make such an investment on their own. Building expensive infrastructure is not what the private sector does. It gets the government to do that for them.

I can't really see how it would not be cost effective, once built. You're generating power, for basically no cost (other than building the tower in the first place) and getting money for the providing the power. Unless the towers have massive maintenance costs, it would seem that once they're up, it's basically providing power for nothing.

Wind sounds cost effective as a fuel saver, but not a capacity saver. You'd still need fossil fuels for the rest of our lifetimes and then some. It's intermittent, and making it more consistent would take a lot more capital investment. I'm no expert...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....with free wi-fi so I wiki'ed it.

[MplsBison]

Anything big, heavy, mechanical, with lots of moving parts, and especially electrical stuff out in the elements, will have significant maintenance (relative to overall operational) costs.

I was told by faculty at NDSCS that it take two full-time maintenance technicians per ten wind towers.

What are the maintenance costs vs. the revenue generated?