AutoblogGreen

"As advanced as this refinery might be, just imagine what new non-fossil fuel technology could be created with that $10 billion."

First of all, I'm pro-renewables, so I certainly support the statement above. However, we are living in a world that cannot (will not?) ween itself off fossil fuels. Such a plant is needed. However, I'd rather see this as a replacement, not as an addition to the current aging refineries.

On another note, at $10 billion a pop and such a long construction period, it's easy to deduce that private entities will not be building many of these in the near future.

Reply

My imagination is cramped today. Please imagine for me the non-fossil fuel technology that could be created for $10 billion. Write the business case. Find investors. Make it happen.

I am all for an alternative source of fuel, but it is not going to happen until the market makes it happen (i.e. the cost, be it the monetary, political, etc. cost of fossil fuels becomes high enough).

Reply

When I think of South Dakota, I think of the Corn Palace :)

As for the refinery, I doubt we'll be seeing many more new builds. With current oil prices, refining is not a very profitable business, and the supply is getting increasingly strained.

Reply

Imagine, duh: wind.

Back when reasoning people ran our government bureaucracies, our DOE estimated 150% of our energy needs could come from wind from places like the Dakotas:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html
which have been called the Saudi Arabia of wind.

Heres a business model: (woops, first enact into law that utilities must buy your wind if you build it like in Roscoe, Texas where farmers can earn $5000 per turbine / per year with their wind turbines:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16658695)
then, bring $10 billion dollars worth of wind turbines in.

$10 billion invested in wind buys enough for about 9,000 MW of electricity, enough to get about 3 to 4 million people off the carbon grid...forever.

Oil, not so much.

Inevitable whiny intermittency argument refutation here:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/wind-power-as-a.html

Reply

Woops, farmers in Roscoe earn $5000 to $15000 per wind turbine, my mistake.

Reply

Whow that wind power sounds cheap. 1 modern nuke plant will come in at 4 billion plus cost over-runs and get you 1200 MWs.

Reply

Yeah, its well hidden in the US, even the Wall Street Journal (isn't that like financial advice for investors...?) seems flabbergasted that some foreign "windmill" company (Spain's Iberdrola) is worth $40 billion - or more than Duke Energy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/11/20/show-me-the-money/

Reply

I'll chime in (since I live in SD).

first off all, I'm hopeing they build this refinery here, cause it will boost our economy.
and while yes, I'm aure some of you are bummed that it isn't some hi-tech battery plant or something....at least its in the US. which is always a plus.

and we all know that we have th windiest state, and while other states like california or minnesota are getting way more power from wind then us....you have to understand that there isn't a huge popluation in South Dakota, the whole state has a population apprx 800,000 , I live in the biggest city (Sioux Falls) its population is 150,000. So bigger cities will likely keep an edge on us because we dont need/use as much power as them.

However, that doesn't mean were not trying.
I believe construction start in early 08' of a windfarm by Brookings (SD) of a 200MW wind farm.

hell, theres even some REALLY ambitious concepts/plans out there...like a massive wind farm capable of producing 6,000MW!
http://www.windaction.org/news/12409

Reply

murc, thats exciting news from an....interrrrresting source, trying to stir up some astroturf grassroots NIMBYism. Hope people there are not fooled!

You should read the Roscoe story I linked for tips, and try and organise locally to counteract the efforts of WindINaction.

Reply

I'm sorry- I have to ask the 7th grade science question- With something as enormous as a 6GW wind farm,can you use up wind? that is, will there be substantially less wind- down wind? Isn't that in part why its so windy in the Dakotas- because there's nothing slowing the wind down? Forgive the line of questioning- I'm medicated today.

Reply

Guenther: A good question. The average windspeed downwind of a wind turbine or a turbine array will inevitably be lower than that upwind. Even in a massive array, however, the overall fraction of area taken up by blades will be small, and the wind speed 'seen' by the downwind turbines will be only slightly lower than those upstream.

Turbine spacing, when unrestricted by geographical considerations (siting on hilltops etc.), are generally at least 5 blade diameters apart. With large windmills now over 100m in diameter, that means towers will most likely be more than .5 km apart.

Reply

No, wind farms can't "use up" wind.
Does one 747 cause turbulence for another 747 3 miles away? No. Similar size and distance in turbine blades.

The huge windfarms are spread out to maximise wind variation.

Reply

Glad to see someone picking up on this story outside of South Dakota. Keep looking and you will see that the proposed Hyperion Energy Center (not green, not clean http://www.elkpointgorilla.com/) is just one SD project that will wreak havoc and devastation beyond belief! Check out where the 'fuel' is coming from, the Alberta tarsands http://oilsandstruth.org/. Tarsands development is likely one reason why Canada cannot meet its Kyoto level agreements - and very disturbing on many different levels including local health impacts, water depletion and contamination and astronomical rise in CO2 - just what the world needs? We need a REAL clean energy transition now. Mary Jo Stueve, State Program Coordinator, Clean Water Action South Dakota http://www.cleanwateraction.org/sd/

Reply

I am thrilled that a new refinery is buing built. There will always be some demand for gas and diesel. If this plant is as effecint as they say, then as the overall demand for oil goes down, and it will as other energy sources come on line, then the older less effecient, more polluting plants will close down. We will still have the fuel we need but from a cleaner source.

Reply