Which is why I proposed the seed corn approach to establishing the wind farms.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

The big problem with the mountain west (in which I include South Dakota is that it makes little sense to send power produced in South Dakota to market in Chicago, because there are significant losses in efficiency sending it that great a distance.  Migeru wrote on this a while back.

Far better is to investigate the placement of wind turbines on the Western Coast of Michigan, and in the relatively shallow waters of lake Erie.  These locations are much better than the West, and there's a shorter trip to market.

Looking for example at Nebraska, there's relatively small areas of Class 3 or higher commerically viable wind areas.  The South Dakota maps are held private, but compare this to the offshore and lakeshore capacity in Western Michigan and Northern Ohio where class 4 and 5 wind areas predominate.

Even better it's very close to a market, so you don't have the transmission issues.  Thirdly, you have a ready made consumer for overnight capacity in the electric arc furnaces churning out steel in these regions.  A second use might be to develop deep lake water cooing systems for the greater Chicago area.  All of which could make Chicago an even greener city.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

And what most of this response has to do with MfM's comment escapes me, but WTH.

Well, since Sven gave me a mention in his response to MfM I thought I might as well rise to the bait, and follow up the very useful points made.

It seems to me that an enterprise  model (ie legal and financial structure) is needed that aligns the interests of the turbine producer, developer and the "Community" (who in my book should own turbines).

The requirement is for a model that minimises the total cost of the hardware over time, and that is IMHO a quasi leasing model.

ie bring in the turbine manufacturer as a "manufacturer/operator partner" in an Energy Partnership (LLC or LLP) so that his profit margin:

(a) in producing the turbine; and

(b) in servicing it;

are paid for by allocating to him an agreed proportional "Equity share" in the turbine's production.

The result - particularly if an amount of production were dedicated to depreciation/replacement - could essentially be a sort of "evergreen lease".

The actual "costs" ie whatever amount the turbine manufacturer has to find to pay HIS suppliers, would be funded by selling to Investors units of electricity from the "Pool" of future production.

The resulting "energy debt" would constitute:

(a) an interest-free loan which would be repayable in units of electricity, or their sale proceeds at the market price;

(b) a direct investment in future production of electricity (and a "hedge" against energy price inflation).

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

Also, selling service contracts is a real money spinner.  That's how IBM made their money in the mainframe days.  Their junk wasn't any better than anyone else's junk but, if you paid them, they would send a repairman out to fix their junk when it broke down.

Yeah. Actually, they would stick a flunky in your installation (or a whole lot of them, if needed) to fix stuff in minutes. I was one of them.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.