Oil Billionaire Building World's Largest Wind Farm 661
gadzook33 writes "CNN is reporting that oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is planning to invest billions of dollars in what will probably be the world's largest wind farm. It will eventually generate 4 gigawatts, enough to power 1.3 million homes. The first 600 GE wind turbines are scheduled for delivery in 2010. Pickens says that each turbine will generate about $20,000 in income annually for the landowner who hosts it."
its time to take notice!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish he would do solar collectors(not panels)
Right now they are the most promising clean alternatives, and they can store energy for night time use.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't bring up "killing birds" (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, if air pollution from oil/coal/whatever happens, that affects the birds too, dumb and smart.
Early adopter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:its time to take notice!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nameplate? Or actual? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not buy a nuclear plant... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:1, Insightful)
"eventually generate 4 gigawatts"
Four whole gigawatts! Man, that must be like, almost 1/4 what a typical nuclear plant generates for 10 times the price and environmental impact! What a deal! Maybe for his next project he can invest billions in a solar farm of 50 square miles to generate a 500 kilowatts!! I love green technology. It goes so well with the moldy green brains that push to advance it in the face of cleaner more efficient technology that's existed for over 50 years.
I wonder how this genius became a billionaire. No, don't tell me, let me guess... stock trader or corporate raider? Maybe a lawyer or politician?
Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Incentives and subsidies rush products that are not yet ready into the market because they are made artificially cheaper. The problem is, instead of using whatever technology can profitably produce energy, we end up using whatever technology is the favorate of the most people, or the pet project of a particular legislator or lobbying industry (corn ethanol, I'm looking at you).
They are industrially designed (Score:3, Insightful)
If they would catch fire all days, it would be a problem, and you can be sure they would be redesigned or not used at all. So please stop making a big issue from a sub 1% thing.
Re:Early adopter (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy knows that the writing's on the wall with respect to fossil fuels. He's just moving on to the next challenge.
Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Plant construction: not every design is actually energy-positive over the expected lifetime
Variability of wind even in windy areas
Energy transport and storage to non-windy areas/times (if you want to go more than 10% wind)
Kennedys: don't want their "view" spoiled. Unfortunately, Joe was both prolific and very wealthy.
Just to name a few.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Wind is too easy. With oil they could hide fake costs and over inflate real ones.
2) Wind is everywhere. By getting exclusive drilling rights they can squeeze out the little guy so they have no new competition.
3) It's new. Big corporations HATE new. New is work and new is learning. CEO people hate work and learning.
Personally reason 3 makes the most sense, But the others are possible. The fact that this guy is trying to move to wind shows that he's at least trying to move foward. Good for him
Re:its time to take notice!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly. Oil billionaries can't drill for oil anymore in the first or second world so they are looking at new sources. Drilling for some terrorist despot in a third world hellhole and hoping the regime lasts long enough to pay you the percentage they promised before the next revolution nationalizes the fields isn't all that enticing.
Owning windmills in Texas is a solid moneymaking proposition now and since Texas isn't likely to experience a revolution anytime soon and seize your assets long term investing makes sense.
Re:They are industrially designed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a capitalist country after all, nothing happens unless there is a profit to be made. My only other concern is the amount of land that these wind farms gobble up. With the growth in population especially in energy craving areas like southern california land is at a premium, which makes dedicating hundreds of acres to a wind farm also cost prohibitive. Considering no only likes high tension lines running through their neighborhood it is reasonable to think that systems like wind and solar will have to think seriously about competing with local land needs.
just a thought
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
For most of us who have jobs that is nearly impossible. If you don't live in a big city, you don't have access to buses, and using a car is just about impossible to go to your job 10, 15 or even 20 miles away. So it is impractical to walk or ride a bike. So while that may sound great, over 75% of us can't do that.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
The meat of my first comment was that it doesn't make any sense to run an oil company at a loss, because you won't be running it for very long. That market conditions allow them to make huge profits is perhaps unfortunate, but the other side of that equation is that they are providing you with something that you state you cannot do without.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
mass transit by and large sucks on this continent
we're too bloody spread out for self-propelled transit to be an option for most and i need to be able to carry things like groceries.
electric vehicles are nigh-impossible to get for the majority
alternative fuels are still building infrastructure, so aren't an option for most.
not that i don't agree with the sentiment, but realistic alternatives would be nice.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
10 miles each way is nothing on a bike, and it's a pretty sad commentary on Americans that they are so quick to complain about such a trivial bit of physical work/play. 15 ain't bad, but it's starting to get into the terretory where members of the opposite sex will be tearing your pants to shreds pretty regularly just to get a better look at your quads. This can impede productivity.
Yes, bike facilities suck right now. But that's because the pansy-assed Americans are too busy whining about rising but still stupidly low gas prices to whine about something that could actually fix the problem.
ps. Gasoline makes you fat :)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be, but here in the US there aren't sidewalks everywhere to ride your bike and to actually ride your bike you have to take tons of side streets unless you want to risk being run over on the interstate which takes you quite long and if you have to be at your job by say 8 you had better wake up at 6.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, see, when you say "stop buying oil products" you have no idea how a statement like that can be so naive and obtuse at the same time.
This country runs on money but the currency that money uses is oil. It is intertwined in everything we have and do. You can't just stop using it no matter how hard you try.
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the accident rate for cyclists on roads is about 7 times lower than that on sidewalks. Interstates are of course pretty unpleasant for bikes, but I'm not sure they're really suitable for cars either during rush hour.
That's one of my points. If everyone bitching about rising gas prices instead actually started bitching about bike facilities (esp. lanes, parking, showers), then we might be able to start to move in the right direction.
And no, there is really no way a 10-mile commute on a bike can take 2 hours. Average lifetime speed of cars, city and highway, in the USA has been measured a few times, and usually found to be in the neighbourhood of 18mph. Average speed of a pathetically unhealthy lard-ass on a bike: ~10mph. My own average speed for commuting on my bike after a month: 15mph. Now (2 years later): 18mph. Yes, I tend to take more circuitous routes, and that costs me a little extra time, but not much, and it keeps me smiling.
And then there are the intangibles. Arriving by car I have just wasted the time spent sitting in the car (books on CD and whatnot can help somewhat). If I've arrived by bike, I feel refreshed, energised, relaxed, and vibrant. I've gotten in my recreation for the day, as well as my workout. I've caused little pollution, little congestion, few parking problems for anyone, almost no noise, and made transportation safer for everyone just by being seen (yes, the single biggest part of cycling safety is making motor addicts aware that there are bikes on the road).
There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, of course. With shitty bike facilities, few people will bike, and with few people biking, there will be no obvious demand for better bike facilities. Change could start from either end, and I know which end I am on. Are you going to be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate?
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd venture to guess that most of us in the US don't live in a temperate climate for much of the year. I'd also venture to guess that many if not most working Americans have to look somewhat professional when they show up for work. I live in New Orleans...I've had my air conditioner runing pretty much since February. Right now..summer is really starting to heat up, and soon in the mornings it is in the upper 80s' with 90%+ humidity. Even if I did live 5-10 miles from work, a bike ride would leave me a sweat soaked, rumpled looking idiot. It is hot here most of the year. The counter part is the person living in the NE...where it is colder than blazes with tons of ice and snow on the ground for a good part of the year...riding a bike? I don't think so.
I like to exercise, but, I do it at the gym....where looking sweaty while working (out) is an expected by-product.
I'll not even get into trying to ride your bike on public roads in rush hour comign or going to work. You're taking your life into your own hands on that one. I even have to admit feeling my blood pressure going up a bit, when some idiot on a bike is holding up traffic going too slow.
Really in this day in age, unless you have a dedicated bike lane...if you're on two wheels, it should be motorized for everyones safety.
Re:just a few thoughts on clena energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the concept behind incentives is that sometimes you have a chicken-and-egg problem where the technology is advanced enough to give a good return, but is only truly economically feasible once mass-production lowers the price. But you can't get mass production until there's lesser production, but at lesser production it's not profitable. The incentive is designed to get around this problem, so it's profitable now, and once the price lowers due to mass production, it becomes feasible without the incentive.
You know that hydroelectric was based on "incentives", right? The Hoover Dam was entirely a government-funded project. You can't exactly mass-produce dams, so this isn't a totally analogue example, but it is an example of successful alternative energy implementation based on government subsidies, no?
Corn ethanol would be an example of a bad subsidy, to be sure, but pretty much everything to do with agriculture in our country is fucked up by the corn lobby. The lesson is not that government subsidies are bad as an idea. It means that like most things some implementations are bad, some good.
If wind mills are only economical with subsidies now -- I'm not convinced that's the case any more, but even still if it gets more built -- then that sounds like a fine use of taxpayer money to me, since of all the alternative energy sources wind power has the fewest drawbacks of any of them. In fact the worst thing you can say about it is that it won't replace all of our coal plants. Big woop, it's a step in the right direction.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad I live in Alaska now. The weather may be colder, but at least we build bike paths for commuters here. I've even used Rollerblades to get to work a time or two
Re:1st Law of Thermodynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to get an idea of scale when comparing our size (or the size of these engines) to the ENTIRE WORLD would be a good place to start. It's like saying that the friction from all our cars breaking will slow down the Earth's rotation. Come on.
Re:1st Law of Thermodynamics (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
My goodness, how much groceries are you buying?
I can't imagine what a family of four would have to contend with....hell one trip to Sam's and you'd need to tow about 8-10 of those bicycle carts bare minimum.
Once a week? That seems like a lot of groceries, even for a family of 4.
Most of us do not live in an urban setting my friend.
I live in a town of 23 thousand. about 12 miles from the town i work in, which is ~ 90 thousand people. Far from urban, methinks.
I've also not got time to shop every day...I tend to buy a weeks's worth and cook 2-3 meals on Sunday to eat through the week...lunches and some dinners....
Same here. I don't like going to the store every day. Who do you think is going to plan their outings more efficiently, someone in a car, or someone who's pedaling their way around?
so I have time to go to the gym and whatnot after work....
Seriously? You don't ride a bike because then you wouldn't have time to go to the gym?
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
> that I've been fed of <scaryvoice>evil
> capitalists</scaryvoice> that hate planet earth.
Ok, I'll bite.
Capitalism isn't 'evil' - it simply puts money above everything: that means that it can, and will, step upon those who get in it's way.
That's why we have laws - to even the playing ground. Like your clean air? It wasn't capitalism that made it clean - it was the people standing up and saying 'we want clean air.'
And that's really not capitalism - but it was the right thing to do.
I know you want to make a point about how morally bankrupt 'Environmentalists' are, or something like that. The point is - if it wasn't for a basic grass roots movement to clean things up, it wouldn't have happened.
Of course, that will open a market, and capitalists will move in and make a profit. A free market doesn't care what it crushes - that's why we have laws.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
In the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism was exploiting "the worker"... but then it turned out to be wrong as the workers in capitalist country became wealthier and wealthier, after WWII, the mantra changed and capitalist countries where exploiting "3rd world countries". Then globalization kicked in and the 3rd world countries got wealthier.
No humans left to denounce exploitation? No problem! Capitalism now exploits "the environment".
Regardless of the actual facts of global warming, the real fuss is rooted in anti-capitalism, not genuine scientific concern.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... you're refusing to ride a bike because you're worried that it will make you not look pretty enough??
Of course, it'll heat up a lot more over the next few years, thanks largely to cars and air conditioners.
You show up sweaty, go take a shower and get changed into your work clothes, and you look good. Relaxed and confident, in fact, the way you feel after a good workout. Body language says much more than clothes, especially to airhead businessmen.
Biking in the heat isn't bad. Wind chill ("augmented evaporative cooling") is rather nice, actually. Clever how we sweat when appropriate, isn't it?
As for the danger of cycling, I'd expect people who watch the mainstream media to make that claim, but on slashdot I'd expect better. Look up how dangerous cycling is vs. driving. No contest--especially when you consider the accident rate amongst reasonably experienced, sober adults. It's virtually nonexistent.
Does your blood pressure rise when you see someone on a bike? Gee. Mine rises when I see someone in a car acting as if he's going to be late to his red light. Cyclists consume almost no resources. Cars are very slightly faster (go look up how much, in day-to-day use), and at what cost? Cyclists are doing the right thing. Why doesn't your blood boil when yet another person gets into a car? Drivers cause rush hour and traffic jams and accidents, and every one of you is equally to blame, for choosing to use your car, and for not demanding traffic-jam-proof transportation solutions.
Motors give people enough kinetic energy to do real damage. How many cars have killed someone in the past year? How many bikes? Now which is dangerous? How many Americans have late-onset diabetes, heart disease, and a plethora of other obesity-related illnesses just because motors let them avoid any and all exercise? How much cancer can be directly traced to the burning of hydrocarbons? How many Iraqi deaths are due to a certain invasion because Iraq had oil and the USA was too weak to find a way around its addiction to artificially cheap energy for its spectacularly inefficient transportation "infrastructure"? New Orleans was just flooded by a hurricane, water levels are going to rise a hell of a lot more, and climate is going to get a lot more unstable--it's burning of fossil fuels that is responsible for these things. I could go on. But think really hard before claiming that motors make us safer.The far left will fight this hard (Score:2, Insightful)
First, it is proposed by a capitalist, hence it "must" be evil. There is far to much conspiracy thinking in those camps.
Second, it is proposed by an oil billionaire.
Now for the saner reasons. (Unfortunately I have talked with several people that will completely distrust it based on the first two points).
The first sane problem is that he is likely going to use the typical pinwheel windmill. Those things slice through birds at 200 mph, since the birds don't know to avoid them. GE should just buy out that company that uses a impeller style windmill that looks turned on its side. These appear solid to birds so they avoid them. Secondly, they don't spin faster than the wind.
The next big big problem is that these things are going to get trashed by tornadoes in that area and the flying blade pieces will likely kill some people. We are talking tornado alley here.
Next big problem is that they can't handle high wind speed and will often be switched off and the blades locked in place. Again, GE needs to buy that impeller design lock, stock, and barrel. They can handle twice the windspeed and only need locked down at above 100 mph wind.
Next, people will complain about all the electric fields, and there will be some health study, that will result in some class action lawsuit.
The only good thing going for it is that you have a billionaire with enough money to make it happen even with the lawsuits.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
In the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism was exploiting "the worker"
The only thing you get right in your whole post. Just trying to be even.
but then it turned out to be wrong as the workers in capitalist country became wealthier and wealthier
No, it wasn't wrong. The workers just got organized, is all, and they changed things.
after WWII, the mantra changed and capitalist countries where exploiting "3rd world countries".
Not a mantra. Since they couldn't exploit at home anymore dues to pesky things like 'fair pay', 'safety rules', and democratic tenets such as freedom of expression, they just moved on to other countries that were either poor or totalitarian. This is why your country doesn't have a manufacturing base anymore.
Then globalization kicked in and the 3rd world countries got wealthier.
Yeah, I'm just gagging to move to China</sarcasm>
No problem! Capitalism now exploits "the environment".
Um, yeah, that's kinda how it works. Doing stuff without making a mess is a lot more costly than just dumping your crap wherever you want, that's basic numbers. And for a while, cheap crap was a lot more important than not shitting in our backyard. Unfortunately, all that shit piles up, and now you have to ask yourself how badly you want Wal-Mart prices if, say, your house gets Fubared due to climate change.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The far left will fight this hard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a bike commuter (16 mile commute) who lives and commutes around suburban Minnesota, year-round. Here are my replies to some of the points you make. I'll preface my remarks by saying that the Twin Cities and surrounding areas are known for having a generally bike-tolerant motorist population, and summer heat rarely gets over 95 degrees (though in the winter temps below -10 without wind chill aren't uncommon!).
Shower at work? That's not terribly common.
This is indeed a limiting factor for commuting cyclists. I happen to work at a large employer that has showers (and lockers!) accessible to all employees, so I'm spoiled in this regard. Some cyclists aren't so lucky. I know some that take a birdbath with wet towelettes, or happen to have memberships at a nearby gym that has showers. No global solution here.
Also..where do you carry your change of clothes with you on that bike so they don't get wrinkled?
A bike with a rack and pannier can carry work clothes as you describe easily without wrinkles. Alternatively, some of my suit-wearing bike commuting brethren will drive to work once a week or so, and stock their offices/cubes/whatever with a few fresh suits, and change in the office on the days they do commute by bike.
Generally, a bicycle has little business on roads where 70mph is normal. Most roads that have speed limits that high (freeways, etc) around where I live are specifically "no bikes allowed."
The speed differential problem you mention isn't a problem provided that there is adequate horizontal spacing between the bike and the cars. Many roads where 50 mph is the norm have a sufficient bike-able shoulder where 5-8 feet of spacing is easily accomplished. It might not sound like a lot, but it is plenty of space, and traffic can pass the cyclist at full speed without slowing down or veering off to the side. Of course, many roads don't have such shoulders. Fortunately, the road system in the US is very dense. A little bit of studying on Google maps will usually yield good bike commute routes that stay off of the high-speed, zero-shoulder roads. They will often be a bit longer, of course, often winding through residential areas, business parks, etc.
I said that they shouldn't share the road with bikes
I disagree with this sharply. Cyclists and motorists can indeed share the road safely and not get in each other's way. All it takes is both the cyclist and the motorists to respect each other's rights on the road, and have an ounce of consideration for the other party. I admit that cyclists deserve much of the blame here. Many people on bikes think that they're not subject to traffic laws when they ride on the road, and do stupid things (run stop signs, pass cars in turn lanes, etc) that make the responsible and considerate cyclists look bad. Even so, bike-car collisions are relatively rare. Around here, even non-crippling/fatal bike-car collisions will make the evening news. Car collisions only make headlines when they are particularly spectacular. Your locale might be different, of course.
In the end...even with my short comings I'll admit to...there is just no practical way, in the professional world for most of us to ride a bike to/from work when you take climate into consideration.
Everybody's situation is different, and I concede that it is quite difficult many to commute to work via bicycle for various reasons, be it distance from work, family commitments, health conditions, etc. However, it is much easier, safer, and practical than many people think. I'd suggest that the nay-sayers take closer look at bike commuting. Even if you drive 3/4 of the way to work with a bike in the trunk, park the car, and bike that last portion, and only do this on nice-weather Fridays, you're cutting down on your fuel costs and getting some healthy exercise at the same time.
Econ 101 time (Score:3, Insightful)
Learn...
The value of a stock depends on many things, the most important of which are these:
1. The value of the assets under the control of the corporation. I.e. the breakup value.
2. The cash flow of the business.
3. The profit margin, i.e. the basic rate of return on the invested money. Even though most profits are reinvested, retained or used to buy back stock because of the tax implications of dividends, investors still win because those other activities tend to increase the stock price.
4. Intangibles such as good will.
Remember that a corporation isn't a job program, it doesn't exist to serve the public, it exists to serve the shareholders. If the shareholders aren't happy they sell their shares, replace the board, sell off the corporation, etc.
Now lets have a quick pop quiz to see if you have actually learned anything.
Q1. If an energy company were to forsake profits to make Democrats happy, i.e. lower profits than similar investments, can you tell me what would happen to it's stock price?
Q2. Would the reaction be economically 'correct'?
Q3. Bonus Question. Search out the actual costs associated with a gallon of gas and determine what rank oil company profits come in at when you rank the following costs in their correct order:
1. Crude oil
2. Refining
3. Taxes (amortized corporate taxes + gas taxes)
4. Distribution
5. Dealer markup
6. Oil Company profit
7. Advertising
8. Exploration
9. Research and Development
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one of my points. If everyone bitching about rising gas prices instead actually started bitching about bike facilities (esp. lanes, parking, showers), then we might be able to start to move in the right direction.
Ferretman
Re:Clothing Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you wear that you can roll up that won't look like it went through hell with wrinkles and such. I wear 100% cotton slacks and button down shirts...they look like crap if rolled up and put in a backpack.
"(3) Keep a small towel at work for your shower."
I take it you don't live in the south of the US, especially near the gulf coast as I do. A towel won't do it. We have LONG summers here...with 95+F degrees...and usually the same or higher humidity. Hell, here, you can start to perspire getting out of the shower before you start to dry off...seriously. A towel isnt' gonna cut it. I wasnt' joking that I started turning my AC on in Feburary...full time by middle to end of March...and it doesn't really go off till November.
That kind of sweat and funk ain't gonna make it in a professional work environment. A towel would be soaked before drying 1/4 of my body if I rode a bike to work.
Re:Idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain that to me.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the "socialist" things that western governments do are profitable for private business.
- Public schools and cheap/free higher education, if properly used, increase the educated work force and allow for greater productivity and profit.
- Public health care, if properly used, increases the overall health and productive lifespan of the population allowing for more productivity and greater profit.
- Public transport reduces the wear and tear on roads, decreases the consumption of oil(and therefor both the environmental impact and the actual cost of petrol), provides cleaner air(see benefits of public health care), reduces traffic congestion and therefor commute time, requirements for businesses to build parking structures, cost of expansion of roads, and a number of other things.
These sorts of things benefit everyone, including businesses, however no one wants to pay for them because that would involve a reduction in "my" money.The same thing goes for the long term costs of things. A CEO is interested in increasing his or her own personal wealth above all other things(that's how capitalism works), but the system has been put in place such that the only thing that matters to his or her own personal wealth is the short term results of his or her actions combined with luck. Any CEO with half a brain will trade a profit today resulting in a massive loss 5 years down the road for a small loss today resulting in a massive profit 5 years down the road.
This means that things like environmental pollution, outsourcing, and other forms of exploitation are rewarded for their short term benefits as opposed to punished for their long term consequences.
The problem with all of this is that in order to force companies to recognize long term costs and to organize the creation of and management of services which in and of themselves may never be profitable but which reduce costs and increase profits over the whole of society, we need a government, because populist and short sighted though they may be they're still better than private enterprise at certain things.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC (I remember seeing this somewhere).
At 125$+ per barrel wind power no longer needs tax breaks to be competitive vs other energy sources (coal and gas use rises in oil prices to raise their prices accordingly and some are contractually tied up to oil price).
At 150$+ per barrel solar will also stop needing tax breaks.
So it is evil capitalism at its best.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine what a family of four would have to contend with....hell one trip to Sam's and you'd need to tow about 8-10 of those bicycle carts bare minimum.
Once a week? That seems like a lot of groceries, even for a family of 4.
I cringe at the thought of towing them behind a bike, not to mention all the groceries. It's just not feasible.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait...we've built cities and skyscrapers and thousands upon thousands of towers for power, cell phones, radio, television, and all kinds of things that screw with the weather patterns? And we haven't died?
Never mind then.
Sorry to take your time.
Re:Idiocy (Score:4, Insightful)
The phenomenon you're talking about is called the Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org] and it's been around since long before capitalism became the dominant economic model.
The problem arises whenever an action causes a short-term benefit to an individual, but a long term cost to a group. Since the individual is part of the group, he is faced with two choices:
That's a pretty easy decision to make, and we haven't (yet) found a way a getting around the problem without trampling all over people's rights.
It's particularly tricky when the cost is very long-term. As a previous poster mentioned, the reduction in wind energy resulting from wind farms will (given enough farms and enough time) have a substantial effect on the climate. But the long run cost of any individual wind farm is impossible to calculate, since there are so many unknown variables, and probably so small as to be negligible anyway. So how do we go about assigning blame and collecting compensation fairly?
A parting thought: If, 150 years ago, you had asked an average person what they thought the top environmental problem of the future would be, they'd have talked about dealing with horse manure. It's not because of government intervention that we don't walk knee deep in horsesh*t today.
Re:Idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. So once you've got cancer or something similarly nasty (I assume that your body is your property, but the air anywhere outside the land you own isn't, and even on the land you own it's somewhat questionable if it is), then you can sue, hope that survive long enough to see the end of the lawsuit, hope that your lawyer is more competent than their lawyer, and die as a rich (or poor, depending on the outcome) person.
Thanks, I'll rather have some degree of proactivity. Some things just simply cannot be compensated for with the payout from a lawsuit.