From the Los Angeles Times:

A year ago the Oracle of Oil, T. Boone Pickens, reinvented himself as the Wizard of Wind, launching a $58-million ad campaign to boost alternative energy and vowing to spend $10 billion to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. It was a startling move from a staunch conservative who had made a fortune in the Texas oil fields, raising hopes that both ends of the political spectrum were coming around to the same point of view about weaning the country from its reliance on oil.
And then, last week, the Pickens plan foundered. Pickens announced that he was scrapping the wind farm. It’s too late to take back the $2 billion worth of wind turbines he has already ordered, so instead he has decided to place them in smaller projects around the country.

So, what’s his new nickname? Might I suggest the Hercules of hype? The editors continue . . .

So what’s going wrong? The recession and the discovery of new supplies have depressed natural gas prices, making gas-fired power plants more economically competitive than renewable energy. Another consequence of the recession is that lenders that were once eager to put up the money for renewable-energy projects have pulled back. And the expense and difficulty of building transmission lines from remote wind farms to urban centers is forcing many, including Pickens, to drop ambitious projects in favor of smaller ones in places where transmission lines already exist.

When being wrong just feels so right.

P.S. It’s not just the cost and difficulty of building transmission lines; environmental restrictions have played a part in delaying these projects, as well. Here’s the L.A. Times from January:

An environmental group has asked the California Supreme Court to review a controversial power transmission project that was approved last month by the state Public Utilities Commission.
The petition filed late Wednesday by the Center for Biological Diversity alleges that the commission violated California law by failing to ensure that the proposed Sunrise Powerlink would be used principally to carry renewable energy and by rejecting alternative routes that would have avoided fragile wilderness areas. The group wants the court to void the decision and order the PUC to reconsider the proposal.
“Sunrise . . . would sacrifice sensitive public lands and vital habitat without any guarantee the line will be used to deliver clean energy,” said Ileene Anderson, Los Angeles spokeswoman for the group.

It’s irresponsible of the LAT to not mention this when editorializing on the subject.