Send to Friend

Renewable energy is the source of much controversy and media coverage in rural America and all of America today. Right now, most of the controversy surrounds biofuels. But another form of renewable energy enjoys near-universal support in rural America – wind power. In fact, a recent University of Nebraska poll found 89 percent of rural Nebraska residents believe wind energy is an important part of our energy future.  

When it comes to wind energy, there are optimists and pessimists. Optimists tend to overlook some of the major obstacles to wind energy growth, while pessimists often dismiss wind out of hand, refusing to believe it will ever play a major role in generating electricity in this country.

As usual, both sides cite their facts and figures to make their arguments, and if you only listen to one side you can easily find plenty to fit your preconceived notions. Often lacking in wind energy discussions are a serious overview of what it will take to generate a significant fraction of our electricity from wind – what the obstacles and opportunities are, what the benefits would be, how much would it actually cost, etc.

Fortunately, the federal government, in their wisdom, has published a report detailing a scenario in which 20 percent of our electricity is provided by wind in the year 2030. And they go to great lengths to explain what it will take to make that happen.

The Department of Energy (DOE) full report – 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply – is available online at http://www.20percentwind.org/. Topping out at 226 pages, it isn’t for the faint of heart or those with busy lives. Fortunately, a summary is also available on their website.

Today, wind energy provides about .8 percent of our nation’s electricity. Given that we have enough wind energy potential to power the entire country, this is a somewhat pitiful number. But we obviously have a long history of relying on fossil fuels.

The DOE report makes clear that significant expenditures will be required to vastly increase wind power electricity generation in the United States. However, the report also makes clear that generating 20 percent of our electricity from wind is entirely possible. The challenge to meeting that goal is not primarily economic or technical in nature, but rather a matter of political will.

As of 2006, the United States produced about 12 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from wind (today that number has increased to about 18 GW). To generate enough electricity to provide 20 percent of our electricity from wind power in 2030 will require a little more than 300 GW – a steep increase, to be sure.

However, this number pales in comparison to the estimated total potential wind energy electricity generation in the U.S. – 8,000 GW, which is far more than the total electrical demand forecasted for 2030. And that 8,000 GW number is only for potential wind generation that is currently viewed as “economically feasible” to capture, a calculation that can always change.

Can it be done? Can we actually reach 300 GW? Absolutely. It will cost approximately $197 billion in capital costs to build the wind turbines and transmission network to create a 20 percent wind reality. But that $197 billion is largely offset by $155 billion in savings from decreased fuel expenditures, and we all know how quick those prices are increasing. It’s not hard to imagine that decreased fuel expenditures could offset the entire cost of the increase in wind energy generation.

This basic cost/benefit analysis does not take into account the reduction in greenhouse gases and other pollutants associated with a decrease in fossil fuel production – the classic market externalities that have allowed fossil fuels to be priced artificially low for so long. Nor does the study examine whether wind energy actually creates more jobs and economic benefits for the communities in which it is located than fossil fuel power plants.

But there are serious obstacles to reaching a 20 percent goal, and it will take political courage to overcome them. Perhaps first and foremost, coal power remains cheaper than wind power if environmental concerns are not taken into account. A serious program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions could do much to make wind power economically competitive, if not the low-cost option. Without such a program (or other initiatives to encourage wind power) wind power will remain economically disadvantaged in areas without strong state support for wind power and renewable energy.

Outside of the political arena, the primary obstacles to a 20 percent wind scenario involve the transmission of power from windy areas to the cities/suburbs where most electricity is used. Major new power transmission lines will be needed to deliver the electricity. Investment in the power grid has fallen dramatically since the 1990s (often due to the deregulation schemes that led to Enron). Major investments are needed simply to maintain the power grid we have today. Yet those needs also point to an opportunity. If the U.S. needs to seriously upgrade its electrical power grid anyway, why don’t we do it in a way that supports wind energy?

Upgrading existing power lines and building new ones is an expensive project, and once they’re built you can’t move them. So we have a choice – either we build multi-billion dollar power lines to existing and newly constructed fossil fuel power plants, or we build them to take advantage of wind power. If the U.S. chooses to go with the fossil fuel direction, it is highly unlikely those power lines will ever carry electricity generated from wind power.

Moreover, wind power does vary to some degree, though not to the extent skeptics claim, and the report notes that the variability is easily manageable at the local level. That overall variability will require that the grid be much more “balanced” if we want to take advantage of wind power. In short, the grid will have to be managed at the national level, instead of managed as a series of semi-autonomous states and regions.

These obstacles, while serious, can be overcome. And to translate this into real world numbers, the DOE report estimates that achieving the 20 percent wind scenario will add 50 cents per month to the electricity bill of each U.S. household. 50 cents. A pittance when compared to the benefits wind power can provide.

To top it all off, the DOE report assumes a 39 percent increase in electrical demand by 2030. The goal of receiving 20 percent of our electricity from wind power is not based on the electrical demand of today, not at all. As we’ve said before, any serious plan to encourage renewable energy must start with conservation – a topic not even covered in this particular DOE report.

When you start figuring conservation in, you begin to wonder why the goal is a measly 20 percent. With a real plan for conservation, it’s not hard to imagine that 20 percent goal should actually be 30, 40, or even 50 percent.

As usual, the danger is our short-sighted political system, and greedy corporations will fight to preserve the status quo – one that benefits their bottom lines and campaign chests while leaving the rest of us to bear the costs of their inaction. The 20 percent wind scenario is easily within our reach. It is simply a matter of politicians, businesses, and citizens joining together to make serious efforts to secure a more sustainable energy future for our country.

Contact: Dan Owens, dano@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1017 for more information.