Going gaga over wind turbines

In his April 15, 2007 article in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman states it best:

“One thing that always struck me about the term ‘green’ was the degree to which, for so many years, it was defined by its opponents … they defined it as ‘liberal,’ ‘tree-hugging,’ ‘sissy,’ ‘girlie-man,’ ‘unpatriotic,’ ‘vaguely French.’ Well, I want to rename ‘green.’ I want to rename it geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic. I want to do that because I think that living, working, designing, manufacturing and projecting America in a green way can be the basis of a new unifying political movement for the 21st century. A redefined, broader and more muscular green ideology is not meant to trump the traditional Republican and Democratic agendas but rather to bridge them when it comes to addressing the three major issues facing every American today: jobs, temperature and terrorism.”

As many of you who read this column already know, we sustainability nerds tend to go gaga over wind turbines. And after having the opportunity to travel to Europe and get my fix of offshore wind farms, I’m a bigger fan than ever before. But I think it’s important to present you with the hard facts. Wind-power technologies are reaching levels of scale that were formerly the staple of coal and gas-fired plants and nuclear reactors. In other words, green is going giant. Companies currently building or dreaming up large projects argue that there are economies of scale to be gained from these endeavors.

Wind energy can supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 at a “modest” cost difference, a new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report says. The analysis predicts that the 20 percent wind scenario would cost only 2 percent more than sticking with the current energy mix, which relies more heavily on traditional fossil fuels. James E. Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who through much of his career has pressed reluctant politicians to limit greenhouse gas emissions, said this about the current state of our number one energy supply: “Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50 percent to coal, 35 percent to oil and 15 percent to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels.” The 20 percent wind scenario entails higher initial capital costs in most areas (due to new infrastructure), yet offers lower ongoing energy costs than conventional power plants for operations, maintenance and fuel. Under the study’s scenario, 500,000 new jobs would be created.

To reach their goal by 2030, the DOE said wind energy installation would need to triple from the current rate of 5.2 gigawatts (GW) added in 2007 to more than 16 GW per year by 2018, with that pace continuing through 2030. The total wind energy growth, 290 GW, would displace the projected use of coal for power generation by 18 percent and the use of natural gas by about 50 percent.

One of the most consistent criticisms of wind is that, due to its intermittent nature, improved electricity storage is necessary. The study, however, finds that electricity storage is not needed to reach the 20 percent goal. Andy Karsner, the DOE’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy, said claims of wind power unreliability are false. “Wind is in fact one of our least volatile resources,” he said at a press briefing.

Wind energy provides just 1 percent of U.S. electricity today, compared with about 7 percent in Germany, where the government has provided steady support for the industry since the early 1990s. State laws that require utilities to purchase wind power have recently revived the U.S. industry, and the country has led the world in wind power installations over the past two years.

The new study estimates that the increase in wind generation would prevent 7.6 billion cumulative tons of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from being emitted – the equivalent of protecting about 48 million acres (19.4 million hectares) of forest from deforestation. This would nearly eliminate the projected increase in emissions from U.S. power plants between now and 2030. The report also estimates that the added wind power would also prevent 4 trillion gallons of water from being consumed for electricity generation. Wow. The numbers don’t lie.

“Although the 20 percent wind scenario sounds ambitious, the industry has actually grown faster over the past year than assumed in the study’s scenario,” said Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin. “Wind power is going to be a huge part of the country’s energy future.”

Ben Eckold is a business junior, a member of the Empower Poly Coalition, and an environmental columnist for the Mustang Daily.