The DOE further states that increasing the use of wind power to supply 20 percent of the nation’s electricity would reduce carbon dioxide emissions (that contribute to climate change) from the electricity generation sector by 25 percent while creating up to a half million new American jobs.
This increased use of wind power would allow the U.S. to reduce its use of natural gas by 50 percent and its use of coal by 18 percent to generate electricity, according to the DOE, and this would improve energy independence and national security. The report notes that without this increased use of wind power the U.S. would substantially increase its use of natural gas for electricity generation, with heavy reliance upon imported liquid natural gas (the greatest suppliers of which will be Iran, Qatar and Russia).
Finally, the DOE notes that increased use of wind power will benefit Americans by making the price of the energy more stable and less vulnerable to the price volatility seen from fossil fuels. While the cost of building all new forms of electrical generation including wind power has increased considerably, at least the fuel cost of wind will always be stable, at zero.
Locally, some have argued that we should put aside shallow water offshore wind projects and instead wait for deepwater projects. The U.S. Department of Energy takes a very different view in its new report:
“Shallow water wind turbine projects have been proposed and could be followed by transitional and finally deepwater turbines. These paths should not be considered as mutually exclusive choices. Because there is a high degree of interdependence among them, they should be considered a sequence of development that builds from a shallow water foundation of experience and knowledge to the complexities of deeper water.”
We at Cape Wind were pleased recently to see that over 41,000 (of the 42,000) written comments received by the Minerals Management Service on their Environmental Impact Statement were in support of our project moving forward. While we recognize that in this day in age that any energy infrastructure project will face opposition, we note that two recent independent polls found statewide support for Cape Wind at 86 percent and that support on the Cape and Islands is growing.
We hope to complete permitting by the end of this year, and we look forward to one day providing 75 percent of the electricity needs of the Cape and Islands from the clean and inexhaustible winds on Horseshoe Shoal.
As America’s first offshore wind farm, Cape Wind would help make Massachusetts a global leader in offshore renewable energy while also helping the United States move toward the goal of supplying 20 percent of its electricity from the power of wind.
Mark Rodgers, Communications Director, Cape Wind
My husband was brought to Massachusetts by U.S. Windpower when it was located in Burlington, MA. At that time, the wind turbines and software were the best in the world. Now it is Vespa from the Netherlands due to lack of support for the US machines. Any U.S.A built wind turbines any more?
<
p>See: http://www.wind-works.org/arti…
<
p>http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl…
I’m a big fan [ba dum bum] of wind power… but here’s the problem:
<
p>Demand has grown by roughly 1% per year. There’s no reason to think that this trend won’t continue. Efficiency gains due to energy star and HVAC improvements will be offset by PLEVs.
<
p>So, in 20 years, demand will be up roughly 20-25%. If wind is now supplying 20% of our electricity, than wind is taking care of 100% growth.
<
p>That’s great — but it does nothing to reduce the emissions of our now-existing coal and oil burning plants.
<
p>
<
p>So, how is it reducing emissions instead of simply flat lining current emissions?
it’s a big first step if we can get the country to seriously get behind that.
<
p>I really think it’s going to take a second New Deal to get these wind turbines up and operational, but why shouldn’t we invest that much time, money and effort? Wind Turbine jobs – taking care of them, building new ones – could be around forever, and most definitely won’t be shipped off overseas. If we took this seriously, even more seriously than that report, then the American economy – I’m confident – would be greatly improved as a result.
Come on Rye. You know me well enough online to know I advocate for Wind Power all the dang time. I think the estimates on quantity of wind power and time line are realistic if we prioritize them.
<
p>But that doesn’t mean that all the claims made in the entry are legit. I just don’t see how
when the growth in wind power will just barely keep up with the growth in demand [if it can even do that].
<
p>If the generating capacity of wind farms doesn’t grow faster than the total demand for electricity, how can wind power reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions?
didn’t the DoE account for a 39% increase in demand in that figure? Are you saying that 39% # is too conservative? What would be a more realistic figure?
Let’s say that demand in 2008 in the USA is 100 RyeWatts
<
p>Demand:
100 RW
Generation:
50 RW: coal
22 RW: gas
20 RW: nuke
5 RW: oil
2 RW: bio
1 RW: wind
<
p>This is roughly the proportion in existence in 2008 in the USA.
<
p>So, if demand grows by 39% and wind grows to 20% of total production, we’re at:
<
p>Demand:
139 RW
Generation:
50 RW: coal
22 RW: gas
20 RW: nuke
5 RW: oil
2 RW: bio
1 + 27 = 28 RW: wind
<
p>total: 127 RW. So, we’re 12 RW short of meeting demand, according to their estimates. That means that we should expect the total GHG emissions in 2030 to be higher than 2008 because the wind growth wasn’t even enough to keep up with increasing demand, and in fact in addition to wind we had to build 12 RW of additional power generation above and beyond the growth in wind. That isn’t likely to come from solar — the growth curve would be too damned steep. It isn’t likely to come from bio because of natural limitations on land, nutrients, etc. Sure, there might be some magic technology, but it sure as heck isn’t on the current estimate plan.
<
p>We’ll have to add 12 RW in addition to the wind growth just to keep up with demand, and then if we’re to have a GHG reduction, we need to build more than that to replace some of the 55 RW in coal&oil with something that burns cleaner.
<
p>It’s not that wind isn’t part of the solution… simply that wind alone can’t possibly result in a reduction of carbon emissions by 25% when the wind growth isn’t even enough to keep up with demand growth, which means that no wind will be used to replace the coal or oil fired electricity plants that exist now.
hopefully we can combine the wind with some conservation, which would cost less and make probably an even bigger impact.
But conservation will only come for at least one of the following two reasons:
<
p>1. Electricity prices go much higher, which will disproportionately harm the poor and middle classes, but it will be effective.
<
p>2. Government standards and programs ratchet up efficiency, ranging from expanded/improved energy star ratings and ceasing to subsidize McMansion mortgages, and as vehicular traffic switches to electric, expanding public transit and encouraging dense, mixed development.
<
p>
<
p>There aren’t enough people who “really give a damn” to get sufficient conservation through willpower alone. But, I do think that we could keep electric growth to 1% per year, which would mean that 2030 would only have 24.5% more demand than 2008, and that wind covered more than 100% of the growth — allowing some deconstruction of coal or oil fired plants. Side note: as wind grows past 10%, we’ll need more gas fired plants too because gas fired plants are necessary to balance the shifting productivity of wind turbines. So, we might even see coal fired power plants being replaced by gas turbines sooner in some parts of the country.
They both go to the same place but the ride is very different.
The reality is that until people can see the impact of their decisions in dollars [or tens of dollars] each month instead of dimes, they won’t get the positive feedback necessary to reduce personal consumption. Higher prices will give that feedback.
<
p>Personally, I think the first 200 kWh of your electric bill should be at a lower rate than the rest of the kWh. Lower the first 200 kWh rate a bit, and raise the rate for the juice exceeding that threshold. This puts a higher marginal rate on the price of electricity that’s easiest to conserve, since big demand customers are more likely to be able to find a few percent to shave off than low demand customers, and they’re more likely to have the capital to make conservation investment improvements too. Of course, the threshold differs for electric heat customers, just as the rate does.
<
p>I’d also lower the monthly fee and roll those dollars into the rate so that the marginal rate of consumption increases but the “half” of the population which consumes the least will see their bill stay the same or go down. This has the doubly good effect of lowering the bills for the poor but resulting in a net decrease in total demand.
<
p>Another thing I’d like to see — and it would have limited but clearly positive results — is to require electric companies to allow consumers to check a box on their electric bill and willingfully pay more to get “green electricity”. I’d have no problem subsidizing more solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro, and biofuel electricity generation by voluntarily paying another penny or two per kWh, and that’s all it’d take to subsidize more green generation. Why not let the crazy granola wingnuts like me subsidize cleaner air and water for everyone?
I’m not sure where you are getting that from. The DOE study basically agrees with you–finding for instance (at 16) that
<
p>
<
p>Is the 25% reduction from the report? If so it is undoubtedly comparing 2030 carbon emissions with and without the new wind capacity. Not 2030 with versus 2008 without. (And, don’t you think that’s fair?)
<
p>Like you I’m a big fan of wind, like you I doubt it is sufficient, but unlike you (or so I gather) I believe in the technical capacity of efficiency to fill the gap. (As indeed it already has–the idea that you could have economic growth with “only” 1.5% annual growth in electrical demand was not acceptable wisdom 20 years ago).
<
p>The political capacity may be in doubt, but I view that as being the job of intelligent climate activists. And bloggers.
<
p>Dunno. It was in the main post though, and that is what I was responding to.
<
p>
<
p>No, I don’t think that’s fair, not with respect to the quote I cited. Instead of something like “most of the growth in demand can be met by wind, resulting in little or no additional GHG emissions from the electrical sector” — something very different was written.
<
p>
<
p>Technology hasn’t filled that gap — the loss of manufacturing has filled that gap. It takes far less electricity to run a Microsoft office than it does a Ford manufacturing plant. It takes far less electricity to run a Wal*Mart store than it does a Hanes mill. The growth in GDP built on smaller electric demand growth is a function of changing the way we generate GDP, not a function of technology. All those twentieth century manufacturing jobs still exist and they’re still cranking out that electric demand; they’re just doing it in Japan and Bangladesh instead of USA.
I’m not taking issue with your critique, but just want to note that the ability of wind to back out 25% or carbon that would otherwise be emitted without the new wind capacity (a) is good news that (b) is not trivial.
<
p>That’s why these kinds of analyses make apples-to-apples comparisons like that. They are legitimate and useful to policy makers. (And bloggers)
<
p>I think that you overstate the case on exporting electrical demand overseas. (Maybe less so on exporting carbon emissions, but that was not your point.) Tech turns out to be pretty electricity intensive (though with much unharvested efficiency potential). Your comparison of an office running Microsoft products versus an auto plant is pertinent, but should be tempered by an estimate of scale. There are lots more offices (and homes) with computers (and using server farms) than there ever could be automobile factories.
<
p>More to the point, appliances and industrial processes today are significantly more efficient than they were back in the days of the electricity glut of 20 years ago. (Just compare air conditioners or refrigerators then and now.) Also lighting and home use. Automobile efficiency runs counter to this trend, but it’s been consistent across the electricity-use sector
<
p>That’s mostly what accounts for the improvement in kWh per dollar of GDP or similar metric.
<
p>I suppose we will continue to disagree about that, but I hope you will be open to reconsidering at some point.
And it’s true that there are many more office workers than auto workers — which is why when we “retrain” 10% of the auto workers to be office workers, we get such improvements. Per employee, factory workers do add up to much more in electrical usage, so even though its a small number of employees, since they were from “energy hog” industries, the shift has had a substantial impact on energy efficiency.
<
p>As for improving standards on appliances and computers, it’s unclear what the result has been. It’s true that if a machine is going to be purchased, that a more efficient machine is preferred. But, the total number of computers, air conditioners, and even refrigerators per employee has steadily risen in the past 20 years, eroding the efficiency gains with a larger total number of appliances per worker.
<
p>For example, in 1994 the manufacturing sector used 917 billion kWh (source). Total usage in 1994 was 3247 billion kWh (source). Manufacturing was roughly 30%.
<
p>You know what electricity demand all servers and server rooms (including accompanying HVAC) have on the grid? 61 billion kWh per year (source). Of course, that doesn’t include desktops or other office user requirements, but the point is that manufacturing is substantially more intensive than office workers, and employs fewer people. Therefore, any shift in manufacturing oversees reduces demand dramatically.
<
p>Manufacturing in 1994 used 15 times more electricity than computer servers in 2006. I don’t think I overstate the importance of manufacturing loss on the electricity demand reduction in America.
I have been since at 16 I drove through the mojave desert with my parents and saw the wind farms outside of palm springs. I was mesmerized. I hope Kerry and Kennedy get behind Cape Wind fast.
In 2005 he voted against the very subsidies that have allowed widespread expansion of wind power throughout the nation. Yet, he’s all too happy to encourage the expansion of subsidies for the nuclear power industry.
<
p>Go figure.
and must be part of the mix. France makes over 75% of it’s electricity from nuclear, as does the very progressive state of Vermont. If we had not stopped nuclear plant building in the late 70s early 80s we’d be well on our way to energy independence.
is exported to other states, where it is double-counted by the nuclear industry in talking points like the ones you have just recited.
<
p>Neither the time nor inclination to really get into this here, but you might reflect that the way “we” stopped building nukes in the 1980s was by puling the plug on the subsidies and saying, Go ahead and build them–on your own nickel. Market forces (remember them?) did the rest.
in seeing conservatives singing the praises of the French.
<
p>It doesn’t happen very often.
Nuclear is just a bad option. First, there’s only so much of that going around, if we used more of it, it wouldn’t last any longer than oil. Second, what the frack do we do with it? It just ends up sitting there, being toxic, forcing plants to store the stuff twice as long as the plants actually produced electricity. Over the long haul, I don’t think I could think of a less efficient means of creating electricity – in terms of overall costs – than nuclear technology.
<
p>That’s completely ignoring the dangers of meltdowns or terrorism.
<
p>You might also point out that Vermont only has one nuclear power plant. NH has 1, MA has 2, CT has 2, NY has a bunch. In fact, only AR, LA, IN, OK, WY, RI, ND, MT, AK, HI have no nukes. That 3/4ths of VT power is nuclear is as much a function of the low population of VT as their low population of nuclear power plants.
<
p>
<
p>We’re discussing electricity EaBo, so let’s play a game.
<
p>Where does coal used in USA for electrical generation come from? USA
<
p>Where does natural gas used in USA for electrical generation come from? USA
<
p>Where does nuclear fissionable material used in USA for electrical generation come from? Not USA
<
p>
<
p>All coal is from the US, most natural gas is coming from the Gulf of Mexico, but the radioactive material is mined in Australia, and the current output is only meeting 65% of the world’s demand [the rest is coming from decommissioned weapon systems]. The price of a pound of uranium has also risen 850% in the past few years.
<
p>
<
p>P.S. The French model only works because they’re able to export nuclear-generated electricity at night to Germany. Given that our neighbors are substantially smaller than us, we couldn’t possibly sell off all of our excess night time generation, which would raise the price of generating nuclear power by about 50%. Nuclear power already has subsidies, and now you’re going to suggest we make so much of it that there’s nobody to even sell it to in the middle of the night, resulting in it going to waste?
Stomv:
<
p>Yes I know you to be a proponent of wind and I have appreciated reading your many thoughtful comments about energy over the years.
<
p>I’m sorry that what I wrote about CO2 reduction part of the report caused confusion. The DOE report was comparing the year 2030 under 2 different scenarios, in one scenario wind was supplying 20% of the country’s electricity, in the second scenario no new wind power was built in the U.S. It was in comparing those two scenarios that greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation in the U.S. would be reduced by 25% (825 million metric tons of CO2 emission reductions annually). As you are probably aware, wind currently supplies about 1% of the electricity used today in the U.S. so 20% would be a dramatic increase, though there are those who think the percentage by that time could be still higher, particularly if efforts at energy conservation and energy efficiency are much more successful than the DOE is forecasting.