WIND POWER: CLEANER, UNLIMITED, AND CHEAPER THAN OIL

By Mark Sommer and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

BERKELEY, Aug 1 2004 (IPS) - Renewable energy advocates say that wind offers the best near-term option to reduce the demand for oil, coal and natural gas, writes Mark Sommer, host of award-winning syndicated radio programme, A World of Possibilities. In this analysis for IPS, the author writes that recent technological breakthroughs have greatly increased the efficiency of wind turbines, driving the price per kilowatt/hour down to levels competitive with oil. And if the hidden costs and subsidies incurred by oil and coal were factored into the comparison, the true cost of wind energy would be far lower. The foreign wars waged, the occupations and military bases built to protect supply lines, the degradation of air, water, and human health make the true cost of a barrel of crude not 40 but 200 dollars, or more. Yet for all the promise of wind power, its rapid development is still thwarted by numerous obstacles, which are less technological than political. The multinational companies that dominate the energy industry and national energy policies today are well aware that oil, coal, and natural gas are finite resources but are determined to squeeze the largest profits they can before switching to other sources. Their favoured alternative is not wind power but nuclear power.

As war, terror, pollution, and increasing scarcity drive the price of oil inexorably upward, politicians and energy producers scan the horizon for near-term alternatives. Solar, biomass, and geothermal energy, ocean currents: all could contribute something, though too little in the near term to substantially reduce the rapidly rising risks of continuing dependence on oil– and the dominance of the oligarchies fossil fuels have financed.

But a new breeze is stirring. Renewable energy advocates say that wind offers the best near-term option to reduce the demand for oil, coal and natural gas. Recent technological breakthroughs have greatly increased the efficiency of wind turbines, driving the price per kilowatt/hour down to levels competitive with oil. And if the hidden costs and subsidies incurred by oil and coal were factored into the comparison, the true cost of wind energy would be far lower. The foreign wars waged, the occupations and military bases built and maintained to protect supply lines, the degradation of air, water, and human health make the true cost of a barrel of crude not 40 but 200 dollars, or more.

Worldwide, wind’s energy potential dwarfs that of fossil fuels, and unlike oil, gas and coal, its supply is inexhaustible. But to date a tiny fraction of that potential is being exploited. At the end of 2003, there were 39,000 megawatts of wind capacity being generated worldwide, producing as much power as a dozen large nuclear power plants.

In percentage terms, wind is the fastest-growing power source. According to US Energy Department estimates, wind could supply more than fifteen times the energy from all sources consumed by the entire world each year. In addition to reducing the industrial world’s all-consuming addiction to fossil fuels, wind could bring electrical power to two billion people in the developing world who currently see no prospect of utility service. Not least of all, wind could enable rapidly industrialising nations like China, which is increasingly burning low-grade coal, to avoid poisoning its people and environment by instead taking the ”soft energy” path.

Western Europe has seen the most aggressive development of wind resources. Germany leads the way with a third of worldwide wind production and tiny Denmark generates 20 percent of its national energy budget from wind, producing five times as much as China. But even in the oil-greased politics of the United States, the very regions that have long depended on oil and gas are seeing a passionate grassroots demand for a shift to wind as the only way to move beyond the boom-bust economic cycle that has made ghost towns of once-thriving communities.

Yet for all the promise of wind power, its rapid development is still thwarted by numerous obstacles, which are less technological than political. Fossil fuels still hold a hammerlock on global economics and politics. The multinational companies that dominate the energy industry and national energy policies today are well aware that oil, coal, and natural gas are finite and rapidly- declining resources but are determined to squeeze the largest profits they can before switching to other sources. Their favoured alternative is not wind power but nuclear power, another highly hazardous technology.

Some, like BP and Shell, are starting to invest in wind farms, but these are more like insurance policies or public relations promos than serious shifts of corporate resources. Their collusion with politicians, auto makers, and a vast industrial infrastructure and their profit-driven mindset all militate against a rapid policy shift.

With global warfare over, dwindling oil supplies, and global warming from greenhouse gases, turning to wind is a no-brainer. Yet it won’t happen anytime soon unless both individual and institutional consumers clearly and consistently demand that their governments commit themselves to a time line to bring wind farms on-line on a massive scale in the next 25 years. Under the thumb of oil interests, the US projects wind power to produce 5 percent of national needs by 2020, up from just 0.4 percent today — but a concerted push could make that 20 percent by 2030.

To be fully effective in reducing the multiple threats facing us, however, this shift must be worldwide and must include subsidies from a source other than cash-strapped national treasuries. The most appropriate funding source would be a surcharge on all oil and coal production that would both generate large amounts of revenue for renewable energy development and encourage conservation of declining and environmentally destructive resources. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)