That headline helped ban nuclear plant construction in 1980. Volunteers of Denmark's "OOA" delivered pamphlets to every household. Their decisive grassroots victory succeeded in forcing the turn toward renewables like wind. Denmark's example shows that this is the cornerstone of changing a government's energy policy. The citizens must rise up and demand a change in the law, a change in the tax structure, a change in the incentives.
The Danish government has actually promoted cooperatives where people invest together in community wind turbine projects. This idea has led to the installation of over 5,000 grass roots turbines. The concept then spread to Germany and the Netherlands. People are encouraged to invest and can even profit from their local wind power.
"households may invest more than their own consumption plus 50%. However, revenues from any amount over this limit are taxed." (wind-works.org, Paul Gipe)
Scientific American tried to look past political barriers and naively suggested we could reach 100% capacity from renewables as early as 2030. In a perfect world perhaps.
I recall Donald Rumsfeld's unilateral ban on wind farms (2006) under the bogus "national security" pretext that they interfered with military radar.
Certainly Al Qaeda would exploit the wind farms in their next attack
leaving the US Air Force completely vulnerable and exposed. With
Rumsfeld's due diligence (where was he during the actual 9/11 attacks,
btw?) humanity was saved from the convergence of clean, safe renewable
power and international terrorism.
Policy Shortfalls
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports some important progress in harnessing the nation's wind resources:
""clean, affordable, homegrown power to the equivalent of over 10 million homes, and employing 75,000 people across all states." (AWEA website)
This manufacturer's association does call out some specific government policy problems:
"The U.S. wind industry has endured a boom-bust cycle of development over the past decade, though, as a result of the lack of long-term, predictable federal policies."
Short-term struggles in Washington create a climate that discourages long-term energy investment. It's time the nation grew up and realized we're in it for the long haul.
Getting to the meat and gristle of the problem, AWEA says:
"Wind energy's primary incentive, the PTC [production tax credit], has been allowed to expire multiple times, including in 1999, 2001 and 2003, causing a market drop of 73 to 93%; and has been consistently reinstated for only one or two year terms." (AWEA, The Reality of U.S. Energy Incentives)
I have repeatedly stressed that the problem is political, not technical. Wind energy works pretty well. Government in Washington not so much. Everyone gives lip service to the predicament modern societies find themselves, but too few will stand up to the entrenched energy interests (fossil fuel, coal, nuke) who put us here.
The SA editors proposed some much needed policy changes, which we aren't really seeing enough of today. The strongest language used was "misguided" in reference to the ethanol bio-fuel subsidies. Bio-fuels don't solve the problem but instead help delay the needed overhaul of the system. SA suggests legislators resist the onslaught of lobbying by entrenched interests.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
3
