Dear Obama: 'The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind'
by Earthwatch Institute 
on 12.12.08
By: Alan Fortescue (NOTE: The opinions expressed here are those of the author's, not necessarily Earthwatch's.)
I’d like to follow up on last week’s blog to become an even louder squeaky wheel in search of some grease.
Last week I proposed that instead of using his stimulus package (as much as an additional $700 billion) to bail out and reinvest in a faulty system, Obama use that money to stimulate a new green energy economy. I spoke in general terms, from the environmental perspective; this week I will be more specific and will speak from the business perspective.
What we know already: there is a critical clarion call from the Earth for a sea change in the way we humans live our daily lives—especially with respect to our use of fossil fuels. Despite what we frequently read in the popular media, practical solutions that could help us achieve this goal within 10 years do exist.
The simple truth is that going green would mean record internal development, economic growth and massive job creation. Compare that to a fossil fuel economy that sends billions overseas rather than improving life at home. In his 10 year energy independence challenge, Al Gore said:
“When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.”
Here is how we might make a change and capitalize on the renewable energy opportunity:
Just as the United States built a highway infrastructure in the 1950s, we could build a renewable energy infrastructure today. Let’s look at wind power. Instead of paving roads and manufacturing cars, we could build and new interstate system of power lines and wind towers.
In addition to creating jobs in wind tower production and the building, maintenance and managing the new power grid, a slew of new business opportunities would develop—just as fast food restaurants, drive in movies, malls, and other businesses popped up around the highway system.
Our solutions would be based on the emerging world, not the disappearing one. So what do we need?
Well, it’s important to understand the problem is not one of technology—but rather one of financing, production, installation and infrastructure. Here is where this plan becomes exciting; this is an unprecedented historical opportunity. Rather than see our current economic crisis as doomsday, we can see it for what it is: a chance to right our ship. The solution would combine Obama’s bailout money and our failing auto industry.
As Lester Brown wrote in his book Plan B 3.0, just as American industry retooled in a year to produce tanks, airplanes and battleships for WWII, the American auto industry can be re-tooled to mass produce the number of wind towers needed to reposition the United States as the world leader in energy, technology and vision.
In addition to making this change possible, the stimulus money could be used to train the massive workforce needed to install and maintain the power grid.
At a unique moment in history when the auto industry is failing and hundreds of thousands have become unemployed, this plan could re-employ people in jobs that cannot be outsourced. The wind energy is here, at home—not in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In fact the only thing likely to be outsourced would be our technology innovations and the expertise we gain in installing a truly national system.
And if you don’t believe wind power could provide us with what we need, consider these facts:
The US Department of Energy completed a study nearly 20 years ago that showed the states of North Dakota, Kansas and Texas alone have enough active wind energy to power the entire country. If we would but build the wind towers and interstate connectivity we could have virtually unlimited FREE power, FOREVER.
Obviously Americans would pay some smaller fee to the state to maintain and improve the system, but long gone would be the days of sending money overseas. Long gone would be the need to keep your thermostat low in winter. We could go on and on with the benefits.
The cost of all this would be 1/4 of what we spend on national defense annually, and is roughly equivalent to what is spent each year subsidizing oil industries. It is also roughly 1/3 of what is spent annually in oil extraction, transportation and refinement.
The added benefit is that is it not destroying the world. This thought gets us back to the fact that this is not just a huge economic opportunity, but would be a loud shot heard round the world and a giant step towards stopping climate change.
What do you think? Would you be willing to make your voice heard to push for this solution?
Image credit:Crown Butte, wind turbines
More About The Dakota's Example
Wind Power Is Getting Bigger All The Time: 2000 MW Project Planned ...
North Dakota Gets Into The Wind: 10000 Megawatts For The ...
5.05 Gigawatt Titan Wind Project is... Titanesque!
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
- Meet Auden Schendler, Author of Getting Green Done
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Stained Car Interior? Natural Stain Removal Recipes for Your Car
Not sure if this is the right article to post this thought on but here is my thought:
What ever happened to federal project bonds. A project was designed and a budget was created. The funds for that project we allocated and if there was a short fall, bonds were issued. It seemed like truly voting with your dollar. Taxes were lower, and you got to decide what the government could do with your money. War bonds wouldn't work today, that is for sure, but I think that something like a Domestic Utility Improvement bond would be something I'd buy.
Nice article, one thing to remember though is that, Kansas a big one here, it takes land to build these turbines on. The land alone in Kansas is for farming and consists of many family farms. Earlier this summer grain prices were on the way to historic highs would a farmer give up acres of land for a turbine and would this decrease his farms value. Also saying that would this cost us more to feed our already starving, growing population. I am all for it but there are some factors to consider. I'm for a dispersed wind farm covering the entire plains state that divides the states down the middle both generating and carrying the power from these turbines....I don't know maybe set them up to quarter the states fuel for thought...
I definitely agree that some steps should be taken towards energy independence, but wind power is not the answer, at least not in 10 years. You can't discount the additional energy required for such a massive project because it is tremendous. How much additional coal would be required to make steel for all those turbines? Even recycled steel is extremely energy intensive. Also, since that report was published, electricity consumption in the U.S. has risen by 66%. I suppose you could just blanket Oklahoma and Idaho with turbines as well, but where does it end?
George, to simplify this to a level that even GW can understand- the turbine is mounted on a tall pole. It's not like you need a base the size of the Eiffel tower to hold one of them up. You can simply grow stuff around the towers without giving much space at all.
Alan, You are right about the need for much more wind power. But there is a better way to get there than you propose. Just expand on what has already worked. Wind power has received a tremendous boost from marginal tax incentives. Imagine what could be accomplished if we simply made all renewable energy, infrastructure, vehicles, etc., 100% tax free at all levels of taxation. That would be, at once, a massive supply and demand side stimulus, that would save the auto industry and further stimulate the entire economy by pushing energy prices down. It would attract more investment money to renewable energy than the government could possibly spend.
You can read more about this alternative here:
www.greeneenrgytaxcuts.com
Alan, You are right about the need for much more wind power. But there is a better way to get there than you propose. Just expand on what has already worked. Wind power has received a tremendous boost from marginal tax incentives. Imagine what could be accomplished if we simply made all renewable energy, infrastructure, vehicles, etc., 100% tax free at all levels of taxation. That would be, at once, a massive supply and demand side stimulus, that would save the auto industry and further stimulate the entire economy by pushing energy prices down. It would attract more investment money to renewable energy than the government could possibly spend.
You can read more about this alternative here:
www.greeneenrgytaxcuts.com
Thanks Raiyn for your response. I realize that the turbines are mounted on the pole but to hold the pole up a foundation must be constructed to hold the tower up from the torque produced by the wind. So if the foundation is underground to elminate it from site the ground around the tower still has to be disturbed....this is not a significant factor. i was just making an arguement I'm all for wind power and am I little disturbed in the fact that a wind farm has to be developed. why can't wind turbines be placed on land that is left open. If it doesn't take up that much land to install one what about roadside ditches. The road has a right of way which usually carries power lines so incorporate such powerlines with say a wind turbine tower. That is all i was thinking...but thanks.
If I could I would send this letter directly to President Obama!
The Future is now!
Wind energy is a particularly appealing way to generate electricity because it is essentially pollution-free. More than half of all the electricity that is used in the U.S. is generated from burning coal, and in the process, large amounts of toxic metals, air pollutants, and greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere.
Development of 10% of the wind potential in the 10 windiest U.S. states would provide more than enough energy to displace emissions from the nation's coal-fired power plants and eliminate the nation's major source of acid rain; reduce total U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (the most important greenhouse gas) by almost a third and world emissions of CO2 by 4%; and help contain the spread of asthma and other respiratory diseases aggravated or caused by air pollution in this country. If wind energy were to provide 20% of the nation's electricity--a very realistic and achievable goal with the current technology--it could displace more than a third of the emissions from coal-fired power plants, or all of the radioactive waste and water pollution from nuclear power plants.
Also, wind farms can revitalize the economy of rural communities, providing steady income through lease or royalty payments to farmers and other landowners. Although leasing arrangements can vary widely, a reasonable estimate for income to a landowner from a single utility-scale turbine is about $2,000 a year or more, depending on the wind resource, the size of the turbine, and other factors. For a 250-acre farm, with income from wind at about $55 an acre, the annual income from a wind lease would be $14,000, with no more than 2-3 acres removed from production. Farmers can grow crops or raise cattle next to the towers. Wind farms may extend over a large geographical area, but their actual "footprint" covers only a very small portion of the land, making wind development an ideal way for farmers to earn additional income. In west Texas, for example, farmers are welcoming wind, as lease payments from this new clean energy source replace declining payments from oil wells that have been depleted.
Farmers are not the only ones in rural communities to find that wind power can bring in income. In Spirit Lake, Iowa, the local school is earning savings and income from the electricity generated by a turbine. In the district of Forest City, Iowa, a turbine recently erected as a school project is expected to save $1.6 million in electricity costs over its lifetime.
Greater use of wind energy means a cleaner environment with healthier air, and more income to landowners and economically depressed counties and communities in the Great Plains. It means relying more on an energy source whose "fuel" is free and will never be exhausted or embargoed.