The Numbers:
- A record $9 billion was invested in wind project installations last year. Compare that number to the total amount invested in wind projects since the 1980's - $28 billion.
- Wind power capacity grew by 46 percent in 2007 - another record. That figure was more than double the previous record, set in 2006.
- Wind power outpaced coal in terms of growth. A total of 5,329 megawatts (MW) in new wind power capacity was created in 2007, compared to Only 1,400 MW in for coal. Only natural gas outpaced wind power in this respect - with 7,400 MW in new capacity added.
- This 5,329 MW in new capacity accounts for nearly a third of the nation's total wind power capacity of
18,000 MW.
- An estimated 20,000 of new wind power capacity was added globally. The wind power industry in the U.S. accounted for about 27 percent of this growth.
- The U.S. now accounts for about 18 percent of the global wind power capacity.
- At the end of 2006 wind power could have supplied only .4 percent of the nation's energy. By the end of 2007 wind power was capable of producing 1.2 percent of the nations power - triple the previous figure.
- The new wind related manufacturing plants built or announced in 2007 could create more than 4,700 new jobs nationwide.
The report cited a number of factors as contributing to the industry's recent growth spurt. "Federal tax
incentives, state renewables portfolio standards (RPS), concern about global climate change, and continued uncertainty about the future costs and liabilities of natural gas and coal facilities helped spur this intensified growth," it said.
Words of Warning:
Federal production tax credits (PTC) have helped to drive recent investments in wind power. But the
current PTC is set to expire at the end of 2008. The DOE warns that the current boom in wind power could quickly turn to bust unless action is taken soon to extend it.
The current PTC was originally set to expire at the end of 2007. Luckily, Congress took action to extend
for another year. In doing so they ensured that the unprecedented growth in the nation's wind power
industry could continue in 2008.
Now the fate of the wind power industry is in the hands of Congress once again. But just this week Republicans in the Senate voted to block passage of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which would have extended the PTC.
The wind power industry was quick to respond. The American Wind Energy Association released the following statement following the vote:
"With 116,000 jobs and nearly $19 billion in investment at risk in the renewable energy industries, the U.S. Senate today again failed to secure the votes needed to extend tax credits for the wind and solar industries, frustrating the desire of millions of Americans across the political spectrum. Renewable energy like wind power can lower home energy bills, strengthen our energy security, create new manufacturing jobs and, perhaps most importantly, reduce global warming pollution even as we meet growing electricity demand. We strongly urge Congressional leaders to move quickly to find another path for a rapid extension of the tax incentives needed to put our nation on the road to a clean and secure energy future.
America's wind industry has a critical role to play as a major source of jobs and growth in a troubled economy, and a readily available part of the global warming solution. However, continuing delay in Congressional action is already taking a toll on American jobs and economic growth, as well as on fledgling efforts to slow global warming."
It is time for Congress to get serious about renewable energy. Republicans in the Senate need to step aside and let this important legislation pass. Failing to do so will only hurt the economy and the environment.
Green America is a new weekly column about environmental politics by Gather political correspondent David Anderson. You can find current and past editions of the column at the group Green America.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Ya, think the special interest oil groups may have a tad bit to do with this? Bush and the oil supporters are still in power!
Reversing Winds: America's Rediscovery of Manufacturing
If anything cut all energy supply subsidies and let the market decide on what makes economic sense.
Wind, and other renewables, have a long way to go before catching up with subsidies/tax incentives/breaks given to oil, coal and nuclear industries for decades. If you would have those industries pay that money back to the taxpayers, then I'd agree on letting the market decide. As it is, though, the market has been slanted for a long time.
The other thing that perhaps you're ignoring is the fact that the U.S. is currently spending $hundreds-of-billions$ in the mideast "in order to protect our vital national interests in the region." Now, while many might not consider that a subsidy to the oil industry, I have a hard time understanding what else to consider it.
In any case, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, would like to see all subsidies/tax incentives for all energy sectors terminated. He is confident that conservation and renewable technologies would win in a truly free market.
My own feeling about subsidies for renewables is different than Lovins. We are in an energy emergency - and I'm not just talking about gas prices. Energy affects everything, and I think that a mass transition to renewable, sustainable, clean sources of energy is way overdue. Anything government can do to spur this transition asap is more than warranted.
I wonder if there is even any illusion about this. Republicans favor a massive expansion of nuclear energy. I think that qualifies more as delusional, dangerously so, since they confidently try to push this psychosis on the public.
David: "Still, two Republicans did break with their party to support this bill."
Good. Perhaps democrats will only need 58 seats after November to achieve a workable policy for promoting a rapid transition to renewables. And perhaps there is some hope for the republican party after all.
Great point!
Informative article.
The energy system is in transition and most effective proven way for that transission to happen is leaving it to the market place.
For 150 years or so the delivery of energy through oil and the technology of using that energy (internal combustion engine) has been the most cost effective (cheap and convienet). Today with the increased demand we are finding that the cost are rising to the point that alternatives are becoming viable.
Since I am simple (confirmed by others) there are three factors in this transition, delivery to the point of use, technology of conversion from the primary source (e.g. wind to electricity), and the ability to use it in the manner desired. Oh yeah, and the relative cost in dollars.
Any distortion in that will simply prolong the transtion, such as fighting over unearn dollars. Look at the farmers over ethanol subsidies. Look at the "greenies" over hydro power.
You give me a cost effective way to replace my car's engine that gives me a reasonable perfromance (I have cared about a big engine since being a teenager, but style is another matter) at a competetive price and I will switch in an instant.
The rest of the debate is political posturing. Even the use of "addition" in this debate is politically driven. We are not addicted to oil and especially forgein oil. We use energy in a free and open way.
In addition, who pays for the poor air quality and greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal and oil (what economists refer to as externalities). Seems like there should be a big tax on them--but the same people who oppose subsidizing wind and other renewable energy always seem to oppose any new tax, even if it accounts for measurable damages.
Wind is currently the most cost competitive of the alternative energies, poised to account for 20% of U.S. energy by 2030--see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/.
"If anything cut all energy supply subsidies and let the market decide on what makes economic sense." When I say, "cut all...subsidies", I really down deep mean all including the oil and gas subsidies.
Everything has a positive and negative consequence, it is the end users that decide what they are willling to pay for that consequeunce. A simple example; the Detroit syline was hidden from view for the 50s and even into the 60s because of the particulate in air from local manaufacturing. Today drivnig into Detroit skyline is clear and fantastic. However, the quality of live is no better measured by any economic criteria.
My best guess is that we all pay (dollar wise or personal comfort) for all the by products of energy. I believ that the ultimate payer for anything and evrything is as it should be the end user.
If wind is curently the most cost effecive source of energy then why can't it stand on its own, why does it need to be subsidized? AS far as waitng until 2030 it it is so cost effective then why would it take that long, it surely isn;t the construction time, my best guess that a coal power plant from time of decsion to the fisrt watt being delievered shouldn't be more than 3 years. I am hard pressed to think that windmills are that complicated or hard to construct. Now the environmental approval process may take that long because of the "greenies" and the "NIMBIES".
We are hearing a lot about the "carbon foot print", that is a political PR game and is trivial in the whole of society.
This may surprise you but I was introduced to the concept sustainability by private industry in the early 80s and became a firm believer. My employer even developed economic metrics and specific goals to determine if each facility was making the company more "sustainable". People's careers were affected by how well they did in achieving those goals. That reduced waste including BTUs and made the company more profits (that evil greed). And we didn;t get any tax incidnetives to do it.
You would ignore the fact that fossils and nuclear have been subsidized, given tax breaks, etc., for decades. Now, you would have renewables make it on their own against an entrenched industry that has been given a favorable "leg up" for decades. That's why arguements about the "free market" are false. That said, Amory Lovins would favor terminating all subsidies and tax breaks for all energy sectors. He is confident that renewables and conservation technologies out-compete fossils and nuclear in a real free market.
Duane: "Everything has a positive and negative consequence, it is the end users that decide what they are willling to pay for that consequeunce. A simple example...."
Two points. End users rarely "decide" what they are willing to pay. That is done by lobbyists and politicians. Corporations have become adept at externalizing the negative consequences of producing and delivering their products. Of course, you simply dismiss some of the most serious consequences as "a political PR game". But denial doesn't eliminate these economic consequences - it just shifts it to taxpayers - or their children/grandchildren, etc. Again, "externalizing" real costs undercuts the illusion of a "free market".
Duane: "...reduced waste including BTUs and made the company more profits...."
Well, yes, conservation has caught on in corporate America in a big way. Actually, conservation is the first strategy of Lovins' "micropower" concept. An end-use unit of energy saved, due to production and transmission efficiency loss, equals ten units of energy not produced - negawatts - according to Lovins.
Wal-Mart: The Next Steps Toward Sustainability
Duane: "And we didn;t get any tax incidnetives to do it."
Complicated - I'm not too sure that's completely true, but it's a minor point. Conservation is a demand-side issue, and there is no controversy about conservation any longer (except if you still believe the Cheney psychosis: "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy"). Wind, solar, geothermal, etc., of course, are supply-side issues, and that is another matter entirely - as I'm sure you know.
There is no question that a change in public policy is warranted. If it is to end all subsidies and tax incentives (including externalizing real costs to taxpayers), then I could accept that. If that is the case, then I would expect you also to accept a reimbursement from the fossil and nuclear industries for the subsidies and tax incentives they have already enjoyed for decades. Deal?
I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants. But whether they like it or not, competition happens. It's particularly keen on the demand side.
Yes, I would ignore all of the previous subsidies for all energy or related businesses. The fastest way to kill anything is to ask for pay back.
I am not as confident as Lovins, I do feel that some will die (and they should if they can't compete).
The end user always decides what they will accept, the politicians (the lobbyists seek friendly politicians) only delay or muddy the consequences, look at the cars/trucks. The politicians have been manipulating the fuels efficiencies for years (with the help of lobbyists), but when the cost of gas went to $4/gal the sales changed. Who made that decision, end user or lobbyist?
The conservation has been with us for longer than you or I have been around. I like the example of Henry Ford, he was specifying how the shipping crates for parts were to be built including where and the size of screw holes. The suppliers thought he was eccentric, but since he was paying (demand side) they did it. When Ford got the parts they took the crates apart and recycled them into the floor boards of the Model T. That sure sounds like conservation without even customer demand or GOVERNEMNT and politician controls.
Too many people denigrate the companies (the media loves it, and thus do the politicians), those are the people that are one of the best sources of ideas and means for change and improvement.
I don't ignore the political PR game; I just don't place any value in it. You can wait for public policy to change, and enjoy all of the political PR that will go with it, but I will work in my little piece of the world doing what I can.
How long does a practice have to be in place before it is outside of your version of "caught on"? Is it 10 years, 20, 50, 100? There are companies that have been practicing one version or another for 100 years or more, they most have just "caught on".
Conservation is demand driven, everything an individual does or uses are demand driven. Companies would still be making buggy whips if there was a demand. Everything a company does is demand driven, from what they sell to what the buy. The only exception is what the politicians may do, that is control driven.
I honestly don't care what Cheney said. Get over it, Bush/Cheney are relegated to history in 7 months? Nor do I care what Obama or McCain have to say, they have no workable knowledge on the issues.
"I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices…" This sounds like a bit of that political PR you mentioned, since there seems not to be mention of anyone other than business types mentioned. I suspect that the vast majority of "green" lobbyists and "greenies" would also howl in opposition for without free markets their value disappears.
It is interesting to debate the merits and pitfalls of a truly free market system. But the reality is that the government plays, and will continue to play, a very real role in determining our nation's energy future.
I am one that see a value in the govenment. My only resistance is when they try to control the publics choices. I think that the energy situatoin is one of those that they have screwed up.
I agree that the interstate highway system has been valuable, I would include the Internet, even the banking system. All of which are what I would call infastructure and not about individual choices.
My support for the free market is the degree accountablility.
My best guess is that politicians have been saying "that by providing incentives for investment in clean energies like wind and solar power the government can help to rectify the situation" since the first subsidy (tax incentive).
Unless there is some METRICS to measure the impact that you so strongly believe is there and it doesn;t have a SUNSET buit into it, I don;t see it any differently then the fossil fuel subsidies.
The only difference is that it makes a different of gruop of voters feel warm and fuzzy and possibly some different people will make money off of the taxpayer.
These incentives are key to the future of the clean/renewable energy sector. Industry experts routinely cite the continuation of federal production tax credits as key to continued growth. The DOE has notes that in the past when these tax incentives have been allowed expired the wind power industry has crashed.
Investors are becoming more comfortable with the clean/renewable energy sector. Perhaps we will soon reach the day when government aid is not necessary to keep the industry growing. But for now the failure to renew the production tax credit (PTC) by the end of the year would likely lead to investor panic. Every expert is predicting that the failure to renew the PTC will lead to crash in the clean/renewable energy sector, investors. Hysteria is likely to take hold if Congress does not act soon.
The you have the fossil fuel industry, which already has a product that is proven and profitable - and which is unfortunately steadily rising in price, bad for the environment, and bad for public health.
The clean/renewable energy sector is working to make solar & wind power (among other energy sources) more efficient and affordable. It makes sense to me to encourage this activity and allow the sector to grow.
Do you think that sounds much different then the fossil fuel guys when they talk about changes in the technology. SOmething like, we will be using fossil fuels as far into the future as we can see and if you want cleaner energy it is impoartant to subsidize the deevlopment and implementation of technology to make the proven fossel fuels for energy.
Simply because it's you ox you don;t want gored doesn;t mean that you have a better case for a governemnt handout.
Close the govenrment honey pot so we cut the political PR and spend the resources on the technology.
I wonder how much resources, as a % of those spent on each of the technologies (wind, solar, coal, oil, ethanol, etc.) is making the case for government moneys and how much on actually indevelopeding the technologies.