Wind Power Can Solve the U.S. Oil Addiction

It's become cliché to say that the United States is addicted to oil. I'll make no effort to refute the claim because it's true. It's an expensive habit, too. The upshot, however, has been the explosion of interest in renewable energy sources. Last year, investors poured a record $71 billion into the alternative energy space. And billions more funnel in every day.

But with so many possibilities - hydropower, wind power, solar power, geothermal, biofuel, clean coal technology - investors are forced to pick which alternative energy source will distinguish itself as the most viable replacement for oil. It's a crapshoot.

That is, until you realize the shooter (in this case Wall Street) is rolling a pair of "loaded" dice. In recent months, heavy hitters like The Blackstone Group (BX), General Electric (GE) and T. Boone Pickens have stealthily invested billions into a single renewable energy source. JP Morgan Chase (JPM) revealed that it's holding a $1 billion stake in the very same investment.

Even better, in the next five years, the governments in the United States, China and Europe will plow at least $150 billion into the same alternative, according to CLSA Research.

And, unlike oil, there's no possibility of it running out. So let's take a closer look at this odds-on favorite to win the alternative energy derby.

And the Winner Is - Wind Power

Wind. It's clean (wind power generates absolutely no greenhouse gases). It's renewable. And it involves no production decline curve. Hence, 30 years from now we won't be worrying about "Peak Wind" theories coming to fruition.

It also can't be hoarded by power hungry cartels. In fact, enough of it exists to satisfy global demand seven times over, according to a Stanford University study. North Dakota alone has enough of it to meet 25% of U.S. demand.

But perhaps most importantly, it's finally coming of age. Just consider:

• From 2000 to 2007, the size of the wind power industry increased fivefold.
  
• Last year, records were shattered with $36 billion in total global wind investments with the United States leading the way with $9 billion.
  
• In the next 10 years, the wind industry is expected to quadruple in size.

Hands down, wind is the fastest growing source of power. But can such growth continue?

Sure, the Department of Energy and countless other studies and industry experts say it will. But are they being realistic? Absolutely. And here's why…

Wind Power Makes Economic Sense & Simply Works

First and foremost, wind power makes economic sense. If the price of oil drops to $50 a barrel (it won't), the economics still work; even without government subsidies.

You see, wind can be used to generate electricity for 6 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

For comparison's sake, the cost of nuclear power runs about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. Coal now costs north of 10 cents (without factoring in carbon capture and storage). And gas-fired power costs approximately 12 cents.

Keep in mind, too, that just a few years ago, wind costs rested north of 15 to 20 cents. But today, costs are low enough in some markets to compete with conventional power generation methods. And future advancements will make wind power even cheaper.

Look no further than Denmark. It already generates 20% of its electricity from wind. And Spain, Portugal and Germany boast similarly impressive penetration rates of roughly 12%, 10% and 7%, respectively.

The timing couldn't be more perfect, either. While wind energy costs are dropping, costs for competing technologies - coal, nuclear and gas - are headed in the opposite direction.

Wind is the cost effective way our nation can start solving its oil addiction. And unlike many of the other far-fetched solutions to our energy needs …

Wind is realistically attainable.

Comments

[Gigem77:]

Oil is used to generate less than 4% of our electricity. So wind power isn't going to cut our dependence on oil. Your headline is totally wrong.

Wind farms currently provide about 1% of our electricity, a "quadruple" in 10 years would bring that to 4%. So we are still going to need those nukes, and coal and natgas fired plants.

2008 Sep 19 06:59 AM

[happycajun:]

Yaaawwwwnnnnnnn!

2008 Sep 19 08:22 AM

[Jeppen:]

Your price estimate of nuclear power is totally ridiculous. Nuclear power is half the cost of wind. Also, wind penetration isn't a baseload power source, and won't reach above 20%. After that, so much backup and storage is needed that the costs will soar unacceptably. Denmark can possibly go higher, but only b/c it is integrated as a small part of the rest of Europe's grid. Sadly, EU wind power is increasingly dependant on imports of Russian natural gas, which makes us quite vulnerable. Also, Russia is building nuclear power plants at EU borders for the express purpose of export. Smart of them - nuclear power is the future.

2008 Sep 19 09:39 AM

[Road Runner:]

Your article is flawed starting at the headline.

Yes, wind may be the best of the alternate energy segments to invest in because the technology is very established and the companies are stable, but it is not going to displace oil and it is not going to be the fastest growing alternate energy source 10 years from now. Eventually solar is going to dominate because it doesn't demand expanding the expensive electric grid and doesn't have a "not in my back yard" problem. But, good luck picking the eventual winning companies in solar with the dramatic invention and innovation taking place in solar.

2008 Sep 19 10:31 AM

[Road Runner:]

About your headline. It is wrong for multiple reasons. But the reason I want to emphasize is the slow progress being made with plug-in hybrid cars. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, natural gas (almost all of the promising new or expanding energy sources) feed the electric grid. If we had plug-in hybrids that that could get most of us to work and back on the battery, then electric grid energy sources could make a large dent in our dependence on oil. However, battery technology is moving along very slowly, and I can't get excited about Lithium-ion batteries because they are expensive and unproven. I don't see any other promising battery technology in the works.

2008 Sep 19 10:40 AM

[cjwirth:]

Wind power will accelerate oil depletion. Wind power gives us electric power which is not useful for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, light trucks , and most cars. As we go into the Peak Oil global recession, we will have spare electric power -- due to closed shopping malls, commercial centers, offices, and idled factories. The development of wind turbines will use much oil, natural gas, and coal -- the energies we need for food production and transportation.

With declining oil production, we soon face the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....

I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. survivingpeakoil.blogs.../

2008 Sep 19 11:15 AM

[cjwirth:]

Wind power will accelerate oil depletion. Wind power gives us electric power which is not useful for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, light trucks , and most cars. As we go into the Peak Oil global recession, we will have spare electric power -- due to closed shopping malls, commercial centers, offices, and idled factories. The development of wind turbines will use much oil, natural gas, and coal -- the energies we need for food production and transportation.

With declining oil production, we soon face the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....

I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. survivingpeakoil.blogs.../

2008 Sep 19 11:15 AM

[Random:]

Good to see at least the majority of the posters understand the flaw in this article. As stated before, the portion of electricity produced by oil is almost nill. A better alternative to reduce our dependancy on oil, or fossil fuels as a whole would be hydrogen produced by high temp gas cooled reactors.

2008 Sep 19 01:46 PM

[NOWHEREMAN:]

CLNE, or the TBoone family Piggy Bank, So far in September The Boone Family has unloaded 2.2 Million Shares as its Family business approached 12 month highs. I guess the money will be used for more ads.

2008 Sep 21 03:49 AM

[Orr:]

Nuclear power is half the cost of wind ?

Some of the problems with nuclear power is that it has numerous legacy costs that are on-going - so-called waste. I have never received a straight answer on whether or not weapons-grade plutonium can be used effectively in a nuclear reactor. Some articles speak around this but the problem is nuclear power works with material that requires special handling and processing, special technology and has all sorts of hidden costs. It requires heavy government involvement. The other problem is that it requires enormous amounts of water for cooling.

Wind and solar do not generate all these waste problems, can be integrated easily within existing infrastructures (rooftops for solar and farms for wind) and DO NOT USE WATER.

Remember - "water is the next oil".

Electricity is the the next fuel. There is off-the-shelf technology that could be used on our interstates whereby electric trucks could use an electric rail as a power source - just like an electric train on tires. Coupled with a small diesel motor to power the vehicle on/off the interstate would enable very fast transport on existing highways with no need for heavy batteries at all.

The main impediment of both solar and wind is the need for political cooperation between different parts of the country to enlarge the grid. A very large grid with internet-like self routing behavior (matching demand and supply in a dynamic, fluctuating state) would connect the variations in electric power generation from the renewable sources to the variations in power consumption...

The notion that we cannot build a very large grid coupled with concentrated solar and wind within say 10 or 20 years is simply not true. Go visit Germany and see the vast, complex electric train infrastructure already in-place. They will likely be completely oil free within 40 years.

2008 Sep 21 07:18 AM