Excellent. Again... everyone *should* be for using wind
energy in every site where it is feasible. Every consumer
and every utility should be in favor of that. But even so,
that will not be nearly enough, as a practical matter.
There is not enough wind for electricity because of the problems you enumerated about the grid, and distances. We could only generate about a third of our electricity from wind, or almost enough to retire all coal-fired plants. However, there is more than enough wind to replace fossil fuel with hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons. This would put OPEC out of business and reverse the U.S. balance of payments, because the U.S. happens to have the world's largest supply of easily accessible wind power.
(We could also replace coal-fired plants with natural gas, but this would drive up the cost of gas, whereas if Texas, Iowa and other states with plenty of wind cut over to wind instead, there will be plenty of gas left for places like Georgia that have no wind. Eventually, electricity and automobiles everywhere could be powered by wind-generated fuel.)
You talk as if there is some kind of conspiracy against wind. I do not see any conspiracy here.
Then you have not looked! It is not a "conspiracy" in the same sense that opposition to CF is not a conspiracy. It is overt, not covert, and the people like Mark Mills who spearhead the opposition to wind brag about their accomplishments. The opposition comes mainly from the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they pay off. They claim it is not practical; it is too expensive; it kills birds, and so on. They prevented research in the U.S., so wind was developed in Denmark. They see to that the tax structure works against wind, and also against other renewables and conservation. The tax system and depletion allowances reward waste, pollution, and using up resources. If the U.S. had implemented serious conservation and wind energy development in 1980, we would be exporting energy by now.
All the power companies desire to have the lowest cost, most reliable source of energy - and none that I know of will exclude wind as a source, so long as it is competitive - why would they?...
They sure would! Your statement is like saying automobile companies desire to make safe, affordable and efficient cars. That's nonsense. The only thing power companies and auto companies want to make is a profit. Auto companies love SUVs because they are profitable, even though SUVs are grossly inefficient, difficult to drive, and they kill more passengers, and up to 20 times more pedestrians and people in other cars. SUVs may cause a backlash that puts GM out of business. These problems do not make the slightest difference to the auto execs. They would be happy to make money by brutally murdering 20,000 people per year, the way coal-fired power plant operators do, or 440,000 people, the way the way the tobacco industry does.
Throughout history, capitalists have sacrificed millions of lives and their own futures time after time with stupid, self-destructive behavior. This is human nature. Capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate money and resources, but it does not promote morality or human decency any more than communism does. It is an amoral economic system. Engineering is the most efficient way to build machinery, and it is equally amoral. It works just as well whether you build lifesaving machinery or instruments to torture people with.
The article in FSB about the South Dakota Indian tribe is a perfect case in point. They have a great site. They have the motivation. There are no political obstacles. But they have no money . . .
They have plenty of money month to month. They have enough to pay for their electricity now, and wind electricity would be cheaper. What they lack is capital. They are like poor people in Mexico who cannot afford to buy $15 compact fluorescent lights, so they buy $1 incandescent bulbs instead, which end up costing them $50 over the life of the bulb. In both cases, the power companies are conspiring to keep poor people poor, and to keep them living hand to mouth, rather than giving them the means to reduce their overall expenses.
In the Third World, oil companies make billions of dollars selling poor people kerosene to light their houses and cook food. They sell it in small lots for ~$10 per gallon, making it their most profitable business. It produces between 10 and 50 times less light than electricity would, and of course it causes countless fires and ruins people's lungs. People who make one or two dollars per day must spend several dollars per month on fuel. If the poor people could afford to put aside that money for six months, or if someone would offer them a micro-loan at normal interest, they could buy a modern wind up LED lamps which are much brighter than kerosene lamps and which consume no fuel. They cannot do that because they are on a hand-to-mouth treadmill, because only usurers will lend them money at hundreds of percent per year, and because there has been no research and no government or industry support for lifesaving advanced technology that would benefit mainly Third World people. Wind-up LED lights and improved mosquito nets are only available to rich campers in first-world countries.
I think wind will take care of itself, to the degree that there are good sites available.
Given the complexity of the U.S. tax structure, and the tight control that Washington and the fossil fuel industry have over energy policy, I do not think there is a slightest chance that wind or any other source will take care of itself. If they have their way, the fossil fuel industry, the administration, and DoE will drive us over a cliff until gasoline reaches $10 per gallon, and GM and Ford go bankrupt because they make SUVs instead of sane automobiles. For similar examples of self-destructive behavior, see B. W. Touchman, "The March of Folly."
It seems odd that the auto industry does the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. They do because inefficient cars are more profitable in today's market. This is because the fossil fuel industry pays the Congress to distort the market, subsidize waste, and pay for wars fought on behalf of the oil industry.
- Jed
