After nearly a decade, the battle is not quite over yet. Lawsuits have already been announced that could stall the 468-megawatt Cape Wind project on Nantucket Sound. But today's announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar takes a big step toward transforming into reality the 130-turbine project, the first U.S. offshore wind farm.
Denmark installed its first offshore wind turbines 20 years ago. Now it's the world leader, with nearly a fifth of its electricity coming from on- and offshore wind power. The Danish lead did not come about merely because of technological advantages but rather because its government long ago adopted an industrial policy that promoted wind power. And the Danes today don't just supply the home market. Look at the logo on many turbines around the U.S., where wind power now supplies 1.8% of our electricity, and you'll see the name Vestas, a Danish firm, although GE is the leader.
Just last week, the United Kingdom passed a milestone, a gigawatt of turbine capacity with 11 offshore wind farms. Britain plans ultimately to install 40 gigawatts of wind power to generate 40% of the country's electricity. The wind industry there is also projected to create 70,000 green jobs.
So today's welcome announcement about Cape Wind provides another example of playing catch-up in an industry that the U.S. should have dominated given the head start it had beginning 30 years ago. In 2009, as reported at the beginning of this month, the U.S. installed 10 gigawatts of wind capacity, the most ever. That was 39% of the total electricity-generating capacity installed for the year, second behind natural gas. (Here's the report.) Total capacity for wind is now 35 gigawatts nationwide. With a realistic national energy policy, one including a utility feed-in-tariff like the Germans have deployed, and a renewable electricity standard, there is no reason that U.S. wind capacity couldn't be tripled in five years. As Jerome a Paris has noted, the economics are entirely sensible. There are some other economics as well: generation of jobs. In a couple of decades or sooner, we could be producing as big a percentage of our electricity from wind as the Danes do. And providing nearly 300,000 jobs as well.
In addition to the usual suspects in Washington, bolstered by their pals in the non-renewables sector of the energy industry, there will, of course, be obstacles to any expansion of renewables, including wind. Some of the objections will be pure obstructionism. But not all.
While the planet's atmosphere will benefit from the carbon footprint of renewably generated electricity, and everybody's health will benefit from shutting down coal plants, there are environmental and other concerns worth considering. Whether a particular installation will harm precious habitat for endangered species or possibily destroy a piece of our cultural heritage are just two questions that each project must answer. The route of additional transmission lines from remote areas is another. There is the matter of how much power can be locally generated, say, through rooftop solar instead of imported from remote wind and solar locales. And, finally, there is the ultimate question of how much new electricity generation would be needed if a serious national program of both conservation and energy efficiency were initiated. Huge savings of energy and dollars can still be captured, as California has proved.
But nothing will substitute for getting the nation deeper into renewable power and out of the hole we've literally dug for ourselves by being so dependent on fossil fuels. Projects such as Cape Wind have to be part of the mix. For that reason alone, those wind turbines five miles out from the coast are beautiful.
As James McCaffrey of the Sierra Club's Massachusetts Chapter said today:
"Cape Wind signifies a major step forward for a cleaner and greener energy future for America. The alternative is an increased reliance on fossil fuels and dirty polluting energy sources that threaten our nation’s sensitive natural areas, while coastal areas like Cape Cod will suffer major impacts from climate change. Instead, Cape Wind will provide clean, renewable energy capable of replacing 2.5 million barrels of oil per year."
As the ice melts faster in Greenland and the parts per million of CO2 accumulate in our air, rapidly moving toward green energy is not some feel-good option. It's crucial to lessening the impact of a change that is already under way. How fast and effectively we accomplish that - globally - will determine whether we have the nerve to look our grandchildren in the eye.
===
Mark Louis had a diary discussion on the subject here.