Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I added this comment to Jerome's DailyKos diary, so I'll add it here as well.

Here is the May 2008 U.S. Department of Energy report on wind energy 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030, which someone termed the best government report in many, many years along the lines of a national industrial policy.

The destructive nature of an uncertain investment climate is all too clear in the example of wind energy in the U.S. A national industrial policy is the best way to solve this problem.

California was the world leader of wind energy technology in the 1970s, but when the Reaganuts took power, and abandoned the idea of industrial policy, leadership shifted to Europe, where it remains today. In fact, the U.S. is right now only able to manufacture just over half the content of a large scale wind turbine (details are in the DoE report).

To achieve 20 percent wind energy by 2030 requires construction of about 100,000 wind turbines, at a cost of around $1 trillion, and an extensive reworking of the national electricity distribution grid, at a cost of around another $1 trillion.

But 20 percent wind energy by 2030 is a very modest goal. With the adoption of clear national goals, I believe we can achieve 50 percent wind energy by 2020. This is almost exactly the same goal recently advocated by U.S. wind energy pioneer Paul Gipe, One Million Megawatts of New Wind Capacity.

Industrial policy, people, industrial policy. Saving the financial system results in no forward progress without an industrial policy.

by NBBooks on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:51:25 AM EST
this was the reason for my negative sounding (and, of course, provocative) title: current policy measures amount o incremental improvements to regulation, which might deliver some progress in nomral times, but risk being woefully insufficient to even maintain the industry this year and next - a pity when the potential to do so much more is right at hand.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... as the cost of the new long haul transmission capacity.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 03:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
2 trillion...half of what we're going to end up giving to the banking industry.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 05:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The combination of "very modest" and "$1 trillion" seems, well, strange to me.
by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 07:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's $50 billion a year. Compared to the annual military investment budget, that's very modest.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 01:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... value to an economy with a $14trillion annual GDP.

$1 trillion spread over, say, 16 years is $62.5b/year, or 0.45% of that economy, even assuming ongoing stagnation.

Add $2.5b annually to the front years of that for the $20b in long haul transmission capacity required for 20% wind power ... it zooms up to 0.47% for the first half of that.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 04:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series