Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (16) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
July 11, 2005

Beating Swords into Wind Turbines, or Solar Panels if You Like

by Paul Gipe

During last week's Fourth of July, Independence Day celebrations, President Bush exhorted Americans to "stay the course" in Iraq. With that reminder of our current and future obligations, perhaps it's a good time to consider what we could be doing with the money spent on waging war in the Middle East and heed the Biblical injunction to beat swords into plowshares.

"What could we have accomplished toward building a renewable future here in North America instead of launching a war in the oil-rich heart of the Persian Gulf?"

- Paul Gipe

Rather than plowshares, what could the United States have done if it beat its swords into wind turbines or, if you prefer, solar panels? What could we have accomplished toward building a renewable future here in North America instead of launching a war in the oil-rich heart of the Persian Gulf? The answer is simple: a lot.

Wars are expensive and the money used to pay for them can be used for something else. To date, our Iraq misadventure has cost Americans $208 billion. And we're not finished yet. As Senator Everett Dirksen once said "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money".

Early estimates put the cost of the war closer to $300 billion. It now looks like we'll shoot well beyond that. At nearly $80 billion per year, if we "stay the course" as the President urges us to do and stay locked in combat for years to come as Secretary Rumsfeld warns, we could easily surpass one-half trillion dollars.

This is just to give a range of possible futures. We'll stick with the current cost of the war, as this is the cost of lost opportunities: lost opportunities to develop our own solar and wind industries, lost jobs, and lost renewable generation. Keep in mind though, that the cost of the war and the opportunities lost could double those presented here.

Wind Plowshares

At the cost of today's wind turbines-not some future cost- the money spent on the Iraq war to date would have resulted in the installation of nearly 70,000 two-megawatt wind turbines. Depending upon where these wind turbines would be located, they could generate from 2,000 to 3,000 kWh/kW/year of installed capacity. They would produce from 280 TWh to 420 TWh per year. With the United States consuming 3,900 TWh per year, the War Turbines could produce form 7 to 11 percent of total U.S. electrical consumption.

If, on the other hand, the money were used merely to extend the ill-conceived Production Tax Credit, the war in Iraq could pay for a staggering 1,000 TWh of generation per year for ten years, the equivalent of one-fourth of total U.S. electrical consumption.

Solar Plowshares

Photovoltaics remain expensive relative to wind energy, but the industry is rapidly expanding in Japan and Germany. Japan currently operates 1,100 MW of PV generating capacity and Germany will reach 1,000 MW of installed PV by the end of this year. Nevertheless, if the United States redirected its war expenditures toward PV, we could quickly overtake both countries.

At the current cost of PV installations in California, the funds spent on the war in Iraq could have resulted in the installation of 21 million one-kilowatt PV systems across the country. That's sufficient to provide one-fifth of the dwelling units in the United States with a PV system.

War Panels alone could generate 30 to 40 TWh per year or about 1 percent of total consumption-a not negligible amount in a country that uses so much electricity.

More significantly such a large-scale development program, reminiscent of Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, would push America to the forefront of solar photovoltaics technology, enabling us to not only meet our own needs for clean, renewable electricity, but also enabling us to ship panels to distant-shall we say "foreign" lands-to help them meet their more modest needs.

Perhaps in the future we can ship wind turbines and solar panels to the Persian Gulf instead of our sons and daughters.

About the author...

Paul Gipe has written extensively about wind energy for both the popular and trade press. He has lectured widely in Europe, North America and the South Pacific on wind energy and how to minimize its impact on the environment and the communities of which it is a part. For his efforts the World Renewable Energy Congress honored Gipe as a "pioneer" in 1998 and the American Wind Energy Association named him as the industry's "person of the year" in 1988. In 2004, Gipe served as the acting executive director of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association where he created, managed, and implemented a provincial campaign for Advanced Renewable Tariffs. And above all, Mr. Gipe is a prolific author of wind power books, including Wind Energy Comes of Age, which was selected by the (American) Association of College and Research Libraries for its list of outstanding academic books in 1995. For more information on Mr. Gipe and to see other titles of his on wind power, see the following link below.

Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (16)
 
No image available
July 11, 2005
The Iraqi War ? I thought it was started because there were weapons of mass destruction...

So, if it really iS for oil, why is the price of oil going up ?

boB
Comment 1 of 16
No image available
July 11, 2005
I think Paul Gipe's points are well taken. If we are ever to get out of the oil barrel, we have to get our priorities straight. Funding for war should be redirected toward funding toward renewable energy which would then free us from having to protect our oversea oil resources. The more renewables we have, the less we would be needing fuels from overseas. It just makes good sense. Keep it up Pau!!!!
adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 2 of 16
No image available
July 11, 2005
We all know this war is for oil and the money to be made by oil companies. I keep thinking about the jobs that could be created by new emerging energy technology and all the good that could have been done with the money spent over there. What a waste...
Comment 3 of 16
No image available
July 11, 2005
K.A.,

Your lack of logic is also a wonder. Your statement above reads: you don't understand the war and therefore you don't understand economics, wind and pv power.....pretty lame thinking in terms of a personal attack on someone who clearly understand the latter.

Many of us wonder why we are spending money on a war for oil when clear alternatives exist. With the coming of better hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the electric car the obvious choice when spending money to secure our future would be to invest now in our electircal infrastructure and power generation: namely solar, wind, wave, bio-mas to name a few.

And in terms of investment that you say may never happen, look at what Japan, Germany has done, and what California is about to do: large scale investment in renewable energy, an investment that ultimately ushers in the option to disengage from our current foreign policy and oil-based transportation system.

Neal
Comment 4 of 16
No image available
July 11, 2005
Your lack of understanding for the war leads me to question your understanding of economics, wind and PV power, too.

Is it also 'lost opportunities' when funds are not diverted (that is what you're saying) from other programs like domestic violence intervention, libraries, roads, etc., etc. for wind and PV programs?

You make your point. However, a person of your purported talent could surely find better use of his time than to wonder off into 'what if'-land on things which will never, and could never, happen.
Comment 5 of 16
No image available
July 12, 2005
They did have WMD's. Sadam used them on his own people. So, didn't they have them?

The war isn't about oil, otherwise we would be taking it. It is going to whom it belongs, the Iraqi people.

As long as the mistaken ideas purported above continue to be thown around, we will be distracted from allowing the Iraqi people to know what democracy, ruling by the people and real freedom are all about.

Thank you for your consideration of all the ideas presented here.
Comment 6 of 16
No image available
July 12, 2005
^^WMD? That was just a lie told so they could have an excuse to plunder. I think they underestimated how long it would take to get at it is all.
Comment 7 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
Paul,

Thanks for having the courage to discuss a topic not many people want to talk about!

We are spending our hard earned dollars in the wrong place. We should be spending our resources on things that make our world a better place, not more destruction.

In the last line of you article you mentioned sending our sons and daughters to Iraq. I'm worried about how they return to America...in coffins and injured for life. I did a quick calculation a few months ago and found that we are bringing home 4 dead soldiers and 31 injured soldiers for every tanker of oil we get from Iraq.

The money is a high price to pay, but the loss of our children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends is a much higher price.

Being quite about this tragedy is not going to stop it! Thanks for bringing the topic to the attention of RE professionals and RE enthusiasts.
Comment 8 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
Adrianakau has it right! Bob Gudgel's answer is- oil is going up and will continue to rise, because supply will dwindle from now on & China & India's demand will continually increase.
Comment 9 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
I think you've strayed off-message here. I thought that RenewableEnergyAccess.com was about promoting renewable energy, not discussion US foreign policy.

Stick to your message. If you want to make an anti-war statement, do it on the website of an anti-war group.
Comment 10 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
A few things here.
1. With no war, the money just wouldn't have been spent. Remember, it's all a special appropriations bill to fund this thing outside of the regular budget process.
2. We are not just "taking" oil from Iraq. We are, however, ensuring the supply flowing from Iraq to the world. There are 1.5M Bl/day of excess oil production capacity relative to current consumption. Iraq provides more that 1.5 million bl/day. Without their oil, the $/barrel would be significantly higher than the current $60 spot price.

All of that notwithstanding, if we were to invest $'s at targetted renewables R&D (for per watt hour produced cost reduction) and Hydrogen technology at even a fraction of the scale of investment the war is costing, the world could be a much different place much sooner.
We will get there eventually, but it sure would be nice if we could make US participation in Kyoto irrelevant by providing economic viability to clean technologies.
Comment 11 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
The money on the war would undoubtedly have been spent on other public projects like roads, bridges, water treatment, etc. that are not in competitive markets. It might also have been wasted. There are plenty of special interests lobbying congress for money. The funding of research is a competition between special interests. If money is not being spent on research & deployment renewable energy products, it is because the industry is not selling itself to those funding the research.

Renewable energy will not be deployed until it can compete with other suppliers of power in the market. Environmentalists need to stop fighting themselves and present a consistent message on renewable energy. The average person doesn't understand the issues and the industry doesn't sell itself to the public. Once the public is on board and fully in support renewables the political system will follow and provide the funds needed for research & development. Politicians are followers, not leaders.
Comment 12 of 16
No image available
July 13, 2005
We are taking it! Shell and Haliburton are already there trying to scoop it up but I think the Bush administration didn't plan on it being as hard as it is because of attacks on pipelines. Another failed plan. If they had done this right, they could have brought the whole Arab nation to our side. Instead they had to get greedy and storm into Iraq. If it's not about natural resources then why don't we go into countries with worse human rights violations? Simple, they have nothing we need.....
Comment 13 of 16
No image available
July 14, 2005
Wow this blows me away!!^^ So it seems from what you are saying, is that war is good for us? We need war to advance our technology? We as a human beings should be able to see beyond the need for war and violence if we are to survive....
Comment 14 of 16
No image available
July 14, 2005
Neal,
There's no flaw in the logic. I know his understanding of the war to be deficient, therefore, I (me personally) will now scrutinize anything he says about anything, despite any prior claim to credibility in other subjects. That being said, it does not necessarily detract from proven expertise. Obviously, Mr. Gipe is at least well published (and, as we all do know, 'marketed' could be substituted, and that's not the same as well read). The question of war would appear to be out of his domain judging only from his written comments.

The same could be said for anyone here claiming this war to be about oil. That clearly shows a lack of understanding. Besides, FWIW, there is no greater generator of technological advancements and jobs than war. So, to pretend redirected funding to energy would produce grander results somehow is fools fodder.

I'm as pro-energy development as anyone. I am, however, more centered on free-market forces than what appears to be those who feel government should do it for us. Government _does_ currently have the ability to foster incentive-level support for development if it chose. It's a question of emphasis (and, certainly nothing to do with war). If goverment did nothing more than redirect current energy development incentives provided big oil and energy producers, it would have at least as much effect as anything else being suggested. If traditional energy production were not subsidized to the degree it is now, renewables would already be on par competition-wise. Free-market forces would take it from there. The destinction between wind development with or without the PTC should clearly make the case.

If government were interested only in the most significant energy development programs, why would they choose to emphasize vehicle fuel cell development over stationary fuel cells? The prior being much harder to achieve. The later should/could have been almost fully implemented at this time. In fact, there's a developmental limbo with regard to the later, like it is intentionally being held up. That's the political nature of the beast. [ In the U.S., only 27% of energy use is consumed by all modes of transportation, autos and light trucks making up less than 60% of that. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/uses/transportation.html ] That means over 80% of all energy use in the U.S. goes for uses other than personal transportation. Stationary fuel cells could reduce that significantly.

So, for anyone to suggest war is affecting energy development in any way simply does not have grasp of the issues.

Mr. Gipes' article, on the other hand, takes a whimsical trip to neverland. If war funding were miraculously available, the likelyhood of that money being designated to energy development is no more probable than it is now. It's not a question of if investment will come. It will once the proper criteria are met. Simply x-ing off the war doesn't do that, even if it were at all possible.

The whole argument is akind to Steve Martin's skit on "How to Make a Million Dollars" which goes something like, "First, get a million dollars.....then, .....".
Comment 15 of 16
No image available
July 15, 2005
Excellent article!

A lot of people seem rather blase about the five billion dollars a month the Iraq war is costing us all. I think dollar numbers in the billions or trillions just don't compute for most of us; they are much too big for us to comprehend.

Paul Gipe's comparing the war dollar costs to the benefits of hypothetical alternative energy expenditures is a brilliant way to transform the dollar numbers for an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war into a more tangible waste of money.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
- Dwight Eisenhower, 1953 speech
Comment 16 of 16
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Virtual Renewable Energy Pavilion at the Virtual Energy Forum American Solar Energy Society Alpha Technologies Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) Solar Power International 2009 SCHOTT Solar Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo