Tall ships are the embodiment of the fascination we feel for the free and abundant energy of the wind. Already at the time of the sailing ships, it was recognized that it was important to catch the wind at the maximum possible height. So, the main mast of a tall ship could go up to 30 meters. Modern wind turbines reach heights of a hundred meters or more. But Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) can tap winds at heights up to thousands of meters. The present post is a more in depth examination of AWE after a previous post that I wrote on The Oil Drum and which generated a lot of comments and of reactions. (Image from the Imperial College Yacht Club.) .

This story has been edited to make it clearer that the analysis relates to US wind rather than European wind and to clarify the problem with excess generation at night. I also added an Item 10.

I think we think we know more about wind-power than we do. These are a few things that I have recently discovered about wind that make me think that plunging headlong into electricity is not necessarily a good idea. At this point, we don't seem to have a plan that does much more than address wind turbines themselves.

I should make it clear that this discussion relates to US wind power, not European wind power. Many of the issues directly or indirectly relate to the fact the US is facing a multi-faceted problem--lack of wind turbines, needed grid upgrades, and lack of electrical storage. In a time of financial problems, the price of such a big change makes it difficult to tackle all these problems on the necessary scale at once. If we only add wind turbines, and make minimal upgrades in storage and transmission, the change is still likely to still be expensive and will likely leave us with the need for large subsidies. Without extensive grid upgrades and electrical storage changes, wind generated electricity will continue to play only a supporting role, acting mostly as a fuel substitute.

Europe has been dealing with this issue longer and has better addressed the wind transmission and storage issue, so it is in better shape in this regard. Jerome Guillet has prepared a write-up focusing more on the European perspective.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive a New Energy for America Plan is designed to:

1. Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
2. Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
3. Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
4. Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
5. Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050

The Obama energy agenda focuses on - and these are not mutually exclusive - efficiency, electrification, and the promotion of alternative energy resources. Its five main goals are set up in a way so that success in any one of the five individual areas will reinforce the other 4, helping the overall agenda achieve success. For example, creating 25% of the U.S. electricity production from renewable resources (goal #4) will aid in decreasing the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (goal #5).

The energy agenda is a welcomed change showing a future outlook that is based, at least to some [small] extent, on the physical realities of the natural resource world. However, from the perspective of net energy, some potential problems do exist. My goal here is to discuss some possible shortcomings of the new administrations energy agenda from the perspective of net energy.

This article is one of a series of articles, offering energy advice to President Obama and his administration.

The incoming Obama administration has promised a much-needed change in the direction of US energy policy (or non-policy, as some see the current situation).  However, some of those changes appear to be campaign gimmicks or aimed at satisfying special interests rather than solving our various problems.  (The heavy-for-light crude swap in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve proposed in the Obama-Biden energy proposal appears to be one such gimmick.)

For much too long, US energy legislation (I hesitate to call it policy, because it lacks the coherence to justify the label) has been aimed at short-term patches on problems which have only gotten worse.  CAFE regulations have barely held fuel economy steady, while low fuel prices caused consumption to skyrocket.  "Free trade" allowed cheap oil imports to kill movement toward efficiency and substitutes.  The auto industry lobbied against fuel taxes to promote its short-term interest in selling profitable trucks, with the long-term result that all 3 US automakers will go bankrupt in the next year if nothing is done.

We've had change before, but the results put us where we are now.  It's time for the right change.