Can Wind Power the World?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Two Stanford researchers have put out a new scientific study suggesting that the potential for wind-driven energy is actually many times greater than was previously believed, and may, in fact, be more than enough to meet the whole world’s energy demands. Analyzing thousands of sites around the globe, the researchers estimated that wind power could produce 72 terawatts of energy per year—many times greater than the 1.6-1.8 terawatts the world used in 2000. North America, meanwhile, was found to have the greatest wind power potential, though its unclear whether the United States could satisfy its own needs through domestic wind power alone.

There are still a number of barriers to wind power. For one, it enjoys only tenuous backing from the federal government. True, the House energy bill authorized $55-65 million per year over next five years to promote wind power development, but the most effective tool has always been the production tax credit, which finances roughly 30 percent of the cost of wind energy production. The problem is that, over the past six years, Congress has alternately let the credit expire and then be renewed three times, thus failing to provide the kind of long-term predictability that manufacturers of wind turbines and wind technology need. The current energy bill would only extend the credit through the end of 2006, even though many wind-power producers feel they could, with more support, push much further than the record growth expected this year.

There are other obstacles too. Transmitting wind energy to urban areas poses new challenges for grid operators who are used to predictable power sources and unaccustomed to dealing with the whims of Mother Nature. And while wind energy has some environmentalists excited, it also has many concerned: Critics point out that the regulatory guidelines for wind generation are weak, and that many conflicts over site placement may eventually emerge, particularly over the impact of wind farms on local bird populations. Other concerns have been raised about the disruption of scenic views, declining property values, and noise.

Of course there’s a bigger picture to this debate as well: climate change has the potential to alter our landscape and poses ecological risks far beyond anything wind power could do. While blanket wind farms may be not be the answer, one can no longer ignore the potential for sensibly-sited farms to produce large amounts of clean energy.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend