Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Energy future is now

Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2001 | 9:14 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is executive editor of the Sun.

AMERICANS ARE SCRAMBLING again to meet the challenge of energy shortages. Remember back in 1974 and 1975 when the first major oil embargo was foisted upon us by nations that produce it? Nevadans weren't hurt to the same degree as California and Oregon, but it did have an impact on tourism. We hustled to provide enough gasoline to assure Californians they could fill up their tanks before heading home after a visit to Las Vegas or Reno.

Even prior to this event, state Sen. Jim Gibson was pressing for the passage of laws to promote solar energy. His efforts resulted in the use of this source of energy in a few state buildings and a place to promote further use of solar energy in Boulder City. It didn't take long after the oil began to flow again for these efforts to be minimized by people with less foresight than Gibson.

Even the federal government jumped on the bandwagon and created the Solar Energy Research Institute. It was supposed to be located in an area where the most sunshine and least humidity was available. All studies showed Yuma, Ariz., and Clark County, Nev., as the places of choice. Nevada had the most natural and economic advantages. Sorry, it was 1976 -- an election year -- and the Ford administration steered it to Colorado.

Several studies showed the need for the use of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind. These wouldn't meet all of our needs, but their full development would take much of the pressure off of our demands and could provide some 10 percent or more of demand. But we were like the farmer who, during a drought, was going to dam up the creek when water was again plentiful, but then didn't do it when rain began to fall. It's amazing what the lack of immediate demand has on preparing for the future. Lack of pain soon erases the need to plan.

I was raised in more simple times when many farms used windmills to pump water. In the Wisconsin back country, during the Great Depression, we had a party-line telephone, but no electricity. Our radio was supplied with battery power and it had to be recharged in town 15 miles away over rough roads. Then along came a double-blade, wind-driven charger for radio and car batteries. Farms had electricity that could not only charge batteries, but could, under good conditions, also light a few bulbs.

Farm families were always aware of the value of wind and at the same time knew the problems of too much wind. When the wind came in very strong gusts, it was time to run out and put the brakes on the windmill so it wouldn't destroy itself. They also knew that the windmill was a favorite target of lightning that came with summer storms.

During the past couple of decades, the use of wind for power has been refined and increased. Very productive windmill farms have been developed successfully in nearby California. These windmills have been producing energy at half the cost of natural gas. The rapid rise in natural gas costs, and future threatened increases, have made wind-generated power even more attractive.

Large areas of open space and plenty of wind make the efforts to produce energy in Southern Nevada a wise decision that should have been made 20 years ago during the second Mideast oil challenge to our economy.

We can expect some dramatic progress in the development of wind power in our state during the coming years. This is good news, but let's not forget the additional use of solar power that we can develop at the same time.