A recent survey revealed that renewable energy development comes second as a priority for cooperation between EU Member States after the stability of energy prices. 27% of respondents to a Eurobarometer survey chose renewables as the number one priority, with the group supporting energy price stability just fractionally bigger, at 29%.

And in response to another set of questions, twice as many Europeans thought that in the event of a supply crisis, they would be better protected by coordinated EU rather than national measures (60% against 32%).

Yet this distinction between cooperation priorities is somewhat arbitrary given that renewable energy can and does stabilise prices by providing energy at a knowable cost, unlike oil and gas which have to be imported and whose prices go up and down.

London in Victorian times and beyond was infamous for its thick smog, caused by the extensive burning of coal industrially and domestically, which cloaked the city and made its inhabitants ill. A century or so down the line, the air of Europe’s cities may not be quite so polluted, but we still appear to have a lurking appetite for coal, and a growing appetite for gas.

In 2010, Europe installed more coal power plants than it decommissioned for the second time in 12 years.[1] EWEA’s 2010 statistics show that while 1,550 MW of coal capacity was taken offline, 4,056 MW were added. Simply put, we added 2.5 GW of coal – the equivalent of about five new power plants.

At a time when the EU rightly prides itself on its leading role in international climate negotiations, its world-class renewable energy industry and forward-thinking climate and energy legislation; when more wind and other zero-carbon power capacity is installed in Europe year on year; when a majority of EU citizens are alarmed by the reality of climate change; it is worrying that we are installing more of the world’s dirtiest, most harmful fossil fuel.

The power of wind as a positive force was supported on both sides of the Atlantic on Monday with the release of a new survey conducted by a US research firm and an opinion article published in an English newspaper.

Wind power was seen as either “favourable” or “very favourable” by 75% of people who responded to a Pike Research survey. In addition, wind energy had “unfavourable” responses of only 5%.

The consumer survey, conducted by the Colorado-based firm last summer, canvassed 1,042 Americans on their attitudes and awareness of 12 energy and environmental concepts. The margin of error for the survey results is around 3% with a 95% confidence interval.

Last week WWF released a major report arguing that the world’s entire energy needs could be met “cleanly, renewably and economically” within four decades.

Published in conjunction with energy consultancy Ecofys and the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, ‘The Energy Report’ noted there are no technological or financial reasons preventing wind power and other renewables from creating a carbon-free world by 2050.

“If we continue to rely on fossil fuels, we face a future of increasing anxieties over energy costs, energy security and climate change impacts,” WWF Director General Jim Leape said on Thursday in an accompanying press release.

For wind energy aficionados, one of the most interesting stories to make its way across the internet last week involved an academic study claiming that the installation of 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines could generate half the world’s power needs by 2030.

Published in the respected journal Energy Policy, and entitled ‘Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power,’ the study noted climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time.

“Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure,” said the two California academics, Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi. “Here, we analyse the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS).”