Last Thursday, the US Department of energy released a report that examines what would happen if the recent expansion of wind power were accelerated slightly and carried into the future. The report's future envisions a country that receives 10 percent of its electricity from wind by the end of the decade, 20 percent by 2030, and 35 percent by 2050. The study suggests that, by 2050, the country will be saving money on electricity—and it will gain significant additional benefits as well.

The report has mostly made the news because it indicates that wind capacity in the US tripled in the short period between 2009 and 2013, reaching 61GW at the end of that time. Getting to the study's goals will require an additional 160GW by 2030 and a total of 400GW by 2050. That works out to be about 10GW of installations each year—a figure that happens to roughly match the current domestic manufacturing capacity.

Extrapolating current installation rates means that the US should reach a 25 percent capacity by 2050 even if the price of the hardware remains constant. Should wind costs continue to drop as they have, penetration will reach 34 percent—roughly the goal. But if fossil fuel costs rise a bit, wind could be supplying over 40 percent of the nation's electricity in 2050.

The main shift from the current market would be the growth of offshore wind, which would supply a bit less than 10 percent of the power. Offshore wind, while common in Europe, is only just getting started in the US. Costs are quite a bit higher, and as of now they are only partially offset by the higher rates of generation of turbines located in the ocean. That's in contrast to onshore wind, which is competitive with coal in many areas of the US.

Nevertheless, the cost of shifting to wind is quite low. The report estimates that electricity rates will rise by a grand total of one percent by 2030, and the country will actually be saving two percent by the middle of the century. The report's authors also found that, "Wind generation variability has a minimal and manageable impact on grid reliability and related costs." We'd have to expand transmission lines, but not at a rate that's any different from what we're doing at present.

The real eye-opening figures, however, come in the ancillary benefits that the report considers. The carbon dioxide emissions that are avoided total up to 12.3 gigatonnes. At today's estimated social cost of carbon, that's worth $400 billion—a figure that may rise considerably if the social cost of carbon goes up. Other pollutants like particulates and sulfur dioxide also go down, and the benefits there are estimated at over $100 billion. Combined, these improvements would have a levelized global benefit of $0.041 for every kiloWatt-hour of electricity generated by wind.

If those benefits sound a bit nebulous to you, there are some more concrete ones. By reducing the need to use natural gas for electricity generation, the wind would also free it for use by consumer cooking and heating. That would provide savings estimated at $280 billion—another $0.023/kW-hour boost. The switch to wind would also free up 23 percent of the water currently used in producing electricity.

Combined, the financial benefits here come out to over $0.06—over three quarters of the DOE's estimated levelized cost of wind energy (at $0.08 for new construction in 2019).

While the cost of wind power will likely continue to drop as technologies improve, following this scenario will still require a stable federal regulatory environment, as well as coordination among local, state, and national officials in order to license appropriate sites and ensure the transmission infrastructure for them. Still, the long list of benefits identified in the DOE report suggests that these efforts could have a substantial payoff.

One key factor in wind's recent growth has been government subsidies and incentives. These have worked as intended, given the growth of the domestic manufacturing industry. On the same day as the DOE report, the Energy Information Administration released an update on the state of subsidies in the US. This shows that wind and solar remain the largest recipient of subsidies, each receiving over $5 billion in tax breaks and other financial support. But the very mature fossil fuel industry still receives over $3 billion, while conservation efforts and nuclear power are shortchanged, with each at under $2 billion.