Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity that would reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable.
A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will automatically open to a new window or tab]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here.
There is a summary document in case anyone misses it:
It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.
It is clear that industrial wind generation is not able to contribute anything against the problems of global warming, pollution, nuclear waste, or dependence on imports. In Denmark, with the most per-capita wind turbines in the world, the output from wind facilities equals 15%-20% of their electricity consumption. The Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported, however, that wind provided only 1.7% of the electricity actually used in 1999. The grid manager for western Denmark reported that in 2002 84% of their wind-generated electricity had to be exported, i.e., dumped at extreme discount. The turbines are often shut down, because it is so rare that good wind coincides with peaking demand. A director of the western Denmark utility has stated that wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions, the primary marker of fossil fuel use.
But industrial wind facilities are not just useless. They destroy the land, birds and bats, and the lives of their neighbors. Off shore, they endanger ships and boats and their low-frequency noise is likely harmful to sea mammals. They require subsidies and regulatory favors to make investment viable. They do not move us towards more sustainable energy sources and stand instead as monuments of delusion.
-- December 2004
I hope things have improved since 2004, but I doubt it.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
So we should have safe, clean, unsubsidised, cheap nuclear power instead? Possibly, yes! Trouble is, non of those adjectives can be applied to our current or proposed nuclear generators.
I was only looking for wind speed............ and it goes on with this little gem
‘MAFIA GOES GREEN TO LAUNDER GREEN’
News24, 4 July 2013.
‘Brussels - The Italian mafia is ramping up investment in wind farms to launder money and benefit from EU subsidies, according to a Europol report published on Thursday.
‘Europe's policing agency said an analysis of the financial activities of the Italian mafia's four groupings found wind farms to be the most popular target for dirty money within the renewable energy sector, itself a criminal favourite.
‘“The Italian mafia is investing more and more in renewable energy, especially in wind farms, to profit from generous European grants paid for by member states which allow them to mix dirty money with legitimate economic activities,” the report said.
‘Italian police confiscated €350m worth of assets from one of Europe's largest wind farms in Crotone last year, after it was linked to the Calabrian N'drangheta mafia.’
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
I'm not quite sure how you can describe that as a 'reality check' but I love these kinds of websites run by people with an enormous axe to grind and filled with dubious content backed up by a wealth of dodgy references.
Pepperman wrote:I'm not quite sure how you can describe that as a 'reality check' but I love these kinds of websites run by people with an enormous axe to grind and filled with dubious content backed up by a wealth of dodgy references.
Unlike the pro-wind lobby who has no axe to grind at all, or any vested interest to pursue. So long as that's clear.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
I would certainly treat anything coming from the pro wind lobby with a healthy degree of scepticism, but not the same degree of scepticism as I treat the website you linked to.
The wind industry might selectively report, it might be generous in its assumptions, it might massage the stats, all to make wind power look better than it actually is, but there's a limit to how far it can stray from reality before it will run a serious risk of reputational damage because it will be spotted in fairly short order.
The person who runs the website you linked to clearly doesn't have those worries.
kenneal - lagger wrote:
Also, as for Hinkley Point see this!
Come off it, our Government would never be so foolish as to propose a nuclear plant close to a tsunami-prone coastline. Not after Fukushima. Oh, hang on...
biffvernon wrote:..........our Government would never be so foolish as to propose a nuclear plant close to a tsunami-prone coastline. Not after Fukushima. ......
Pepperman wrote:I would certainly treat anything coming from the pro wind lobby with a healthy degree of scepticism, but not the same degree of scepticism as I treat the website you linked to.
Was that a typo, or had you not noticed I linked to more than one site?
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
No typo, I was referring to the AWEO website in your first two posts.
I hadn't checked out the windbyte one and looking at it now it appears to be dedicated to spreading FUD about wind power.
I'm not saying that wind power is perfect or that it doesn't present major challenges that will need to be overcome, but websites like these that simply exist to rake up as much dirt as possible and present a very lopsided view of the technology really don't help.
IMO the RSPB is just taking that stance because they are about to get a turbine on their land at Sandy. It isn't because of global concerns, it's because they will get paid for having it there. Several years ago (and it is still the same) they had an enormous car park for all their staff. The folly was pointed out, and many spaces could be removed if a bus was organised to collect the staff as many were living only a few miles away. Did they do anything? No.
There are people who work for the RSPB who believe in the conservation work of the RSPB. There are others who see it as an empire.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:
IMO the RSPB is just taking that stance because they are about to get a turbine on their land at Sandy. It isn't because of global concerns, it's because they will get paid for having it there.
woodburner wrote:
IMO the RSPB is just taking that stance because they are about to get a turbine on their land at Sandy. It isn't because of global concerns, it's because they will get paid for having it there.
That is the most absurd thing you've ever posted!
You should have added "IMO" to the beginning or end of your post, IMO.
You have your opinions, (some of which are thought by others to be absurd), why should you deny others the same?
Apart from that, I can assure you I have made more absurd posts than that, but not as absurd as others have done.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
