July 28, 2004

The Answer is (not) Blowin' in the Wind

Environmentalists deserve credit for helping us all thinkseriously about our stewardship of nature. From Genesis onward, Scripture is laden with the messagethat creation is good, that its purpose is to manifest God's glory, and thathuman beings are its stewards. Our role in creation makes it all the moreimportant that participants in debates about how properly to steward theearth's resources have a commitment to truth. Capitalizing on current confusionover fossil fuel reserves, proponents of wind power are working hard to deceiveconcerned citizens with sensational propaganda.

Groups like the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) andthe Michigan Consumer Federation promote wind power as an energy alternativethrough misleading claims. “Unlikeother fuels, the cost of wind never changes. It's free. And it has the addedadvantage of producing no pollution,” says the Michigan Federation.

Wind power produces energy, says the AWEA, “without consumingany natural resources or emitting any pollution or greenhouse gases.” Not onlyis wind power less expensive than other forms of energy production, we're told;it also increases the “security of the U.S. electricity supply.”

So overwhelming are the advantages of wind power in the eyesof some proponents, they want to use the power of government to force utilitiesand businesses to convert to wind.

Two recent studies by the Royal Academy of Engineering andthe David Hume Institute blow some much needed fresh air across wind power'smusty arguments. These studieshighlight a few ways in which the wind environmentalists are deceivingconsumers.

First, wind power is not free. There is overwhelming international agreement that windpower will force consumers to pay twice as much as the most economicalfossil-fuel option. Wind power isweighed down by collateral costs.

Both studies point to unreported capital costs like sitepreparation, acquisition, construction, and installation of hardware. Capital costs also include differencesin the cost of electricity generated during peak versus off-peak periods.

There are networking costs, including the maintenance andreplacement of existing infrastructure, and costs of new construction to meetnew electricity demands. Additional operating expenses include personnel costssuch as staff salaries and insurance--ongoing and inflationary costs that areirrespective of the electricity actually generated.

Second, wind power is not pollution-free. Fossil fuels will be used in themanufacture, installation, maintenance, and dismantling of wind turbines andtowers. Pollution results from theproduction of the plastics, metal, cement, and fiberglass used in tower and turbineconstruction.

Third, the very operation of wind turbine fields harms theenvironment in certain ways. Theirnotorious effect on bird populations prompted the Sierra Club to tab windtowers “Cuisinarts of the air.” InCalifornia alone, thousands of birds and bats, including endangered species,are killed every year--over 44,000 birds in the last 20 years, according to H.Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Since wind tower bases attract rodents,wind farms are death traps for owls, hawks, and eagles.

Additionally, wind power reduces open space naturalhabitat. To produce just 1,000megawatts of power a wind farm would require about 300 square miles. That's192,000 thousand acres of land that could be used for nothing else. Thiscompares to 3.05 square miles for a conventional fossil fuel plant and 2.65miles for a secure nuclear facility.

To get an idea of the land that would be needed, considerthat New York City in the summer requires nearly 11,000 megawatts ofenergy. It would take more than 2million acres of wind farms to produce that power.

The AWEA, based in Washington, D.C., notes that the neededwind farm acreage could be found in the states of North Dakota, Texas, Kansas,South Dakota, and Montana. Thesesites (and the impact from extensive wind farms, environmental and otherwise)would be conveniently distant from Washington, D.C.

Fourth, wind power does not necessarily add to the securityof our energy supply. Wind poweris unreliable with critical capacity limitations. It is incapable ofnegotiating between energy demands.During peak demand there is no way to produce more energy. During low demand there is no way toreduce it. As an unpredictablesource of energy, wind power must always be backed up with by other energysources ready for immediate use. It can never be a stand-alone energy source.

In the book of Proverbs we learn that, “The wisdom of theprudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception.”Let's not kid ourselves. As a matter of policy, to base any significant stakeon wind power would be sheer folly.

Energy needs must be dealt with in an open market, devoid ofspecial taxes and subsidies. That is the only way that prices can helpproducers and consumers discover the most efficient combination of methods ofenergy production. This discovery is essential to the effort to use resourcesin way that respects their purpose: the welfare of all and the glory of God.

Comments

charlie: charlieiii@comcast.net

Industrial wind farms will almost always produce more losers than winners, mostly in the form of damaged residential property values. These projects are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, driven by federal pork, not the wind. Notice what the promoters say, they see a "demand for green energy", they don't say it is a good solution to any problem, because they know better than that.

Wind farms are a fake solution to global warming. Conservation is a much better investment but does not provide good photo opportunities or as much pork for grandstanding politicians. In the mean time thousands of square miles of fragile rural communities will be trashed for the sake of a few large landowners, greedy local governments and opportunistic wind investors, an axis of evil that only exists by picking the pockets of taxpayers.

I'm a large landowner and have been offered a wind contract that could be worth high 5 or 6 figures, not withstanding all the tricky, unobvious traps in the agreement. I don't want to be the kind of person who makes money by hurting other people and that's exactly what I'm being pressured to do. If I decline the windmills I could be surrounded by them and have all the problems without the money to compensate.

The wind market is an unregulated free for all which is a deliberate decision of State government who could and should have wind lease laws similar to mineral leasing laws to protect landowners from abuse.

I didn't start seriously investigating the wind farm business until a contract was offered about a month ago. I wish I'd started looking into it sooner. Take away the federal subsidies and tax incentives and there won't be any wind farm issues to talk about.

Adam:

Why should anyone think this person is qualified to speak on the subject of wind power? Because it is written by a 'research fellow'?

The writer's hodgepodge of random facts resembles a combination cut and paste job from a google search for "wind power" and "biblical proverbs". Make no mistake, this person is in no way qualified to speak or write on this subject...The facile strawmen that are created and then immediately burned down serve to close down any sort of rational dialogue on the economics or environmental impact of wind power.

The author says that: "Wind power is not free" as though it were some sort of revelation. Of course not! The point that wind advocates make is that wind power employs a 'free' fuel source. It not need obey the same finite constrants fossil fuel generation plants do, and will be around for our great grandkids, while oil will be much scarcer.

It was stated: "To produce just 1,000 megawatts of power a wind farm would require about 300 square miles. That's 192,000 thousand acres of land that could be used for nothing else." Ahem, "just" 1,000 megawatts of power? Is that a small number? A recent 1000MW coal plant in Ohio is set to cost about 2.9 billion dollars, and that amount of power would electrify something like 600,000 homes. But I'm bothered by those numbers. Wind turbines are almost always installed at or above 1 MW per unit these days. That would mean that you can only put 3 turbines per square mile, according to these numbers. Oops! And why does he believe that 192,000 thousand acres of land would be used for "nothing else"? Where did that idea ever come from? Wind turbines are regularly sited on land that is leased from farmers and other private land owners. This is common knowledge. Only a minimal amount of research would have uncovered this things...

Which is all to say..Mr. Bradley obviously did not visit a wind farm in preparation for this "article" and is blowing a lot of hot air.

Devin Martin: foiracing@yahoo.com

It's drivel like this that convinced me to abandon Christianity. I mean really, if people are stupid enough to believe that putting up windmills makes the rest of the land unusable, am I really going to trust what these people have to say about spiritual issues? And 44,000 birds?!? Wind energy isn't possible because 44,000 birds have been killed by wind energy production? It's unfortunate birds have been killed and if we can find ways to reduce that numbers, let's do it, but that many PEOPLE die in car accidents in the US every year. Should we therefore abandon automobiles altogether?

The absolute hypocrisy of the writer is apparent when he alludes to finding the right combination of energy production methods. Yet throughout the article he's been criticizing wind energy for not being a "magic bullet" that will satisfy all our energy demands. Of course, absolute hypocrisy has always been a staple of organized religion so there's nothing to be surprised about here.

Kevin: weebusboy@yahoo.com

I am going to school to become a wind energy technician, and i dont see why everyone is complaining about wind power? What are we going to do when our fossil fuels run out? So what if it isnt windy all the time. At least we can cut down on using our fossil fuels by investing in wind power. What other feasible option is there? Solar? You cant use that because it isnt sunny all the time. Hydro? What would you do about places in Arizona then? But, I guess the way I see it is, with every new thing, someone is going to be out there that will dig and dig and dig until they find something wrong with that new thing. And they will complain about it too. But I guess thats the way the world is.

Jess: jess_vandertuin_89@hotmail.com

I have seen wind turbines up close and personal. They're not noisy, all there is, is a low hum, a hum that is actually very soothing. I wish I had a turbine outside my bedroom window to put me to sleep with its hum. Also, they are one of the most beautiful pieces of machinery I have seen. I do not believe that they kill birds and bats. Especially bats considering they use eco-location to manuver. Although it may cost a bit to erect turbines in the long run it will save. You think nuclear power is any safer? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong becasue I'm Canadian and I don't quite grasp the American situation. There are plenty of places with lots of wind. And the turbines don't take up all that much room. The ones I saw were in the middle of a farmers field. It doesn't take from the land, the land can still be used for growing crops. What needs to be done to ensure cost efficiency is for more people to unite together and overthrow the oil companies. They have too much power and that my friends is a contributing factor to the bad shape of the both the economy and the environment. I'm researching alternate sources of energy for a geography project for a little thing called geofair. This article has helped me greatly; however, so thank-you my American neighbors.

George Krejci: georgekrejci@worldnet.att.net

By the end of the millennium 2000 this earth shall be without oil, gas, coal, and uranium. Experiments with fusion so far yielded no major results. The only remaining sources of energy are solar and wind. Solar energy is not very significant. I suggest one million wind towers be erected in the oceans along the United States coastlines. Electrical energy from these wind generators should reach about 1000 gigawatts which is equivalent to the power generated by approximately 1000 nuclear plants. This amount of electricity will heat homes and produce hydrogen for our future cars.

Emily: blondecleo16@hotmail.com

I'm only 13 1/2 and I know the horrors of windmills. Almost 60,000 birds and bats get killed every year! Windmills

Are windmills good or bad for the environment? Although these mills seem to have a good reputation, but they have a dark, dangerous side too. Did you know that 40,000-80,000 birds and bats get killed each year by the windmills every year? Everyday more and more species of birds are becoming endangered.
The biggest problems are the noise, visual blight, and the murders of flying animals

Paul Malczewski: Nextlevelflooring2003@yahoo.com

I beleive I have the answer to the problem of wind terbine's dotting the skyline. I am developeing a new wind generator that could drastically decrease future tower errection. I need funding for this project. If all the groups aposed to wind farms would like to finance a lagitimate alternative, please contact me. Sincerely J Paul Malczewski

Fred Widicus: Widicusf@hotmail.com

"notorius" for killing birds. ABSURD. It is really sad when such claims are made without ANY reliable sources to cite. Wind power is just a piece in the puzzle of solving our energy problems by creating a distributed generation system.

Norman Ingram: norman.ingram@ge.com

I work in the wind industry in California. I live without the aid of the grid by producing my own wind power with a small wind generator. I have seen very little in the way of a down side to these systems, large and small, and it is all getting better all the time.

willy: wilsi17@hotmail.com

I'm not an environmentalist. If windmills kill the last bird on earth, I don't care.
My objection to windmills are that they don't bring anything. When the world was electrified, windmills already existed for 1000 years, yet nobody even considered using them for power generation.
They're not controllable and not efficient. At best, they produce effectively 30%% of the time (I mean, overall average if you power up USA)!
In addition, they need 100%% backup by classical sources.
Modern windmills might be adequate to power a very simple civilization, but a simple civilization will not be able to produce these molochs that approach eiffeltower size!
Every penny spent on them is a waste.

Kevin W: kyag02@hotmail.com

It definitely looks like the misinformation goes both ways. I'm not sure where you're getting ANY of these facts, since essentially no sources or links to original documents are cited.
Most people know that wind turbines kill far less birds than buildings, utility lines, and cars (http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html), so let's go ahead and get rid of all of those things by your logic.
You use the Sierra Club to legitimize your anti-wind sentiments, yet in its own words "The Sierra Club strongly supports the development of substantial wind resources for electricity generation" (from http://www.wind-works.org/articles/scsitingadvisory.html, second sentence of document).
There are no hidden costs with wind power projects; all the installation, insurance, taxes, land agreements, etc., etc., etc. are considered in the initial cost/kWh assessment in a process called the EPRI Tag-Supply Method (you can find an example at http://www.cybermagic.co.nz/resources/content/20010803.htm#_Toc521883123, Section 3.2).
I'm not sure why you think wind power would INCREASE the cost of other energy sources. Down the road they may be twice as expensive only because the cost of wind keeps dropping, not because wind is in some way causing them to increase.
You mention that land used for wind power projects can be used for nothing else; this is a blatant falsehood and if you knew anything about the industry you would know that wind power plants are successfully designed to allow farmers to keep farming and cattle to keep grazing right up to the base of the turbine tower (http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter17.html if you need proof, 12th paragraph, last sentence, or just drive by any wind power plant in the country).
Whoever doesn't like to look at a wind turbine on their ridge, why don't you post your address so we can plan a coal-fired power plant for your backyard, or a nuclear power plant on the ridgetop. Nobody likes any energy generation in their backyard, that argument is not unique to wind and should not be presented as so.
The majority of wind development is distant from Washington DC because wind speeds along the east coast are very low, whereas the Great Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy (http://www.nrel.gov/wind/wind_map.html). Local wind speeds are not set by the government or any organization or association, that's just the way it is.

Conventional power generation sources are subsidized $300 Billion PER YEAR, while ALL renewables lumped together (not just wind) are subsidized approximately $20 Billion total over 20 years (http://www.world-council-for-renewable-energy.org/downloads/actionplan.pdf), so your argument that it needs to exist without subsidies holds absolutely no water, unless you plan to throw out coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy too.
Wind Energy is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I read this article to understand the arguments against wind power. If all of them are this ignorant and misinformed, wind power has a wonderfully bright future that I hope to be a part of. To the author of this article: go ahead and keep praying for the silver bullet that will produce energy with no negative effects, and the rest of us will keep working on a reasonable and clean solution to keep your lights on.

Lyn James Jenkins [Mr]: clynyrynys@btconnect.com

My name is Mr Lyn Jenkins.I am from Wales, UK, which is a very beautiful green , generally hilly ,country to the west of England.Wales is 8015 square miles in area, or EXACTLY[ to the mile] the same size as Israel. It is just a little larger than Massachusetts [ 7820 sq miles].I hasten to add that I am using the British mile of 1760 yards!
There are already about 400 wind turbines in Wales , between 150 feet and 327 feet in height. There are hundreds more in the pipe-line. The Welsh Assembly Government wants to erect 400 extra turbines 400 feet high on the beautiful Welsh hills, plus there are many others also applying for these USELESS monsters !
Anthony Bradley is perfectly correct when he says that wind energy is grossly over-rated. One only need study UK wind speeds on www.metoffice.com/education/archive/uk to
learn the truth. This UK Government site provides the wind speed at every hour of the preceding 30 days, at all 70 United Kingdom Meteorological Offices.
Note how often wind speeds drop below 9 knots!
Wind turbines virtually stop at 9 knots and generate NOTHING ! Since the wind drops below
9 knots almost daily, particularly in the evening, the back-up fossil fuel power stations CANNOT be turned down, let alone switched off. Therefore , most of the time, wind turbines merely DUPLICATE fossil fuel powered electricity. CO2 gain is negligible !! Under an anti-cyclone , wind turbines might not produce anything for days at a time. Wales is being DESECRATED for nothing !! If you want to compare like with like in the USA , how would you fancy having 400 wind turbines up to 330 feet high and 500 wind turbines 400 feet high in Massachusetts ALONE ? Would Americans tolerate that ?? California is a MASSIVE State 156,260 sq miles in area. One cannot compare California to Wales. One can hide wind turbines in a State that big . Wind energy is a CON !!
For the TRUTH see www.wind-farm.org and www.bmpg.co.uk. wind energy would not even EXIST without huge subsidies. See the Broken turbine blade by putting "crystal rig broken blade " into Google. The blade was 130 ft long ! HIGHLY DANGEROUS !!

Paul Weir: paulweir111@hotmail.com

I have researched all different types of power production heavily and agree that wind turbines are the worst way to generate electricity. And they bring industrial deveopment to a HUGE amount of often wild and scenic land defacing it all for a trickle of actual generation. I beleive that this whole thing is a scam cooked up by companies in Denmark to capitolize on stupid politicians (no shortage of them) with a (fictional) green machine that is supposed to help stop (nonexistant, many people are still fooled by that scam too) global waming and APPEARS to be genrating power (sometimes, turns about 25%% of the time) and you WILL NEED thousands of them at about $1 million each which keeps about 20,000 employed in Denmark who of course for this scam to work is the (fictional) wind power generation world leader. I also know that EVERY regular power plant in the counrty is still running too generating actual electricity that people can use. In my power generation research I have come to the conclusion that nuclear power is the cleanest and runs about 90%% of the time. All the fear people have of it was generated by 25 years of outright lies, misinformation and propaganda through the gullible media from who else but Greenpeace who has become a dangerous beast with NO CREDIBILITY!!! Finally people are starting to realize this as they have lost about 80%% of their membership in the US. They operate by constantly crying wolf about whatever (normally harmless) "Hobgoblin of the Week" they decide to attack as absolutely dangerous except they have no proof and they don't care anyway as its purely a concockted media stunt to draw in new members. To do that it better sound like the end of the world is coming.
Thanks, Paul Weir Seattle

Kirby: kirby@legislator.com

You have provided some of your own misinformation. My region (Eastern Washington) has several hundred wind turbines that co-exist with farmland and provide more cash to the farmers than their crops. Modern technology can solve the variable power production problem by having a gas turbine plant (already used in large scale) change its output in accordance with the changes of output of all of the wind turbines in a given grid system so that the combined supply of electricity from the wind turbines and gas turbines is the same, or whatever is needed at the time.

H.L. taylor: josephwtaylor@earthlink.net

Why don't we just harness the wide mouths in Congress to supply energy via wind power?

Scott: sduemler@comcast.net

I'm not sure that the 'invisible hand' is alone enough to produce the optimal mix. Polution itself is a cost not normally accounted for by traditional economic forces, so governmental regulation has been required to make companies pay for their waste products. One of the challenges is to create a level field so that the 'most efficient' mix includes all the cost variables - pollution and other not easily measured effects - maybe even the 'cost' of ugly landscapes and dead birds.

Steve D: steved7@earthlink.net

Dear Mr Bradley & Friends at Acton,

I had to select "none of the above" as the choice in your poll on US energy policy, because the question assumes the US should have an "energy policy." I happen to have far
more trust in the market and individual consumers' and suppliers' de
facto, dynamic, voluntary energy non-policy to any Gov't scheme. There
is no best solution, and a flexible, market-driven mix of solutions is
inherently better than a dirigiste solution devised by technocrats,
vested interests, etc. Wind power has been touted for decades, and their are tracts full of wind turbine generators out in the California desert that are rusting out because the cost of maintaining them was far more than the value of the electricity they could generate.
If we MUST have a gov't scheme, I would favor focusing on
hydro-electric, nuclear, and hydrogen fuel cells for fixed sites, and
hybrid turbodiesel-electric for vehicles, with a commitment to
equalling or exceeding European standards for "clean" diesel.

Diesel is more compatible with Western Hemisphere fuel stocks, has more
BTU per gallon, and is far safer in the event of accidents or terrorist
attack. The LAST thing I want on our roads are a bunch of hydrogen or
natural gas powered cars, buses, and SUVs!!

Tilman Kluge: post@blackroot.net

Let me add, that we will get the problem, that at "suboptimal" places wind turbines could be installed, which will have a height of total 150m and more, but will produce the same energy as turbines, which only need a height of total 110m at an optimal place, to produce that energy. So nature is burdened by such "Weak-Wind-Turbines" (e.g. NEG MICON 82/1500, NORDES N90) mor than necessary. This affects the priciple of avoiding non necessary damages of nature.

Second, wind power is not only not pollution-free. Also the management of accidents is not as perfect, as it must be. Evidently in Germany extinguishing fire at burning wind turbindes is nearly impossible. Often suitable fire-extinguishing-plans are not availible for the fire brigades and the responsible persons do not have enough knowledge, to kill fire at specific materials.

oliver mangahas: olivermangahas@astec-power.com

I agree that wind power production should be subjected to open market to help consumers and producers choose the most economical ways of producing electricity. And that wind generators can harm the avian species. But any construction whether power plant or a simple hut will contribute to pollution. Therefore pollution due to construction and maintenance should not be used against wind power generators. Everybody agrees that burning fossil fuels generate more air pollution than running the turbine by wind power or hydro power. For this reason, it is just right to have higher taxes for gas-fed power plant to compensate the expenses of the government in cleaning the environment. I believe taht this does not violate the principle of free-market.

With the issue of the avian killing, proper technology must be installed to prevent this happening.

Dr. Richard Barecki: rivervalleydental@sbcglobal.net

Dear Mr. Bradley: Thank you for your terrific papers which I just read today. I believe your thoughts are courageous and very timely considering the negative political environment we are going through in nation at the present time. I hope to personally meet you at one of the upcoming Acton functions. It would be an honor to shake your hand. Please keep up your great work. Your are destined to become the next Dr. Thomas Sowel. I will be first in line for your book. Thanks again, Rick Barecki

Ed Zubek: zubeke@onid.orst.edu

Contrary to what this article says, the Sierra Club supports wind power as a way to reduce future global warming caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. The land used for wind power can simultaneously be used for farming and ranching. Government subsidies for the coal industry dwarf the subsidies for the wind power industry. Polluting the atmosphere without paying for the damages caused by that pollution is also a form of public subsidy. I do not want by grandchildren to pay the cost of the pollution I produce today. This is why my family chose to purchase wind power certificates from my electric utility. God wants us to protect the environment.

John P. Kelly: kb5ezr@verinet.com

An excellent, revealing, and timely article. We neeed very, very much to go to Nuclear Power.

Joel Leo: J@corvinedesign.com

I understand some of the reasons why wind power will not be safe and economical. But this article seems to have the idea that we would use wind power as a replacement for all other types of power generation. In most articles I have read about the subject, I have found that the emphasis has always been as a supplement. I would say that when the power need reaches that above what is able to be produced by wind power then nuclear and other types of generation could kick in, this would limit the pollution and costs. What is the average cost of a Nuclear power plant compared to that of a wind power field and also how much more pollution is created when a Nuclear power pland is built.
You say that "3000 square miles. " is required for these types of power generation. But please remember that this land can be used for other things. I know that often Farmers will allow these Wind turbines to be built on their land, they recieve some payment and the land now serves 2 purposes. You also say that "44,000 birds in the last 20 years" that is nothing compared to what glass windows kill in one year, "100 to 900 million " from http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm. I would like to understand your justification, but one this article fails to put outside costs of the other alternatives into perspective. You focus on the bad and do not relate it to the other alternatives in a fair and objective way. thank you , please I would like to continue this disscussion if you would like.

Acton Commentary

The Answer is (not) Blowin' in the Wind

Comments

The Answer is (not) Blowin' in the Wind

Recent articles by this author: