Commentary
Wind turbines show how costly 'free' energy can be
by Ron ReimerMost of what the public knows about wind turbines comes from the media.
Without a grounding in the sciences of thermodynamics and economics, the average person, eager to be politically and environmentally correct, fixates on the concept of "free energy," and closes his mind to further discussion of how expensive "free" can be.
The public believes, more than it really knows, about wind turbines, and well-meaning advocates of wind as the solution to our climate and energy woes are unknowingly on a crash course with reality.
Citizen watchdogs like myself, who dig a little deeper to learn the whole story, come off in the media as deluded malcontents or NIMBYs, though we back up our warnings with statistics, case studies, laws of physics, comparative research and personal testimonies of real people who suffer from proximity to turbines.
Rural dwellers are "asked" to host wind turbines and to pay for transmission lines to furnish city dwellers with green power from wind. Investors make huge profits while taxpayers and ratepayers get to pay 20 percent more for their power. So who is this technology benefiting? For exactly whom is it "free?"
Financially, wind energy is a losing proposition for most everyone who does not directly profit from the manufacture, siting, servicing, removal, financing or taxing of turbines, or from the disbursal of the electricity produced by them.
The wind boon benefits the turbine industry, not the general public. The industry is a terrible waste of resources: Human, physical, financial, temporal and aesthetic. These finite resources could be better spent transforming the physical infrastructure of our society toward sustainable energy production and use, and toward creating jobs that benefit the entire society.
Is it wise to be placing most of our renewable eggs in a basket that seems to be bottomless?
America may not be able to make cars competitively anymore, but turbines? Subsidized and backed by the government? We could literally cover the countryside with turbines. And to be sure, we will, unless we start talking about who (besides Mother Nature) is paying for them and how.
Wind turbines: Warm, fuzzy and politically correct. On-site solar energy, just as renewable and with far fewer negative consequences: Little press, and no federal stimulus money.
There are plenty of good health and safety reasons to zone huge commercial turbines away from residences, but the primary objections to wind turbines should be:
1) They don't do what they're supposed to do, i.e., replace energy generated by fossil fuels; in fact, they encourage more coal plants to be built. Because the power they produce can't be stored, traditional sources of electricity must remain available to back up the turbines when the wind dies down.
2) Turbine manufacture, siting, operation and their transmission networks are environmental threats, not boons. We would be better off taking the land on which they are sited -- plus the energy used and the lands mined to build them, the land used to transmit the energy they produce, and the money spent on investment incentives -- and devoting all those resources to planting trees that would sequester carbon, and simply forgo the huge hidden carbon footprint associated with turbines.
3) Turbine technology looks suspiciously like a bailout of the heavy equipment manufacturing industry, and a transfer of taxpayer and ratepayer resources into the hands of investors.
4) In harnessing the wind we are destroying the beauty of local landscapes -- worldwide -- with mesmerizing icons of technology that distract our consciousness and ignore our need for a natural landscape.
Red flags should go up when we find the Sierra Club and General Electric Corp. coming down on the same side of an issue.
Opinions of genuine environmental advocacy get scant or severely edited coverage, making room for more politically correct positions. What we end up with, rather than information, is misleading public relations campaigns, doublespeak and pep talks for progress.
It's time we stopped fooling ourselves into thinking that wind turbines are going to save us. We truly cannot afford the resources it would require to seriously make a difference in our energy supply, and there are much greener and more sustainable approaches to caring for our environment.
The false hopes generated by the wind energy industry are giving us the idea that we don't have to change our lifestyles; technology will allow us to continue to be gluttons of energy and resources.
Sorry to be the messenger of bad news, but as good as they may be for the economy, commercial wind turbines can never be green. I don't care how much spin we put on them.
---
Ronald Reimer is an organic farmer in Ettrick, Wis.
Comments (9)
great article! And likely wind energy is not even close to being 20% more expensive than traditional. It is probably 2-3 times more expensive.
Your eloquent voice of santity well conveys the Ponzi scheme, Ronald, and its roots. In fact, GE bought out Enron Wind; the benefits are never realized by citizens or the environment in dealings under this Enron business model.
"Green is green" as they say at GE.
I agree with you. Plant trees not turbines. We need reliable and affordable energy. Wind energy is neither. Multinationals reap tax sheltering benefits by the belief of some, and the greed by others, through the intrusion into the enviornment of 440' steel towers. The integrity of our environment and use rights to our resources are at grave risk. Wind energy could soon destroy America's Beauty, wildlife, and our economy.
President Obama intends to use wind energy as the driver to improved economic conditions.
Taxpayers' and ratepayers' enslavement by wind energy is the reality behind environmentalist Jon Boone's statement that wind energy is, "Wishful thinking at its worst."
The path to fuel poverty and BlACKOUTS is paved with wind turbines.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/60259/Blackout-Britain-warning
"A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK's power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas."
Citizens are not being informed about the costs and other negatives by the media.
The truth is that wind energy is a horrid and efficient and very expensive way to kill endangered and migratory birds by the millions.
Thank you, M. Reimer. The arrival of the bad news is timely as we still have time to stop this wind madness.
http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2008/06/enrons_ghost_ca_1.html
Rob,
Infrastructure and the componetes thereof are always costly in the beginning. The more we build the cheaper they become. Now is the time to put up what will become long term sustainable energy sources. I built an earth sheltered, passive solar house in rural Wis. that cost me all of $125 per yr to heat. The Japanese do quite well with on-site solar. Sorry to mess up your view, but you are wrong on this one. Oh, I have marketed over 750 million lbs of organic food. Rember when we were told how wrong we were about that one. Stop thinking so short term.
Thank you for a most comprehensive and reasoned argument.
Renewable energy from large wind farms is expensive and I believe is not the answer in reducing carbon emissions. However renewable energy from micro-generation whether it be wind, solar or some other form is definitely the way forward.
Until the individual household is given the opportunity to own their own generation equipment the incentive to tackle climate change will be unrealised. Empower people, let them save money by generating free energy and tackle climate change at the same time.
There has been great advances in solar and wind technology that will very soon bring the price down of this technology so much so that will be in reach of ordinary hard working people.
Micro-generation equipment doesn't need to be bulky or unattractive. Take a look at this invention, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
http://www.climatechangechallenge.org/News/Green-Inventions-News/Wind%20turbine%20wins%202009%20green%20challenge.htm
It's litterally Power to the people, I'm sure you will agree.
Robert Lee
Founder
Climate Change Challenge
http://www.climatechangechallenge.org
Harnessing wind energy may not be the answer to creating a "greener" environment, but it is part of our answer. As global citizens, we would be wise to increase our energy from wind, solar and biomass fuels in addition to improving our ability to conserve, recycle and rethink our dependency on fossil fuels. Yes, we need to decrease our appetite for electricity. We also need to have a balanced mix of all energy sources, including wind energy. It is simply untrue to proclaim that wind farms create more coal plants. Harnessing the wind prevents new coals plants from being built.
Within three months of manufacturing and erecting a wind turbine, the clean, renewable energy produced from the turbine will offset its carbon footprint. In addition, one six-turbine wind farm is equivalent to planting 17,000 acres of trees annually. While it is still beneficial, it is somewhat unrealistic to think that we can "replant" ourselves out of our carbon emissions problem. More needs to be done. Scientists around the globe agree with this idea.
Environmentally speaking, domestic cats and household windows kill more birds than wind turbines. There is absolutely no evidence that turbines harm humans. Contrary to what Reimer states, the Sierra Club and General Electric do agree that the expansion of wind power is necessary to meet our energy needs.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find wind turbines to be graceful machines that give us hope for the future. They do not detract from the landscape, but remind us of the power that we hold to change our future, and the legacy that we leave to our future generations.
If only more citizens had the insight, and courage, of Mr. Reimer!
As a physicist and energy expert, I can attest that everything he says about industrial wind power is right on the mark.
As far as it being a good idea that wind energy be part of a solution, that thinking is like saying it's good to have Twinkies as part of your diet.
Industrial wind energy is extremely high cost, while providing very low benefits.
For independent scientific information on the whole energy situation, see EnergyPresentation.Info.
The use of industrial wind turbines as a grid-connected utility should be distinguished from other potential uses, such as hydrogen production, water storage and release, and distributed uses like charging electric vehicles which do not require connection to the grid. Wind farms are most intrusive and least valuable as grid-connected power sources because they require backup sources (defeating the purpose of emissions reduction) and reluctance of developers to pay for long transmission lines from truly isolated areas means they get sited near existing transmission lines at sites with relatively poor wind resources that are also populated. This is because the largest government incentives are triggered by sales of electricity to a regional grid operator. There are few incentives for alternative uses that could take advantage of intermittent generation and short transmission distances, but where the isolation of the project area would not be a disadvantage to use of wind power. Instead, wind developers often strong-arm their way into communities close to a grid line and disregard acoustic research on the distance intrusive wind turbine noise travels.
100,000 turbines world wide and still waiting for the fist coal plant to be closed.
100's of thousands of birds killed from turbines.
65% of our electric is used to run electric motors and the average motor is 50-60% efficient.
Do we need more electric or better motors? or profits
Three months!? That figure is ridiculous. It will take, at the minimum, over a year to make up for the carbon footprint. Then there is the regular maintenance required.
...Just saying
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
