| |
|
What is the real benefit of wind turbines?
This list provides common questions people ask around the
"green wind turbines" concepts they have heard about
from proponents of large scale wind energy mining projects.
Questions
Wind turbines are great for the environment, right? - They generate clean electricity that replaces need to burn fossil fuels, right?
- They make money for local landowners and local tax revenue, right?
- People love to see wind turbines in the landscape, they are elegant
and beautiful, right?
- We can generate up to 20% of our power needs from wind turbines,
like other countries are doing, right?
- Cats and airports kill 1,000 times more wildlife than wind turbines?
- So long as endangered species are not impacted, wind turbines are safe to locate anywhere?
Answers
Actually environmental impact is mixed, installing turbines which cost
$1.5M each is a major effort involving steel, concrete, site clearing,
deep foundations, access roads and more. In environmentally fragile
area, such as high mountain sites, arrival of these devices is
definately not a minimum non-intrusive event. Each turbine is 450ft
tall with three 130ft long blades each weighing 11 tons and the site
is cleared, trenches dug and buried power cables linked to each turbine and then to a central
sub-station site. The need to balance this against actual energy delivered is key. The
Renewable Energy Foundation has excellent reports on getting that balance right
by addressing a range of needs, not just simple arithmetic around electricity output alone.
Electricity distribution today is highly computerized and relies on
generators responding to supply and demand in a highly automated
marketplace (PJM) where prices change every minute. During peak
demand conventional power stations step up production and route
power to consumers. Click here to see a realtime view of power generation
in Denmark, the worlds largest producer of wind energy. Wind turbines generate electricity about 30%
of the time. The remaining 70% of the time there is either not
enough wind, or too much wind. So they cannot replace
traditional power stations. To match one conventional power
station output takes 300 square miles of wind turbine towers.
When wind turbines are producing energy, their owners want
preferential treatment so they can displace conventional production.
This is very hard to manage and makes extra burdens on equipment
and power switches to safeguard normal supply without cut-over
events triggering power outs when the winds lessens and now the
conventional stations need to cut back in. Naturally the wind projects want other people
to pay for that cost and extra equipment and risk.
The money that is paid comes from tax payer subsidies that offsets
higher cost of producing wind energy (about 30% more expensive).
Also - land owners are liable for each $1.5M wind turbine on their
land if the wind power company fails. At current commercial rates
it takes over ten years to recoup the cost of the turbine alone.
Tax revenues again are
mixed and certainly less than what the wind energy producers
are getting from federal sources. Why not just pay landowners
the federal subsides to grow trees for wood fuel production? Such
mixed production and energy management approaches are a key new strategy developing
worldwide. For details on Scottish approach to sustainable clean wood energy click here (1.89Mb sized report).
Most people are extremely distressed to discover just how big
a 450' wind turbine is (taller than the Statue of Liberty), and how
intrusive they are on landscapes and views, and distracting to
drivers on roads that are near to wind turbines. One by itself might initially be a curiosity, but hundreds littering the landscape invoke a different perspective.
The term 'windscraper' is commonly used to describe the visual impact. Click here for a perspective.
If we want to create art-tourism, instead of wind turbines we can sponsor sculture projects; for example Norway created a hugely successful project for famous artists from around the
world to compete in. Claims of 20% power production are based on projections from
Denmark and Germany. Neither country has reached these
levels in sustained production. Denmark imports most of
their power more cheaply from Norway and Sweden. Both
make a lot of foreign revenue (billions of dollars) selling
wind turbine systems to other countries who have politicians
who want to be more "green". Wild claims are made for wind
energy, such as the State of Idaho has enough wind to supply
30% of the electricity for the whole USA. More rationale analysis shows that
electricity generation is only 25% of total power use in the USA. Home heating
systems and fuel for cars combined account for the remaining 75%. Reducing
these needs will have a much larger impact overall than creating limited
amounts of power with wind turbines. The wind industry is particularly
secretive about the actual amount of power each wind turbine produces.
Smaller projects in Australia are much more open (click here), but its hard to
equate figures from these projects to elsewhere in the world.
Cats and airports kill alot of wildlife in urban settings. However
our mountain areas, and offshore marine areas contain no cats
or airports. Wildlife find sanctuaries there away from human
impact. Now these areas are threatened by massive wind
mining projects that will invade these fragile and at risk areas
and their wildlife with turbines, roads, powerlines and infrastructure. Questioning the need for these projects in the first place is labelled as anti-environmental, instead of just good prudence and land husbandry.
Environmental impact studies need to review much more than just endangered species. A particularly
excellent report on the impacts and criteria for assessments has been produced that provides for cumulative impacts
and a classification system for land use and area. That report is available from the VA Wind Environmental Group website.
The long term impacts must also be assessed. Just because a location is deemed "windy", does not mean it is
a prime location for wind turbines. The loss of habitat, potential partitioning of nature areas and need
to preserve wild places without undue human access and impact are also key factors. Without this level of
understanding you are simply likely to be adding more species to the endangered list that previously
were surviving quite well. Wind turbine projects have the capacity to be disasterous for the environment and
wildlife, particularly in at risk or fragile areas, just like any other manmade technology. The argument
that acid rain, CO2 and other pollutions from existing energy powerplants already harm major
numbers of wildlife and fauna is not an a priori reason to put a wind turbine anywhere on the planet.
The more one discovers about these wind mining projects it becomes
apparent that the original idea of wind power has become hijacked for other types of gains.
What is really going on here, is definately not all "Green",
unless you mean the green of peoples tax dollar bills and power supply bills!!!
See this presentation for how the investment industry views wind energy projects.
Alternative Strategies to Wind Mining
The huge amounts of money being funneled into wind projects could
definately be instead allocated to alternate options that produce
more sustained energy at lower costs and with more certainty than wind.
Also projects aimed at reducing energy consumption needs, such as
better insulation in homes, and more fuel efficient vehicles
deliver concrete results by eliminating power use demand at source.
Another winning approach is to introduce new building codes
that allow for subsides to fund installation of solar energy
devices in new homes. Along with high efficiency wood fuel
furnace systems that can use sustainable wood energy. Then
small low impact wind turbine systems in community settings
to reduce their need for central power demand, such as
libraries, schools, community centers, water pumping stations
and more. These community based projects can be a model
solution compared to giant wind mining projects.
Also eco-housing systems are already being developed in Europe
with dramatic results that show how much demand for power can
be reduced and people become self-sufficient and more
environmentally balanced in their life-styles.
North American initiatives in renewable
energy projects are also underway including solar and wood energy.
States such as Maine as also seeing opportunities emerging for sustainable forest-based fuels and resources. This project has just received funding in July 2005.
Similar sustainable biomass projects are also underway in Europe with a series of government funded projects that would also be highly applicable to community projects here in N. America.
One such project managed by Edison Electric has already demonstrated viablity in California in an urban environment using waste wood products to generate 400,000 Mwh annually of electricity.
Another problem in the USA is the older fossil fuel power stations
particularly in the South that are not capable of meeting newer
air pollution regulations. In addition these stations are wildly
inefficient compared to modern systems. So instead of addressing those and
spending money there, the 'cheaper' option is to build new clean
wind energy mines to offset the worst offenders and their impacts.
Again addressing the real problems at source is much more effective
than indirect half measures.
Date: July, 2005
|
|
|