As I’ve gone to lengths to discuss in previous posts like this one about nuclear energy, I’m green to the core. Nevertheless, I have some serious disagreements with prominent parts of the environmental movement including my belief that nuclear energy will be a key source of energy into the future. Wind energy is shaping up to be another of those decisive battles within the green community that will determine its course for years to come. The two sides of the debate represent two very different philosphies about environmentalism: pragmatism versus conservationalism. I’m not going to mince words here, the conservationalist side of this debate spouts arguments that are frankly illogical or are altogether unproven. The pragmatic side has everything right, including ironically the conservation part.
On the pragmatic side of this battle stand the geo-greens, those who believe that going green represents not only saving the environment but also protecting national interest by reducing our dependance on foreign energy supplies. Allied with them are the folks in the environmental movement who believe that preserving the natural environment is the best way of preserving human health and prosperity–ecosystem services provide much of the wealth that our nation and the rest of the world depends on. The rallying cry for these people is Jared Diamond’s recent work Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In it he describes how failures of environmental management led to the downfall of a number of prosperous and powerful civilizations throughout recorded history. These folks all believe that wind energy has great potential to supply much of the world’s energy supply in the near future. Not only that, but the economic opportunity that wind energy provides may help to revitalize parts of the heavy-industrial sectors in our country that have fared so poorly over the last few decades.
On the side of pure conservationalism stand various groups whom, above all, are most interested in protecting the environment and its vistas for all its inhabitants (not just humans). These people believe that endagered species, no matter how charismatic or miniscule, deserve to be protected more than an individual deserves to build a strip mall on his land. They believe that they natural beauty of the environment has intrinsic value, and that development is somethign of a dirty word. Unfortunately for their broader acceptance, many of these people are radically anti-growth (such as the group Negative Population Growth) which has led to some rather insidious alliances with anti-immigration groups. Witness the recent battles within the Sierra Club, for instance. Also aligned with this side of the environmental community are those who own land or live in very scenic areas. They argue that tourism could be injured by wind energy, particularly near-shore wind turbines, and it should therefore not be allowed.
As explained in the NYTimes article I linked to above, the debate over wind energy projects has been heating up for a while now, and the two different sides that I’ve described above have simultaneously taken shape. I am very much a conservationalist who believes in the intrinsic worth of all species. On the other hand, global warming is one hell of a scary problem. Nothing will be conserved if humans change the environment too radically. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced and millions will die of resultant famine. Whether or not it’s a good thing, there are 6+ billion people that need to be provided for on this planet. This isn’t even to count the thousands upon thousands of species that will go extinct as their climate comfort zone shifts outside fo their already fragmented habitats. Thus, when it comes to wind energy, I tend to side with the first group: the interests of man-and creature-kind are much better served by wind energy than by relying on other forms of energy.
The only real opposition to wind energy is from an aesthetic point of view because the argument that birds and bats are killed to an excessive degree by wind energy projects is not a defensible one. I suspect that more birds and bats (and humans, let’s not forget) are killed every year by coal soot than by wind turbines. Modern turbines rotate more slowly than those installed in the Altamont Pass decades ago, and can be placed with great care to avoid prominent flyways. New designs under development including vertical rotors that actually rotate at the windspeed and thus pose no hazard at all to flying creatures.
The aesthetic argument is even a specious one. After all, the tradeoff is not wind energy vs. no wind energy it’s wind energy vs. coal and nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not unsightly and doesn’t release hazardous air pollutants, but realistically speaking if coal plants are cheaper to build they will be relied on for a long time to come. And so far, there is no such thing as clean-coal technology. So, it’s either wind turbines: slowly rotating gracefully arcing white-painted metal lines, versus coal plants: smoke belching, mountain-top chopping, people-killing menaces.
In reading the NYTimes piece, one of the graphics shows a wind-energy potential map for the US (also available at the Wikipedia entry on Wind Energy). I looked near my hometown and noticed that Lake Michigan has a whole lot of wind energy potential, more than most places in the nation. It also happens to be near major industrial centers. Today’s MSNBC Environment section features this article featuring two local officials who oppose near-shore wind energy projects. They argue that the scenic vistas of a blank lake horizon will be ruined by wind turbines. (Image: Danish Wind Turbines)
Sure, a blank horizon is kind of interesting, and sunsets over it can be quite beautiful. But, the limited obstruction that a carefully designed wind energy project would represent might be even more beautiful. In conversations with people from the Netherlands where such projects are common, they claim that the projects are a source of pride and are not unsightly at all. Most people look at skyscrapers and see only the wonders of modern industrial and technological might, not the blight on the landscape that human development accrues. Wind turbines will be the same. Each rotation of their blades will mean that much less coal had to be burned. It will mean that every second we come closer to what has to be our goal of living sustainably with Earth’s finite resources.
Speaking just of Lake Michigan, which is more friendly to the environment: a few hundred turbines sucking a bit of energy out of the wind or several dozen large power plants raising local water temperatures by tens of degrees? Will those turbine blades kill more shorebirds or migrating birds than the soot they must fly through from lakeside powerplants? What about the mining that must be done to provide fuel for powerplants? Coal, natural gas, and uranium recovery all extract their own environmental toll–coal most of all. Entire mountain valleys are filled and whole ecosystems destroyed to extract that black mineral. Are we really going to sit here and argue that one very narrow view of aesthetics should trump true environmental concerns?
Michigan has been struggling over the last five years as the fortunes of the Big Three automakers have declined. Couldn’t these factories and industrial laborers apply their production capacity to wind turbines? Michigan could become one of the centers for wind turbine production in the nation. Growth could return to this state. Or, we could spend our time in unemployment enjoying the unspoiled view along our coal-blackened shorelines.
Those that oppose wind energy are on the wrong side of the debate. They hide their anti-development agendas behind illogical and flat-out incorrect arguments. Though I sympathize with many of their goals (including the belief that there may be too many humans on the Earth for everyone to live in comfort), I am realistic. Development will happen, population will grow, and the environment will continue to be threatened by urban sprawl. This will all require more energy, and trying to preserve a few unspoiled vistas will only accelerate global warming and increase the health costs (already some tens of thousands of deaths per year) of coal burning. It’s time for these people to wake up and support well-designed wind energy projects because right now it’s the best chance we have of becoming truly green. Everyone and every creature on this planet will benefit from the reduced risk of global warming and improved public health that wind energy offers.
“And so far, there is no such thing as clean-coal technology. ”
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
I also want to recommend an excellent new book on the problems with coal by Jeff Goodell: Big Coal.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618319409/sr=8-1/qid=1149098936/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2428829-5042239?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Great article Anthony, I agree that wind is a way to go in some areas. There are other concerns beyond aesthetics and bird kills however, and trackbacks don’t appear to be working. So try here:
http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/?p=174
Thanos,
Thanks for your reply and your post. You’re right that I largely ignored the cost side of the debate, and that it heavily favors nuclear power. Somewhat complicating that fact is that nuclear power requires enormous up-front capital costs, and much lower maintenance costs than does wind energy. Thus, it’s cheaper to start a wind farm (especially with subsidies) even though maintenance issues are more problematic. That said, costs in the wind energy field will continue to decline as products become more refined and mass production really accelerates technological innovation. Nuclear energy costs, however, seem likely to rise over the long term. In the end, I don’t know that costs will be that different per kwh for the two (admittedly those are very qualitative arguments).
It is clear to me that if carbon emissions were factored in as a cost to fossil-fuel burning they would be significantly more expensive than either wind or nuclear (I am, BTW, a big fan of nuclear energy in general). I don’t think that bio-fuels are a viable energy source as they produce not much more energy than is required to produce them (or in many cases, less). They will be an excellent near-term energy storage medium for transportable power sources, however, such as cars or airplanes. Again, thanks for your reply and post!
I agree, great article. I actually like the sight of the wind turbines on the PA Turnpike over the appalacians. They are very cool. The nuclear power plant just outside philly however is very scary.
The posts for the wind mills should extend above the blade radius. Because predatory birds like to perch on high objects and scout for food mice etc.
The blades should be multi colored Black and white so they can be seen by birds when they are turning and invisible because they are a blur.
I would recommend Black and white since birds only see in Black and white with either lights or relective surfaces for night birds like owls.
(Hope I have the HTML fixed here, and that this saves you time–apologies.)
Anthony,
Excellent article, very well reasoned.
Regarding innovative designs, I would be cautious on the bird collision question. In the words of Amory Lovins, “In God we trust: all others bring data.” There is a large body of data, very painstakingly gathered, documenting the relatively low bird mortality at many wind farms (interested readers may consult the National Wind coordinating Committee fact sheet on Wind Turbine Interactions With Birds and Bats.
Regarding costs, I’m not going to get into the debate except to say that results depend heavily on the assumptions used, and that one nice thing about wind is that a wind plant goes in quickly (construction in a year or less), so its costs tend to be predictable.
Regarding NL-Expatriate’s comments, again, data is necessary to show that such changes would reduce avian mortality. Also, to provide some perspective, if the U.S. obtained all of its electricity from wind–100%–and the collision rate remained the same, wind turbines would still likely account for less than 1% of human-related avian deaths (from buildings, cats, pesticides, etc.).
Here is what the U.S. Department of Energy has to say on the subject:
“[Myth #9:] Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious environmental impacts.
“Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (less than 1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health.”
Source: Wind Energy Myths.
Regards,
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
www.ifnotwind.org
[…] As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that there are two types of environmentalists: conservationists and pragmatists. For 30 years, these two groups have had a common goal, but that unity may not last too much longer because deep down, these two types are motivated by very different visions of the world and humanity’s role in it. This new history of the Americas that Mann and others are just beginning to tell will be hard for conservationists to accept and may hasten that split. But if it’s true that there never was an American wilderness as such, it’s time to think differently about conservation and the environment we are attempting to preserve. It’s time for a New Environmentalism. […]
You fail to mention that windpower is sporadic, and only provides energy to the grid a maximum of 30% of the time. Unfortunately to avoid brownouts and spikes in power levels, backup power plants (nuclear or coal-fired) need to continue production. Thus eliminating much of the supposed value claimed by windpower proponents. Nor have any of the posters questioned your vaunting of windpower as an instrument of reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources (read: oil), when electricity power plants are not powered by oil—therefore nullifying that claim!
It’s also interesting that your definition of us benighted “conservationalsists” doesn’t include a real commitment to actual conservation of natural resources: driving high-mileage vehicles, some powered by biofuels; recycling and composting to limit the amount of waste sent to landfills; living in homes that are designed or renovated to be as energy efficient as possible; using mass transit to its utmost, and other strategies. There may be billions and trillions of generations yet to provide for on our planet, but at what level? Three-quarters or more of the world’s populations live on 1/100th of what we in the developed world consume daily. Perhaps we should consider downscaling our wants and expectations as a nation before raping the few rural areas left in the United States? The health of the whole planet depends as much on the vegetation and the waters of these areas as on medical science. As an example, the cities of Los Angeles and New York both depend on water sources many miles away from their overpopulated centers. Industrialization of those areas, whether from windfarms or factories, threatens the quality of the Hudson Valley, the Colorado, the Susquehanna watershed and thus the water sources of many millions of people. How can anyone justify compromising an essential part of the ecosystem by claiming to want to save it?
If any government gave out healthy subsidies to private citizens as incentives to conserve, rather than to corporate giants encouraging them to build still more generating facilities, you can bet conservation would be the norm in a majority of households.
I think you and your readers have missed a huge part of the equation and need to do more research.
Tracey,
First off, I did not mention that windpower is sporadic because that’s largely a misconception based on a lack of understanding about how the power grid operates. Windpower distributed regionally through a modern transmission system would be available nearly constantly. When it’s not available, then nuclear would certainly be my preferred solution. There are other sources of energy as well that don’t involve coal or natural gas, including biomass and solar.
Conservationists believe that there is some moral value in not consuming. That’s only true in a world of finite resources. The Earth is, in many regards, a finite resource, yet the possibilities for recycling materials, renewing soils, and providing clean renewable energy has been barely tapped.
But, we are certainly not to the point of 100% renewable energy and materials recycling, so conserving is a personal and a societal virtue that should certainly be conserved. But the backwards-looking mentality you express by saying energy generation OR conservation is the reason that conservation is stuck where it is. It’s time for clean energy generation AND conservation, working towards the goal of a cleaner planet while not ruining the name of greens everywhere. Conservationists have tried damned hard to do that, and so far that’s about all they’ve accomplished.
[…] April 16th, 2007 by Anthony Kendall [Environmentalism, Friedman, Geo Green]I’ve talked in these pages about Tom Friedman’s Geo-Green ideas before (here, and here), but I’ll summarize it again quickly: geo-green means being green for the sake of national and economic security as much as for traditional environmentalist reasons. For the feature article in Sunday’s NYTimes Magazine, and his longest writing yet on the topic, he stakes out the geo-green position, and calls for serious change at every level of American society. […]
I enjoyed your comments. Your observations seem well thought out and only slightly biased. I am in a steep learning curve on the subject of wind power. I am chairmain of a very active regional 501c-3 whose usual advisary is the Corps of Engineers and their harmful dredge disposal practices.
THis wind power issue is much more difficult to get a handle on. Most of my usual allies seem to have a different opinion on this subject. Audubon,for instance,support wind power to the extent that they sided with the wind lobby and opposed our efforts to get siting legislation passed recently in Texas.
My area of interest is the Laguna Madre of Texas. THe area of a proposed large ((600 Mitsubishi 2.4 MW) is right smack in the middle of one of the if not the busiest migratory paths in North America. Artic Perigrines and all the tasty neo-tropicals they follow each spring and fall.
Seems to me the Wind people are really pushing the envelope by locating in tis sensitive area. Could justbe arrogance since they have never felt the sting of defeat in the Lone Star State. Not yet, that is.
Thanks, again for your fine article. Please forward any other of your musings on this topic to me por favor.
Walt Kittelberger, Chairman
Lower Laguna Madre Foundation
Not that its a big deal but advisary should be replaced by adversary
Regarding Staceys remark over the reliability .
As many people she is confusing the so called Load Factor with the percentual Operational Time.
The load factor is the ratio off the actual energy delivered divieded by the energy it delivered if the genorator worked full time worked at full capacity all the time.
A typical nuclear powerplant works 70% of the time on full power and stands still 30% of the time for maintanance, emeergency shutdown etc. It has a LF of 70%. In this case the load factor is equal to the percentual operation time.
However, a powerplant that works 100% of the time at 70% of its capacity also has a Load Factor of 70%. The Load Factor is therefore not a good measure of reliability.
A modern windturbine at a good on-land location can have a Load factor up to 35%, but delivers energy up to 85% of the time. It is therefore muh more reliable than Stacey suggests.
If you really want to know what the effect is of the variability in the wind energy production you also need to take the variability of user demand and the unreliability of conventional electricity production (which requires also back-up) into account. A number of in-depth studies on this issue have been carried out, and they all agree that at least 20% of the electricity demand can be provided by wind-energy without the need of large-scale extra back-up.
So wind energy is not the total solution, but it is a big part of the solution.
What I forgot to mention:
Windturbines spread over a whole country or even continent are together ofcourse much more reliable than a single windturbine.
A point that is often over looked in wind energy generation is that ESS(Energy Storage Systems) can be used to level out the MW’s produced with wind turbines. It works like this, on windy days excess energy is put into batteries or used to compress air or lift a mass such that there is an energy build up; i.e. the mass lifted with excess energy can later be lowered slowly pulling through a generator and producing power during a dead calm. Using ESS to hold excess electricity adds to the cost of wind generation, but makes it more viable for the environment with no need for coal or nuclear or any other form of power production. As long as the ESS works efficiently then most of the excess power can be reclaimed at a later time. Thus the Base Load of a wind farm with an ESS is the total electricity produced in a year divided by the number of days, to calculate a daily output, minus the inefficientcy of the ESS used.
Strange that the whole argument WILL be made to proceed in addressing THE demands that HUMANS put on the Earth’s resoures for their OWN (individual) survival/convenience. ANY realistic, BALANCED energy debate must, surely (!?) factor in :’POPULATION PEAK’(even for ‘projected calculation purposes’ eg: how many wind farms in 2090?)…..or are we going to allow ourselves to be blinkered with the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’for yet another decade..?
The Chinese, projected as they are, to become the greatest polluters of earth’s environment in the immediate future at least (pro-)aggressively ADDRESS the IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SPECIES-overpopulation issue!!!
Air movement results from geographic atm.press differences….which result from…(inter alia)yes! ‘predictable heating and cooling weather/climate patterns’….which, yes, you guessed it…is what ‘we’ have detected as THE definitive sign of HUMAN-OVER-HARVESTING (’quality-of-life’ as well as ‘absolute mass of demanding HUMANS’-> & their unilaterally established, never challenged: ‘RIGHTS-of-existence’ ) of easy-to-grab resources [’economic growth’, civilised world &c]. All wind-power harvesting systems appear to make ‘THE’ assumption that each individual wind-farm will have a guaranteed ‘feedstock’ of air movement….’INDEFINTELY’…????There appears to be a loss of THINKING at ‘common sense level’: you cannot have something for nothing - regardless of how ‘economically powerful’ you are -if there ISN’T ANYTHING LEFT [ask anyone enduring the ‘Winter Hunger of 1944/5′, by way of example within recent recall….].
Look forward to a plot of energy consumption by HUMANS, per person, per year and then work out whether ‘we’ would ‘EVER’ catch up with ‘peak energy needs’. EXPONENTIAL mean more to you????????
First of all, great article Anthony.
Let me introduce myself. My name is Erik and I´m from Germany. I´m working for a company which is doing the operational and commercial management of wind farms. At present we are supervising 111 wind farms with a total power of 166 MW.
I hope for the future, that especially the leading industry nations will set the course on renewable energies, doesn´t matter what kind of. Such countries like the United States have large capabilities for wind as well as for solar power. It would be desirable, that the USA execute a change of image from the world´s largest polluter to a nation which is using renewable energies and enforcing their extension.
Presuppose for that is an energy policy which gives inducements for investors, especially planning security and calculable costs.
Therefore, the german Renewable Energy Act (Erneubare Energien Gesetz, EEG) is an good example. If there were such terms in every european country, bulks of carbone dioxid could be avoided.
For me it is unbelievable why countries like Ireland, Scotland etc. don´t invest in windfarms, particulary in off-shore wind farms. In Germany we would dream of those profits.
A growing investment in renewable energies would also be an engine for the national economy.
Lets hope that the next decades will be the times of changing.
P.S. Please apologize all my linguistic mistakes