Wind Power: A Treehugger’s Fantasy?
My post last week on offshore wind drew good discussion points on wind power, as well as folks skeptical of the whole industry. But wind power cannot be brushed aside as a treehugger’s fantasy. From coast to coast, wind power is a reality: Farmers own their own turbines, school districts power their facilities with them, or landowners lease their property to wind developers and collect royalty payments. I know of a hog farmer who is now a full time wind farmer, and higher education institutions that offer wind turbine maintenance certification. Clearly, wind power is here to stay.
But there are still misunderstandings and legitimate opportunities surrounding wind power, so here are some issues swirling around the world’s fastest growing energy source.
Cost: The cost of wind power continues to plummet, and it’s now on par with traditional energy sources. In fact, there are several cases where customers who originally paid a premium for wind power on their electric bill ended up with lower bills than their neighbors who relied solely on fuels like natural gas. While the cost of natural gas is volatile, the fuel for wind power is always free.
Wildlife: Modern wind turbines are not massacring birds. The Audubon Society endorses wind power, and a study by Western EcoSystems Technology found that cats kill more birds annually than wind turbines. The problems of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California – which was constructed in the 1980s on a migratory path for raptors – are often cited as proof that turbines in general are dangerous for birds. But with more modern siting techniques and technology (such as blades that revolve more slowly so birds can spot them), there is rarely a problem with bird deaths.
Storage and reliability: A commercialized technology that allows for wind power storage would be a revolutionary advancement (there are companies working on it). But I’m not worried about shivering in the dark because we’re not moving to 100 percent wind power tomorrow. The U.S. is not even close to the point at which storage should hold us back from wind. Instead, we should be working towards getting as much wind onto the grid as it can reasonably handle as fast as possible. Nationally, we get less than 1 percent of our electricity from wind, while some European countries are getting 20 percent from it and without any storage. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a flexible, diverse energy system that includes natural gas and renewables like hydropower can provide the “storage” or backup reliability. In fact, Xcel Energy, one of the largest utilities in the nation, has proposed more wind and hydropower to accommodate the growing need for baseload generation. A spokeswoman from Xcel explained, “[The] package was the best way – from an environmental, economic and reliability standpoint – to meet the remaining future needs of our electricity customers in the Upper Midwest.”
Furthermore, a study prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission found that wind power can reliably contribute up to 25 percent of the Midwest’s electricity with minimal cost if supported with good regulatory policies and modern transmission lines.
Wind power is here to stay, and as even more companies and individuals take advantage of it, the rest of the country will feel the impact: Stronger rural economies, less dependence on fossil fuels, cleaner air and water, and cuts to our global warming pollution.
For more information, check out the Green Life Guide.
American Wind Energy Association
Audubon Society
Earth Policy Institute
Midwest Wind Integration Study (2006)
United States Forest Service
Xcel Energy
February 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Cost: This ignores the high level of subsidy (up to 75% of the capital costs) and the need for corresponding expansion of “conventional” back-up capacity.
Wildlife: Because cats kill birds, it’s OK to kill them yourself? If the threat to birds weren’t an actual problem, the industry wouldn’t resort to such a pathetic argument. The fact is that migrating birds like to fly through the very places that are good for wind turbines. And unlike cats, turbines are especially lethal to raptors, many of whose populations are already quite tenuous. Besides birds, the threat to bats is undeniable. And wildlife on the ground suffer from habitat degradation and fragmentation as well as the mechanical noise. The threat to migrating butterflies is a likely emerging issue as well.
Storage and reliability: Large-scale storage, besides adding to the cost and negative impact of large-scale wind, will also reduce its effective capacity, which is already so low. The Minnesota study rounded the wind data to hourly averages, thus ignoring the actual burden of minute-to-minute balancing. Even so, they found that for one year, the effective capacity of their very geographically diverse model would have been less than 5% of capacity.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
The cost also does not include the need for new high-capacity transmission lines to get that sporadic wind power from the formerly rural and wild places to the cities that use it.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
New production of energy, whether it comes from wind, solar, nuclear, or otherwise, will require new transmission lines, so arguing against wind power on this basis is spurious.
Effective minute-to-minute load balancing for wind, solar, and other intermittent sources may be provided by flywheel technology which has recently been tested and approved in California.
As Maria pointed out, we’re producing less than 1% of our electricity from wind right now, so there is a very long way to go before the issue of energy storage comes anyplace close to being a real problem.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Wildlife: Modern wind turbines are not massacring birds. The Audubon Society endorses wind power, and a study by Western EcoSystems Technology found that cats kill more birds annually than wind turbines. The problems of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California – which was constructed in the 1980s on a migratory path for raptors – are often cited as proof that turbines in general are dangerous for birds. But with more modern siting techniques and technology (such as blades that revolve more slowly so birds can spot them), there is rarely a problem with bird deaths.”
These statements with the exception of Audubon endorsing wind power are simply untrue.
While Altamont pass is an older facility, the Smola Wind Farm off the coast of Norway is brand spanking new and has wiped out the breeding population of the Endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagle. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
Up until this, the RSPB also endorsed wind power.
How many outdoor and feral cats are there in this country? When wind turbines reach those numbers then let’s talk about who kills more birds.
As to slow moving blades… those blades which appear to move slowly are traveling at over 200 mph at the tips and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Obviously this is true or this kind of a statement would not be being made.
Raptors and bats, particularly are being killed all over the world at industrial wind plants. Please don’t buy the industry bought and paid for studies. They are simply not true.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
As for the Audabon Soicety’s endorsement of wind power, that simply is not true. Consider the following (and I took the link you supplied to find this):
“Acknowledging the important potential of wind power (as well as other renewable energy sources) to combat the threat of global warming to the survival of bird species throughout the western hemisphere does not mean we are providing a blanket endorsement. Every wind power proposal demands thorough case-by-case analysis of both its benefits and impact, and how that lines up against the potential widespread harm from global warming.”
Thats directly from the Audabon website. Audabon is not giving a blanket endorsement. Your initial post is misleading and taken out of context. Additionally, chapters such as Mass Audabon have “challanged” all parties in the Cape Wind permitting process to get the facts in line and make an informed decision. That is not endorsement, though supporters of the project love to spin it that way.
horseshoeshoal.blogspot.com
February 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Audubon explains, "On balance, Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Location, however, is important." I wouldn't support a wind farm that was put in an irresponsible, detrimental location either, but the point is that, on the whole, wind power moves this country in a positive direction.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
1. I only mentioned that new transmission ought to be remembered in the cost of wind. It is much more per megawatt than other sources because of the sprawling nature of wind plants and the necessity of installing them in remote areas.
2. The fact that wind is such a long way from being a problem on the grid only underscores its disproportionate negative impacts.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Ah, but does wind power in fact reduce the threat of global warming? New U.N. recommendations to reduce that threat don’t mention wind at all.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:33 am
How about a bird-offset. I’ll kill 10 cats so that somebody can set up 100 windmills.
Just joking. I would never kill a cat for that.
I believe that wind-energy is the lesser of the evils, the other evils being fossil fuels and nuclear, etc. I’ll choose the energy source that has the least impact. Efficiency will increase with technology.
Remember, a pessimist is someone who complains about the noise when opportunity knocks.