The terrain levels out and the
brown dirt has transforms into lush, gently rolling, green fields. I am in the
high country of the Columbia Plateau, and it is windy. Recently our society began taking advantage of this very powerful
wind, which relentlessly blows across the highland. In addition to pavement and
barbwire fence, the only sign of human existence is wind turbines, and there
are hundreds of them. The white structures tower above the earth of North
Central Oregon, and across the Columbia River in South Central Washington. These
types are three-bladed horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) and they are
massive. If you have ever seen a piece of one being transported on a flatbed semi
truck, then you may have some idea of just how big they are. Each blade alone
can reach 130 feet, or about as long as Air Force One, and the tower can climb
as high as 300 feet tall. For some perspective, if one of these turbines stood
next to the Statue of Liberty, its blades could slice Lady Liberty’s head right
down the middle.
The
use of wind power can be dated all the way back to Persia in 200 B.C. with the
wind wheel of Heron of Alexandria. Over 2,000 years later the United States ranks
2nd in the world behind China in cumulative installed capacity,
which measures the megawatts of electricity created. In 2010 wind turbines
accounted for 2.3% of electricity created in the U.S. and by 2030 the
Department of Energy envisions that number rising to at least 20%. As part of
the Obama Administration’s Clean Energy Initiative, wind farms have the
potential to fight climate change, wane the country’s dependence on foreign
oil, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States. But not everyone
is as ecstatic as the president over wind energy.
A
minority of people who live near the turbines claim that the noise and
vibration brings about “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (WTS). Symptoms of this newly
coined term include internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a
compulsion to flee, chest tightness and increased heart rate, all of which can
lead to more serious problems like heart disease, migraine, and panic attacks.
Fortunately there appears to be a cure to WTS—money!
Landowners receive
anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 in annual rental income for each turbine on
their property. As it turns out not a single one of these property owners have
ever complained of WTS, even though they are much closer to the turbines that
seem to aggravate their neighbors, who don’t receive any kickback from the
power companies. In a December 2009 report, the American Wind Energy
Association stated, “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible
sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects,”
and the vibrations are “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.” The
industry claims that these people are really suffering from NIMBY Syndrome,
which is an acronym meaning Not-In-My-Backyard. It affects the poor and rich
alike. T. Boone Pickens, one of the nation’s most ardent supporters of wind
energy, when asked about putting turbines on his 68,000 acre ranch in the
panhandle of Texas, one of America’s windiest regions, replied, “I’m not going
to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”
Even
environmentalists are up in arms over turbines. Yes, the same environmentalists
who fight for a greener tomorrow have brought about lawsuits, and protested
against pending legislation, citing bird mortality as an intolerable
consequence of wind power. They refer to turbines as “bird-o-matics,” and claim
that huge numbers of the winged animals are slaughtered every day by their
giant propellers. Unfortunately the numbers just don’t add up. According to
experts, turbines kill a relatively few amount of birds, at least compared to
other man-made structures. Let’s take a look: wind turbines kill an estimated
10,000-40,000 birds in the United States annually. That may seem like a lot of
birds, but now let’s look at some other numbers: lighted communication towers
kill 40-50 million; automobiles, 60-80 million; power lines, 130-174 million;
and windows, 100 million-1 billion. And let’s not count out our furry feline
friend, the cat, who is responsible for 100’s of millions of bird deaths a
year. So if these environmentalists are really passionate about saving birds,
then they shouldn’t have a problem giving up their cars, cell phones, electricity,
and windows. And kill all their cats. Sorry folks, but you can’t have your
vegan cake and eat it too.
And
as for wind power being an “alternative” energy, well, for some people, that’s
a myth as believable as Bigfoot. There are several factors that warrant their
thinking. First of all, they assert that the claim of wind energy supplying the
U.S. with 20% of its electricity by 2030 is mathematically misleading. When
these numbers were derived, they argue, the American Council on Renewable
Energy failed to factor in the exponential growth of energy use among consumers
in the U.S. When you consider the increased demand of energy by 2030 compared
to the number of wind farms planned on being built, the actual capacity will
more realistically be between 1% and 3%. Secondly, turbines produce power only
about 1/3 of the time due to the unpredictability of wind. And since there is
currently no cost-effective method of storing electricity, intermittent power
is supplied from existing fossil fuel plants, causing them to operate “less
efficiently and with increased volatility.” Which means that with more wind
farms comes more power plants, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Thirdly,
the electricity from these said power plants is actually half as expensive.
Wind power requires between 30-45 times more land than nuclear, and 10 times
more concrete and steel. In addition, the best locations for wind farms are far
from urban centers, therefore requiring high-voltage transmission wires. The
only reason that wind currently competes with other forms of energy is due to
large subsidies from federal, state, and local governments; in other words, our
tax dollars. In 2006 alone, the federal government handed out $2.75 billion in
incentives. Finally, not a single study has been shown a reduction in
carbon-dioxide emissions, and because automobiles in the U.S. run on liquid
fuels, not electricity, wind energy will do nothing to displace imported oil
and refined petroleum products.
So
who is right? Is it the Obama Administration, The American Council on Renewable
Energy, The American Wind Energy Association, the folks suffering from “Wind
Turbine Syndrome,” the environmentalists, or the naysayers? Unlike the Bigfoot
dispute, it’s probably not as simple as believing, in hopes that you were right
all along. When it comes to wind energy a lot of people bring up a lot of good
points, and a lot of worthy questions. In the end, like most new ideas, it will
probably be time that reveals the true answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment