Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wind Power: Questionable Benefits, Concealed Impacts
Townhall.com ^ | February 28, 2011 | Paul Driessen

Posted on 02/28/2011 6:37:58 AM PST by Kaslin

America is running out of natural gas. Prices will soar, making imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) and T Boone Pickens’ wind farm plan practical, affordable and inevitable. That was then.

Barely two years later, America (and the world) are tapping vast, previously undreamed-of energy riches – as drillers discover how to produce gas from shale, coal and tight sandstone formations, at reasonable cost. They do it by pumping a water, sand and proprietary chemical mixture into rocks under very high pressure, fracturing or “fracking” the formations, and keeping the cracks open, to yield trapped methane.

Within a year, US recoverable shale gas reserves alone rose from 340 trillion cubic feet to 823 tcf, the Energy Department estimates. That’s 36 years’ worth, based on what the USA currently consumes from all gas sources, or the equivalent of 74 years’ of current annual US oil production. The reserves span the continent, from Barnett shale in Texas to Marcellus shale in Eastern and Mid-Atlantic states – to large deposits in western Canada, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana and other states (and around the world).

Instead of importing gas, the United States could become an exporter. The gas can move seamlessly into existing pipeline systems, to fuel homes, factories and electrical generators, serve as a petrochemical feedstock, and replace oil in many applications. States, private citizens and the federal government could reap billions in lease bonuses, rents, royalties and taxes. Millions of high-paying jobs could be “created or saved.” Plentiful gas can also provide essential backup power for wind turbines.

Production of this much gas would reduce oil price shocks and dependence on oil imports from the likes of Gadhafi and Chavez, while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Talk about a game changer!

What’s not to like? Plenty, it turns out. The bountiful new supplies make environmentalist dogmas passé: the end of the hydrocarbon era, America as an energy pauper, immutable Club of Rome doctrines of sustainability and imminent resource depletion, the Pickens’ Plan and forests of wind turbines.

What to do? Environmentalists voiced alarm. HBO aired “Gasland,” a slick propaganda film about alleged impacts of fracking on groundwater. Its claims have been roundly debunked (for instance, methane igniting at a water faucet came from a gas deposit encountered by the homeowner’s water well – not from a fracking operation). But a politically motivated Oscar is likely.

The Environmental Protection Agency revealed a multiple personality disorder. Its Drinking Water Protection Division director told Congress there is not a single documented instance of polluted groundwater due to fracking. (Studies by Colorado and Texas regulators drew the same conclusion.)

EPA’s Texas office nevertheless insisted that Range Resources was “endangering” a public aquifer and ordered the company to stop drilling immediately and provide clean water to area homes. EPA officials then failed to show up at the hearing or submit a single page of testimony, to support their claims.

Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to conduct a “life-cycle” or “cradle-to-grave” study of hydraulic fracturing drilling and gas production techniques, to assess possible impacts on groundwater and other ecological values. Depending on whether the study is scientific or politicized, it could lead to national, state-by-state or even city-by-city drilling delays, bans – or booms.

The industry and many states that have long experience with drilling and are confident the needed regulations, practices and testing procedures are already in place. They voice few worries, except over how long a life-cycle study could take or how political it might become. In fact, it’s a very useful tool.

But if a life-cycle study is warranted for hydraulic fracturing, because drilling might pass through subsurface formations containing fresh water, similar studies are certainly called for elsewhere: wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation, for instance.

Turbines require enormous quantities of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth minerals – all of which involve substantial resource extraction, refining, smelting, manufacturing and shipping. Land and habitat impacts, rock removal and pulverizing, solid waste disposal, burning fossil fuels, air and water pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions occur on large scales during every step of the process.

Over 95% of global rare earth production occurs in China and Mongolia, using their technology, coal-fired electricity generation facilities and environmental rules. Extracting neodymium, praseodymium and other rare earths for wind turbine magnets and rotors involves pumping acid down boreholes, to dissolve and retrieve the minerals. Other acids, chemicals and high heat further process the materials. Millions of tons of toxic waste are generated annually and sent to enormous ponds, rimmed by earthen dams.

Leaks, seepage and noxious air emissions have killed trees, grasses, crops and cattle, polluted lakes and streams, and given thousands of people respiratory and intestinal problems, osteoporosis and cancer.

In 2009, China produced 150,000 tons of rare earth metals – and over 15,000,000 tons of waste. To double current global installed wind capacity, and produce rare earths for photovoltaic solar panels and hybrid and electric cars, China will have to increase those totals significantly – unless Molycorp and other companies can rejuvenate rare earth production in the US and elsewhere, using more modern methods.

Made in China turbines are shipped to the USA, trucked to their final destinations, and installed on huge concrete platforms; new backup gas generating plants are built; and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines are constructed. That means still more steel, copper, concrete, fuel and land. Moreover, the backup power plants generate more pollution and carbon dioxide than if they could simply run at full capacity, because as backups for turbines they must operate constantly but ramp up to full power, and back down, numerous times daily, in response to shifting wind speeds.

Wind farms require roads and 700-1000 ton concrete-and-rebar foundations, which affect water drainage patterns in farm country. The 300-500 foot tall turbines affect scenery, interfere with or prevent crop dusting over hundreds of acres, and kill countless birds and bats. Farmers who lease their land for wind turbines receive substantial royalty payments; neighbors are impacted, but receive no compensation.

Despite these ecological costs, wind farm projects are often fast-tracked through NEPA and other environmental review processes, and are exempted from endangered species and migratory bird laws that can result in multi-million-dollar fines for oil, gas and coal operators, for a fraction of the carnage.

Perhaps worst, all this is supported generously by renewable energy mandates, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs, “prioritized loading orders,” and other subsidies, courtesy of state and federal governments and taxpayers. In fact, wind power gets 90 times more in federal subsidies than do coal and natural gas, per megawatt-hour of electricity actually generated, according to US Energy Information Administration data. And wind-based electricity costs consumers several times more per kilowatt-hour than far more reliable electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power plants.

Simply put, the wind might be free, when it blows. But the rest of the “renewable, green, eco-friendly” wind energy system is anything but.

It might be far better all around to simply build the most efficient, lowest-polluting coal, gas and nuclear generating plants possible, let them run at full capacity 24/7/365 – and just skip the wind power.

Life-cycle studies would be a positive development – for all energy sources. In fact …

“Think globally, act locally” might be a very good motto for EPA and wind energy advocates.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: energy; epa; fracking; gas; naturalgas; oil; power; shale; windpower
There is no reason whatsoever for us to import oil, but the rats and the environmental nuts are using every lame excuse to stop our oil companies from drilling here. It's time to stop listening to them
1 posted on 02/28/2011 6:38:01 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Wind power is a complete disaster

"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."

2 posted on 02/28/2011 6:44:42 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am still looking for an honest life cycle analysis of the costs and benefits of a wind turbine. If anyone can point to one, would appreciate it.

My guess is that the energy expended to build, install, and maintain a wind turbine is a very high percent of the energy generated. That is aside from the fact that wind turbines do not allow for as much standard plant shutdown as the KW they generate. The wind can stop at any time, thus spinning standby turbines must be kept running.


3 posted on 02/28/2011 7:08:12 AM PST by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bttt wind power lunAcy


4 posted on 02/28/2011 7:09:28 AM PST by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister

Plus the turbines can be damaged in extreme high storms


5 posted on 02/28/2011 7:17:45 AM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Wind power is ancient...so is horse power.

Why are we trying to go backwards???

6 posted on 02/28/2011 7:18:14 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister
I am still looking for an honest life cycle analysis of the costs and benefits of a wind turbine.

The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill “Availability” Factors

7 posted on 02/28/2011 7:19:23 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

That’s what I really like about FR.

You ask and somebody out there has it.

Very cool.


8 posted on 02/28/2011 7:28:37 AM PST by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

...wind farms were contemplated in our mountain county but we fought it off....and btw, the origional contracts offered to land owners specified that the wind farm corporation would pay for the cost of installing the towers....but....NO MENTION of who would bear the cost of removal if and when, the project was discontinued....who wants an abandoned 380 foot tower on their property??...what an eyesore!...what a hazard!


9 posted on 02/28/2011 7:32:23 AM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
So much misinformation:

Made in China turbines are shipped to the USA,

FALSE: Chinese wind turbine manufacturers have yet to enter the US market.

That means still more steel, copper, concrete, fuel and land.

Which would also be required to build other forms of power geeneration and associated infrastructure.

Moreover, the backup power plants generate more pollution and carbon dioxide than if they could simply run at full capacity, because as backups for turbines they must operate constantly but ramp up to full power, and back down, numerous times daily, in response to shifting wind speeds.

Half-true: Back-up gas generation, also known as "peakers" run in this fashion with or without wind turbines based on load demand.

Wind farms require roads and 700-1000 ton concrete-and-rebar foundations, which affect water drainage patterns in farm country.

FALSE: Wind farm roads are gravel with minimal drainage issues, and most foundations are buried undergound with a sloping surface to aid in drainage. Farming is possible almost right up to the base of the turbine.

The 300-500 foot tall turbines affect scenery

So do traditional power plants and associated infrastructre.

, interfere with or prevent crop dusting over hundreds of acres

Isn't that the farmer's decision?

, and kill countless birds and bats.

Speculation. So do many other things, like house cats.

Farmers who lease their land for wind turbines receive substantial royalty payments; neighbors are impacted, but receive no compensation.

Is the author suggesting to "Spread the wealth around?"

Despite these ecological costs, wind farm projects are often fast-tracked through NEPA and other environmental review processes, and are exempted from endangered species and migratory bird laws that can result in multi-million-dollar fines for oil, gas and coal operators, for a fraction of the carnage.

FALSE: Wind farms are still required to conduct various environmental impact studies and comply with local/state/federal laws where applicable, including applying for incidental take permits. There is no "fast-tracking" of wind.

Perhaps worst, all this is supported generously by renewable energy mandates, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs, “prioritized loading orders,” and other subsidies, courtesy of state and federal governments and taxpayers. In fact, wind power gets 90 times more in federal subsidies than do coal and natural gas, per megawatt-hour of electricity actually generated, according to US Energy Information Administration data.

Fine, let's get rid of every subsidy/incentive and let the market compete. See how expensive nuclear becomes when it tries to obtain un-subsidized insurance.

And wind-based electricity costs consumers several times more per kilowatt-hour than far more reliable electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power plants.

So can natural gas generated electricity depending on the market price for gas (currently very low).

10 posted on 02/28/2011 7:36:28 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Since massive electricity cannot be stored...ANY energy source which cannot provide 100% power 100% of the time (meaning ALL “Alternative” energy sources) is an extra to our system, thereby by definition being wasteful.

Because starting and stopping conventional sources of energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydro) uses a lot of wasted energy itself, countries such as Denmark, which has gone whole hog into wind-power, actually saw their CONVENTIONAL power usage go up, along with their power bills...after spending billions on windmills.


11 posted on 02/28/2011 7:45:19 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Unless you’re a mole from the DemocraticUnderground, I think you probably know alternative energy sources are, ultimately, a waste.

We’d do MUCH better spending resources to clean-up and make more efficient 100% reliable sources (which wind and solar can by definition NEVER be)—such as the kind that MUST be in place before adding any (extra, wasteful) “alternative” sources.


12 posted on 02/28/2011 7:54:06 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

American energy independence should involve an “all of the above” approach, balancing what works best in various locations, and not relying too heavily any particular source(s) that could be subject to supply/price risk.


13 posted on 02/28/2011 8:01:04 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The U.S. has enough known natural gas to last US maybe 1000 years.. or TWO..
However the entire East Coast of the United States has not been drilled or even barely prospected..

Salazar of the Interior Dept.. has put much of the known reserves OFF LIMIT to our OWN producers..
AND some of what they have drilled is being CAPPED...

14 posted on 02/28/2011 8:03:26 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Environmentalists, like Cylons before them, are the fracking problem.


15 posted on 02/28/2011 8:05:31 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin

They are putting up dozens of the ugly POS in WV and meanwhile our electric rates are going up.

More obama greenie payoffs.


17 posted on 02/28/2011 9:44:24 AM PST by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Agreed. DTogo is promoting the same hype we've heard from wind zealots for the last decade. These days, most of us know better.
18 posted on 02/28/2011 12:42:22 PM PST by LisaS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson