photo by fieldsbh (Flickr CC)

I read the news today, oh boy.

Wind farms are causing global warming? No, but maybe a bit of local warming.

A new study of wind turbines in Texas shows that rotating blades force warm air downwards at night, causing ground temperatures to rise by up to 0.72C (1.3F).

And so the headlines read that wind farms warm the night, or as Reuters states ‘Wind Farms Might Have Warming Effect’. But they also cool ground temperatures during the day according to previous research. Isn’t this piece of information equally significant? The Guardian doesn’t include it in their article, while Discovery only mentions it in a confusing manner. This latest study apparently showed that daytime temperatures were not affected by the turbines.

So much for the pro-renewable energy, eco-fascist climate change fear-mongering media. What a disappointment.

Still, this news might not be insignificant.

The result looks pretty solid to me. The same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers, who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than erect windmills, to combat early morning frosts.

–Steven Sherwood, climate change research centre, University of New South Wales, Australia (via the Guardian)

I dunno… perhaps wind turbines could be erected on orchards. Win-win?

The Texas study’s author, Liming Zhou of the University of Albany in New York, does believe that wind farms could possibly have “noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate” (Reuters).

Local warming to fight global warming? As usual, more research is needed, but I’m willing to bet a wind turbine will never cause a drought, flood, or hurricane.

photo by Gage Skidmore (Flickr CC)

American billionaire and erstwhile presidential candidate Donald Trump is campaigning against wind energy in Scotland.

Why? Because he thinks the presence of wind turbines will deter patrons of the golf resort he plans to construct on the Scottish coast in Aberdeenshire.

In a submission to Scottish Parliament, Trump claimed that wind farms will end tourism in Scotland and ruin the environment. The business magnate, reality TV star and son of a real estate tycoon threatened to pull his golf resort project out of Scotland if the wind project went head, claiming that Scotland will “go broke”.

A Scottish Government spokesman responded (from BBC News):

Tourism continues to grow, with overnight visitors to Scotland up by 9% in 2011, and the number of visitors from North America coming to enjoy Scotland’s stunning landscapes up by 15% in 2011 on the previous year. Scotland has massive green energy potential – including a quarter of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind potential – which is creating thousands of much-needed jobs in Scotland and guaranteeing a secure energy supply for the future.

Touché.

The response from Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, was to invite Trump to invest in wind energy.

Stuart is quoted in an article by the UK Press Association:

Indeed, we would very much like to invite you and your colleagues to meet with some of our members and to consider the opportunity of investing in and being part of the success of Scotland’s renewable energy sector, which is now key part of our energy mix and an increasingly important part of our economy.

Additional source: The Independent

photo by urbangarden (Flickr CC)

The premise is pretty simple: There are places in the world where the wind blows fairly strong. This free, natural source of power has been used for centuries to grind grain and now it’s increasingly being harnessed by turbines to generate electrical power. Renewable, basically free electricity. Who could possibly have a problem with that.

OK, fossil fuel companies might not like clean energy moving in on their business. And then there are those wealthy folk who flee the noise, congestion and pollution of the big cities in search of a bucolic idyll. They don’t like wind turbines spoiling their fantasy. Green energy be damned.

Now farmers in Australia are complaining that the noise from a local wind farm is making them sick. And they have support.

From an AAP report:

Anti-wind farm campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie said people within a 10km radius of turbines could be at risk of health problems such as elevated blood pressure and headaches.

However, an independent study from the University of Adelaide failed to find any link between wind turbines and health issues.

In California, both state projects and US federal incentives are driving the wind energy industry.

From a piece in the LA Times:

Federal and local officials hail the Tehachapi Valley, a harsh desert expanse about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, as an alternative energy mecca that will help wean Americans off fossil fuel. Kern County, home to the nation’s largest concentration of wind farms, is looking forward to millions of dollars in much-needed tax revenue and has approved most proposed installations.

But many residents don’t like how the turbines “spoil” their view and pastoral lifestyle. There are also concerns about how they might affect local animal populations.

Back in Europe, wind power is booming in Romania, home of the largest on-shore wind energy plant in Europe.

More than half of the installed wind energy capacity is located in the Tomis Team Dobrogea Wind Farm close to the Romanian Black Sea coast. It is roughly the equivalent of the installed capacity of a nuclear power plant.

This is good news for Romania’s economy and clean energy on the whole, but may be bad news for migratory birds.

Read more on that story in Deutsche Welle.

The wind power debate may be framing itself into that most classic of political cleavages: urban vs. countryside. But surely a bunch of wind turbines is preferable to a coal plant or a nuclear power station?

photo by Portland General Electric (portland general on Flickr CC)

With over 37 million inhabitants, California is by far the most populated state in the US. Despite its enormous physical area of 160,000 miles (414,000 square km) California still has 6 times the population density of its northern neighbor, Oregon.

Oregon is lush, diverse and wild, with mountains, rugged coastline, forests and desert. Long known as a state with strong environmental policies, Oregon is increasingly becoming a large supplier of renewable energy to California. An area that spans parts of Oregon and Washington State is soon to become home the largest wind farm in the world.

Who will buy all this wind power? The residents of Southern California.

But in recent weeks it has been hydroelectric power that has been muscling in on Oregon’s already operational wind turbines. This spring’s unexpectedly high flows have made sure that hydro turbines are generating plenty of electricity in Oregon’s rivers, meeting demands and prompting the federal power authority for the region, BPA (Bonneville Power Administration), to order the shut down wind power generation for several hours a day.

There is another reason for keeping hydro plants flowing – salmon. Turning back the flow would harm migrating juvenile fish.

Elliot Mainzer of the Bonneville Power Administration is quoted in the L.A. Times:

We’ve now got a situation where we’re protecting our customers and we’re protecting fish, but obviously the wind community is very upset about it.

Some wind power providers are skeptical of the salmon reason. But when different state and federal laws, quotas and contracts collide with Mother Nature, things don’t always go according to plan.

From a Reuters report:

While Bonneville supplies hydro power to replace the curtailed power, wind generators can lose money in other ways, including the value of federal production tax credits (PTCs) and state renewable energy credits (RECs).

While America and the world transitions from fossil fuels towards renewables, it is a shame to see wind turbines turned off in some areas, while coal plants are still running in others. Smart grids and technology for better power storage capacity should bring answers to these types of problems in the future.

Read more on the story in the LA Times.

photo by Mark Kilner (markkilner on Flickr CC)

Generally considered to lag far behind many other European countries when it comes to generating renewable energy – in the EU only Malta and Luxembourg produce proportionally less – the UK has just opened the biggest offshore wind farm in the world.

The opening of the Thanet wind power project, located off the coast of Kent, means that in one fell swoop, Britain now produces more power from offshore wind than the rest of the world put together. Even larger wind farms are planned up the English coast and in the Thames estuary.

We have enough energy to power all the homes in Scotland, but we need a lot more than that. British consumers should be able to rely on a secure, low-cost source of energy in the future, and I’m sure offshore wind will be part of that.

–Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

And it will take a lot more such projects for Britain to meet its target of generating 15% of its energy from renewables by 2020.

Meanwhile, Scotland has increased its renewables target for that year to 80%.

For more on the story see the following Guardian article:

UK opens world’s biggest offshore windfarm

Also check out this video report from ITN News:

photo by byronv2 (Flickr CC)

Europe’s largest onshore wind farm, located south of Glasgow, Scotland, is set to get a lot bigger.

Whitelee wind farm on Eaglesham Moor will add 75 new turbines by 2012, for a total of 215, enabling it to power an impressive 300,000 homes.

From a BBC News report:

Whitelee wind farm is already the largest onshore wind farm in Europe and this extension pushing the overall capacity to 539MW will make it one of the largest in the world.

–Simon Christian, UK director of ScottishPower Renewables

The new turbines will be supplied by the firm Alstom, a multinational specializing in rail transport and energy infrastructure including gas, coal, hydro, tidal and geothermal projects as well as wind power.

From renewableenergyfocus.com:

Additionally, Alstom and Iberdrola Renovables have reached an agreement to install 100 MW of wind power in Spain – consisting of 60 ECO 80 wind turbines, each with an output of 1.67 MW in 2011, and a further 49 MW – consisting of 29 ECO 80 machines with an output of 1.67 MW in 2012.

Additional resources:

European Wind Energy Association – ALSTOM : Wins Order Worth over €200 Million with Iberdrola to Add 217 MW Extension to Whitelee Wind Farm

Image Source: Flickr. By: Caveman 92223 — On the 2010 US Tour.

Sweden is sure making some interesting headlines this week when it comes to energy sources. First, there was the issue of the Greenpeace protest at a nuclear power plant. Now, however, I’m happy to report somewhat better news.

This Scandinavian nation plans to build Europe’s largest wind park, which will contain 1,101 wind turbines. The Markbygden farm will cover an area more than 310 miles (500 square km) in size (or 5 times the size of Paris). How did they manage to swing such a project? It turns out most of the land is practically uninhibited.

The project is headed by Svevind, a client of German wind power giant Enercon. Project leader, Wolfgang Kropp, commented that:

“If I were to try the same thing in Germany, it would take me 20 years to get everyone’s agreement.” … “For the same area, you would have 10,000 land owners. Here, there are 3. That’s why we came here to Sweden in search of a good location. In the south of the country, it is very difficult. There are farms and vacation homes. Here in the north, there is no one.”

The project is expected to be completed by 2022 and the turbines should be able to produce energy equivalent to that of 2 nuclear reactors. Although there are very few land owners in the area and many view the project as a new source of income, not everyone is happy about the project, particularly the native Samis.

The Sami people are known for their semi-nomadic reindeer herding and they believe the new wind park will severely impact and damage traditional reindeer grazing areas. They were offered a compensation package of 5,000 kronor ($ 630) per turbine per year, or more than 5 million kronor per year after the entire park is built. However, they refused the offer, with local council head, Anders Ruth, stating “the amount does not correspond to the problems that this will cause and the threat it poses to our herds”.

Personally, I can’t really blame the Samis for being upset about the situation. They’ve already suffered damage from other industries in the area; not to mention that according to Ruth, almost 25% of their local grazing areas will be affected by the park. Unfortunately for them, Svevind refuses to back down.

The company claims they understand the concerns of the Samis, but they add there is no better location for the park. Executive, Mikael Kyrk, also said:

“It’s true, the paper industry has already taken their forests, the dams have already taken their rivers, the mines have taken what’s underground, and now it’s the wind turbine, but…that’s the way development works.”

While I support renewable energy (such as wind), I certainly sympathize with the Sami people. It’s a rather tough situation to be in and it would seem that it’s already following a pattern (remember the tortoises vs. solar energy from last year?). I suppose when it comes to going green and helping the environment, we really need to figure out what’s more important or else a better form of compromise.

Do you have any ideas?

By Heidi Marshall

Nantucket Sound; photo by AGrinberg (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

The Cape Wind project – planned to be located in the Nantucket Sound off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in the United States – was given the go-ahead on Wednesday by the US government.

From an article in the New York Times:

Developers say that Cape Wind will provide 75 percent of the power for Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard — the equivalent of that produced by a medium-size coal-fired plant. It would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road, officials said, and provide 1,000 construction jobs.

A bitterly contested project, Cape Wind faced opposition from communities as diverse as wealthy New England elite – notably the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy – and Native American groups. But in the end it was the clean energy industry that won over conservation, private property concerns and native rights.

From a report in the Telegraph:

US wind generation increased by 27 percent last year, accounting for 2 per cent of total electricity supplies, according to the Energy Department. Wind power supports about 85,000 American jobs.

The US trails Europe and China in terms of wind power, but the industry is growing and the Cape Wind decision may represent a landmark, opening up America’s coastlines to more renewable energy projects. After all, they’ve already opened them up for oil drilling.

Opponents have vowed to continue the fight against the wind farm’s construction.

by Graham Land

Nantucket Sound, photo by real00 (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

What would be the United States’ first offshore wind farm project – dubbed Cape Wind – may be in jeopardy due to an announcement by the National Park Service last week. The NPS stated that the site of the proposed wind farm, in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, should be eligible for protection by being included in the National Register of Historic Places. Two Native American tribes, the Aquinnah and the Mashpee Wampanoag, are opposed to the project due to traditional and spiritual reasons:

‘The turbines would be clearly visible to both Aquinnah and Mashpee people and would degrade their essential view of the rising sun for ceremonies and of the ocean view shed necessary for other rituals. The shoal itself where the turbines would be erected was once dry land and contains sacred burial sites and other cultural patrimony.’

–Indian Country Today

Yet an article from the Boston Globe claims:

‘Their objections to Cape Wind did not keep the Martha’s Vineyard Wampanoags from planning their own wind project just a few hundred yards from the Vineyard’s Gay Head Cliffs, which have won designation as a National Historic Landmark.’

But spiritual traditions are seldom so pragmatic that one can simply assume that one site should have the same significance as another for an ethnic or religious group’s traditional practices. It may also partly be a case of the tribes knuckling down against what they understandably see as a continuation of hundreds of oppression by the United States government. An Indian Country Today article describes the tribes’ spokespersons as likening the federal government’s eventual decision to a test as to whether the Obama administration will take the rights of tribal nations seriously or if it will continue to be ‘business as usual’.

This is not the first time the Cape Wind Project has been opposed. Groups like Save Our Sound and NAWAG (the National Alliance of Wind Farm Action Groups) have attempted to block the construction of turbines around Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard – picturesque, wealthy vacation spots that value their pretty views. But Nantucket is also a very ‘green’ community and has given popular support to Cape Wind. A Mother Jones article suggests that the real backing for the opposition movement comes not from Native Americans or Massachusetts playboys, but from big oil and other ‘dirty energy’ interests:

‘At the forefront of the effort has been William Koch, who alone has spent more than a million to oppose the farm via a group called the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. […] Koch is the founder and president of the Oxbow Group, and has made his fortune off mining and marketing coal, natural gas, petroleum, and petroleum coke products.’

–Mother Jones

So against the sustainable energy Cape Wind project are Earth-revering Native American tribes, (now deceased) Senator and Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy and some ultra rich right wing mega-polluters. Talk about a case of strange bedfellows, eh?

by Graham Land

anti wind farm protesters, photo by Phil LaCombe (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

New York Times – For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle Is Spiritual

Wind turbines spoil views of rising seas and toxic sunsets

Used under license from Shutterstock.com

Until recently I lived in southern Sweden, a flat landscape with plenty of farms, lots of coastline and a healthy amount of wind. While traversing across this broad rural landscape or crossing the Øresund Bridge into Denmark, I was often struck by the collections of white monolithic wind turbines that soar majestically above green fields and extend in daring rows into the sea. They stand watch like soldiers in a brave battle against the wastefulness of man and the senseless ecological violence of carbon-based energy. I was proud to live in a part of the world forward thinking enough to erect these green giants, these eco-friendly futuristic engines of change. How smug I felt that my adopted country of residence was clever enough to harness something as natural and primal as the wind and use it for lighting our porches and charging our iPods. How calming and comforting (I dare say beautiful!) these massive “windmills” are.

So why are some people, like would-be Don Quixotes, attacking and demonizing such a practical and seemingly faultless energy source? This strikes me as cynicism of the downright maddening variety.

But maybe the naysayers have a point. After all, what do I know? What do any of us, as laypeople; really know about this particular brand of nascent green technology? So, I decided to do a bit of research as to what has soured certain individuals’ grapes to the extent that they would condemn such an apparently guiltless and clever invention.

The advantages of wind power seem almost too glaringly obvious to mention. The operation of wind turbines produces zero emissions and comparatively negligible amounts hazardous waste and does not deplete natural resources. Not to mention job creation. As we cut back on fossil fuels, jobs in that sector will be lost and the creation of new, sustainable energy-related employment is certainly attractive.

Now on to the criticisms.

Used under license from Shutterstock.com

America, for one, has struggled with some of the ecological or environmental discrepancies involving wind turbine power stations built in perhaps unwise locations, like the habitats of certain sensitive wildlife. However, most of the U.S.-based complaints seem to stem from more aesthetic concerns, and this smacks more of old school conservationism, based on human enjoyment of the environment, rather than practical concerns such as health and sustainability. Nevertheless, as with many stumbling blocks on the road to ecological balance, there are concerns of varying degrees of importance and legitimacy.

Alleged or potential disadvantages of wind turbines:

• Unreliability – Without large-scale energy storage, wind is neither an entirely dependable nor constant source, due to its inherently fluctuating nature. This is comparable to solar power on cloudy days: the proverbial “fair weather friend.”

• Energy consumption – The manufacturing and transportation of turbines takes resources and power. However, this is soon recouped by the clean energy the plants subsequently produce and is considered by some experts to be a minimal price to pay for what the wind power plants provide in return.

• Danger to wildlife – Birds and bats are killed when they fly into the spinning turbine blades. This has been a bona fide concern. However, according to he American environmental website powerscorecard.org “The most controversial significant negative environmental impact of early wind turbines is the impact on bird populations, an issue largely resolved by new turbine designs.” Furthermore, according to a research paper by National University of Singapore professor Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool, “wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million.” Therefore as power source, wind is at worst the least of three evils, at least as far as birds and bats are concerned.

• Cost efficiency – Economic viability may be questionable, but this depends on the location of the turbines. For obvious reasons, population centers may not always be located next to extremely windy areas. This is a logical assumption, but at the same time does not necessarily coincide with reality. Specific examples include: Whitelee in Scotland and the planned London Array, two U.K. projects projected to supply large amounts of urban electricity in the near future.

• Appearance – Are they eyesores? This also depends on where the turbines are located and ultimately on individual tastes. Personally, I like the collections of towering white giants that can be seen proudly standing in verdant fields or rising from the blue waters off the coasts of Scandinavia. Besides looking pretty cool, they also make me feel considerably better about energy production than do large, unsightly factories with chimneys belching brown foul-smelling smoke into the sky.

The newest and most legitimate concern may be noise pollution and its potential health-related problems. Until now, it was assumed that noise that can’t be heard couldn’t cause any harm. Heretofore largely dismissed as negligible, the low frequency noise output of turbines has very recently come under some harsh scrutiny via a new scientific study.

Breaking News: Wind Turbine Syndrome

Someone was always bound to discover something to rain on the parade of monolithic white windmills that now “march” across many parts of the Europe and America. Enter Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), a disease named to collectively refer to symptoms thought to result chiefly from the low frequency noise produced by large wind turbines. According to an article in the August 2^nd edition of the U.K.’s The Independent, Dr. Nina Pierpont, a prominent pediatrician from New York, has discovered a series of symptoms, which she has christened visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. The symptoms Dr. Pierpont claims are related to Wind Turbine Syndrome include anxiety-related disturbances such as “internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee [and] chest tightness,” as well as increased heart rate, nightmares and the cognitive development of children. Pierpont attributes such disturbances to the “abnormal stimulation of the inner ear’s vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise.”

WTS is a bit reminiscent of psychosomatic environmental illness or what was termed “Twentieth-Century Disease” (way back in the 20^th century), in which patients react to low levels of what they perceive to be toxins or pollutants. Naturally, the British government denies Pierpont’s claims and its position is backed by acousticians at the University of Salford in Manchester as well as the British Wind Energy Association, which maintains that “Wind turbines are quiet, safe and sustainable.” But Pierpont also has her backers and considerable medical evidence to support her claims.

The winds of change continue to blow

Another kind of wind turbine entering the private market is a small, low speed model designed to power individual homes. The soon to be on the market Honeywell Wind Turbine is produced by EarthTronics and will be available at Ace Hardware stores in the U.S. for a price tag of $4,500 (€3,125). Reasonably light weight at 95 lbs (43 kg) the Honeywell stands only a demure 6 feet tall (183 cm) and so should not cause too much of a stir with the neighbors. This could be a viable option for private citizens – especially those in rural, windswept areas – who wish to avail themselves of wind power, but are not close enough to existing wind farms. It may even save them a lot of money in the long term, despite the initial layout, installation and maintenance costs. For U.S. residents, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the new federal stimulus bill) would help defer those costs since it offers an uncapped 30% tax credit. It should be noted that these small turbines are not similar to the large variety used on wind farms, studied by Pierpont and attributed to WTS.

Meanwhile in the U.K., Whitelee Wind Farm, Europe’s largest on land wind farm, was recently opened to provide for the energy needs of Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, which is located just 15 km (9 miles) away. According to a May 20^th, 2009 article on renewableenergyworld.com, Scotland’s goal is to have 31% of its energy needs come from renewable sources by 2011 and as much as 50% by the year 2020. Wind farms like Whitelee will probably provide most of that energy.

Used under license from Shutterstock.com

Conclusions

With all the different, often conflicting assertions about wind power out there, it’s hard to know exactly how good (or bad) it ultimately is as a green power source. In my opinion, the drawbacks are minor, especially when compared to the plainly unsustainable status quo. As far as Wind Turbine Syndrome, the most current – and to me the most worrying ­– of snags, if it turns out to be true, perhaps a healthy distance between people and wind farms could be established, where the noise wouldn’t affect anyone except the odd grazing sheep or cow, which we should probably stop raising, anyway. It might also be smarter to simply consume less energy. I know no one wants to, but come on people, stop being greedy, gluttonous consumers and tone down your luxurious energy-gorging lifestyles. I myself have generously started unplugging my laptop at night. Self-sacrifice is now my mantra. Why, next time I see a wind turbine (if I don’t fall to the ground clutching maniacally at my inner ear’s vestibular system) I may even deign to blow on it. Every bit helps!

By Graham Land

Additional resources:
Wind Power on Power Scorecard
World Wind Energy Association
windaction.org (wind power skeptic website)
BBC video report on Whitelee wind farm
BBC video and article of Whitelee
“Who Owns the Wind” article from Science and Spirit magazine
Article: “Wind Turbine Noise Solutions”
Environmental effects of wind power wiki