Rube Goldberg would admire the utter purity of the pretensions of wind technology in pursuit of a safer modern world, claiming to be saving the environment while wreaking havoc upon it. But even he might be astonished by the spin of wind industry spokesmen. Consider the comments made by the American Wind Industry Association.s Christina Real de Azua in the wake of the virtual nonperformance of California.s more than 13,000 wind turbines in mitigating the electricity crisis precipitated by last July.s .heat storm.. .You really don.t count on wind energy as capacity,. she said. .It is different from other technologies because it can.t be dispatched.. (84) The press reported her comments solemnly without question, without even a risible chortle. Because they perceive time to be running out on fossil fuels, and the lure of non-polluting wind power is so seductive, otherwise sensible people are promoting it at any cost, without investigating potential negative consequences-- and with no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history or grid operations.

Eventually, the pedal of wishful thinking and political demagoguery will meet the renitent metal of reality in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (85) and public resistance, as it has in Denmark and Germany. Ironically, support for industrial wind energy because of a desire for reductions in fossil-fueled power and their polluting emissions leads ineluctably to nuclear power, particularly under pressure of relentlessly increasing demand for reliable electricity. Environmentalists who demand dependable power generation at minimum environmental risk should take care about what they wish for, more aware that, with Rube Goldberg machines, the desired outcome is unlikely to be achieved. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology divert resources that could otherwise support effective measures, while uninformed rhetoric on its behalf distracts from the discourse.and political action-- necessary for achieving more enlightened policy.

One of the false claims made by “wind energy” advocates is that greater use of wind energy would reduce US dependence on oil, including oil imports. In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption. Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.

State Wind Activities

The U.S. map below [available via provided link] summarizes Wind Powering America's State activities, which include validated wind maps, anemometer loan programs, small wind guides, legislative briefings, and wind working groups. Click on a state to read more state-specific news. You can also use the drop down list to get to state Web pages.

Editor's Note:The US DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are funding (at taxpayer expense) "wind working groups" in many states. While not all "wind working groups" identify their members, many of those that do appear to be comprised of wind 'advocates' only. You can find out more about these "wind working groups" by visiting the DOE site via the link below.

This paper:
• Lists key reasons why political leaders and regulators are facing problems when attempting to deal with wind energy.
• Provides more information on the effort in Kansas to evaluate wind energy.
• Identifies facts about wind energy that are often not taken into account by political leaders and regulators.
• Comments on the efforts in Kansas to promote greater use of wind energy.
• Outlines lessons for all government officials that can be learned from the efforts in Kansas.

Editor's Note Presented on October 20th during the 2006 Electric Market Forecasting Conference sponsored by EPIS, Inc. this addresses, in part, the issue of whether emissions are reduced with the addition of industrial wind energy. This is a large pdf file (8.55MB) and is available via the weblink below.

This report provides an assessment of the status of renewable energy resource information and products for the United States. This work was completed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Contract No. DE-AC3699-GO10337.

This is the pdf version with charts of Sen. Inhofe's speech. The full text version of the speech is available via the link below.

All actions and statements by Sierra Club entities with regard to energy policy and facilities shall be in furtherance of and consistent with this policy. Additional guidance can be found in the Energy and Economics Policy, the Energy Facility Siting Policy, and the One-Club Policy, as well as in various energy guidelines and advisories. This policy takes precedence over any earlier energy policies, guidelines, advisories or positions. It does not change jurisdictions for establishing positions as set forth in the Policy on Policies.

...the wind industry and other wind energy advocates have, for years, greatly overstated the energy and environmental benefits of wind energy and understated the true environmental, ecological, economic, scenic, and property value costs. They have misled the public, media and government officials – and created a “popular wisdom” about wind energy and promoted the creation of faulty government policies, tax breaks and subsidies that will take years to correct. This brief paper deals with only two of the areas where the industry and its supporters use half-truths and false or misleading information.

Sally Collins' statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources