Is wind energy environmentally sound?
Pennlive.com|Herb Field|February 8, 2008
The initial wave of windmill farms in Pennsylvania has focused on the state's famed ridge tops, where blowing winds are strongest and most frequent. This is an attempt to maximize the ability of individual windmills and farms to produce energy, which doubtless translates into the best ecnomic model. That is unitl you start counting the cost of litigation to deal with the growing opposition to clearing Pennsylvania's signature landscape and creating a "scenery" laced with windmills. And it likely doesn't hold up if you add up the lost forests and vegetation that is sacrificed in the process of clearing acres of trees for the turbines and the roads necessary to build and service them. Add in the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing, transporting and servicing windmills, and there is a carbon cost of some magnitude. We just don't know what that is and there is no evidence to indicate that the Rendell administration has done its homework to establish what that contribution is, or if it even wants to know.
The initial wave of windmill farms in Pennsylvania has focused on the state's famed ridge tops, where blowing winds are strongest and most frequent. This is an attempt to maximize the ability of individual windmills and farms to produce energy, which doubtless translates into the best ecnomic model. That is unitl you start counting the cost of litigation to deal with the growing opposition to clearing Pennsylvania's signature landscape and creating a "scenery" laced with windmills. And it likely doesn't hold up if you add up the lost forests and vegetation that is sacrificed in the process of clearing acres of trees for the turbines and the roads necessary to build and service them. Add in the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing, transporting and servicing windmills, and there is a carbon cost of some magnitude. We just don't know what that is and there is no evidence to indicate that the Rendell administration has done its homework to establish what that contribution is, or if it even wants to know.
It's automatic to assume that windmills are a clean, environmentally sound form of energy. And not only have we come to think of wind as clean, but also as free in terms of its fuel source. But like many a good thing, it also can be misused. And that's what's occuring in Pennsylvania in too many instances.
Two new studies that warn that biofuels production could actually contribute to global warming, not abate it, may very well apply to wind energy, as well, in certain circumstances. But we haven't done the serious scientific studies necessary to weigh all aspects of wind power to draw sound conclusions. Rather, the Rendell administration has barreled ahead as if this were all a settled matter, which it clearly is not. So instead of …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]It's automatic to assume that windmills are a clean, environmentally sound form of energy. And not only have we come to think of wind as clean, but also as free in terms of its fuel source. But like many a good thing, it also can be misused. And that's what's occuring in Pennsylvania in too many instances.
Two new studies that warn that biofuels production could actually contribute to global warming, not abate it, may very well apply to wind energy, as well, in certain circumstances. But we haven't done the serious scientific studies necessary to weigh all aspects of wind power to draw sound conclusions. Rather, the Rendell administration has barreled ahead as if this were all a settled matter, which it clearly is not. So instead of actually being a force for coming to terms with climate change and formulating a sound energy policy, there is reason to believe the administration could well be aggravating global warming with its pro-wind-at-cost policies.
The two studies which are described in this Washington Post article, bring to the equation issues for consideration that have been largely ignored - the impact of these activities on forests, grasslands and fertile croplands and their lost or diminished ability to sequester carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
The initial wave of windmill farms in Pennsylvania has focused on the state's famed ridge tops, where blowing winds are strongest and most frequent. This is an attempt to maximize the ability of individual windmills and farms to produce energy, which doubtless translates into the best ecnomic model. That is unitl you start counting the cost of litigation to deal with the growing opposition to clearing Pennsylvania's signature landscape and creating a "scenery" laced with windmills.
And it likely doesn't hold up if you add up the lost forests and vegetation that is sacrificed in the process of clearing acres of trees for the turbines and the roads necessary to build and service them. Add in the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing, transporting and servicing windmills, and there is a carbon cost of some magnitude. We just don't know what that is and there is no evidence to indicate that the Rendell administration has done its homework to establish what that contribution is, or if it even wants to know.
The other side of the equation is that building windmills in Pennsylvania is an economic plus, with associated jobs, and that factor may well be paramount in the administration's thinking, rather than any negative impact on the envrionment - including disturbing or killing bats, raptors and other species of animals and plants - and global warming.
In my view, windmills have an important role to play in addressing climate change, but only within the parameters of sensible environmental standards. We need to sacrifice maximizing windmills' ability to generate energy in order to site them more appropriately. But if the state had such a siting methodology on the books, including requiring a review of any particular location's carbon contribution as well as overall environmental impact, I believe Pennsylvania would be able to build many more windmills, do it sooner and do it with far greater public support than is now the case.
If we continue to ignore the global warming implications of what are perceived to be benigh forms of energy, we are only digging our whole deeper, losing valuable time and creating a far more difficult challenge, one that by any measure is difficult enough.