"At a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power . . . Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers’ money to destroy the American landscape . . . Wholesale destruction of the American landscape is not an incidental concern. The Great American Outdoors is an essential part of the American character. Egypt has its pyramids, England has its history. And we have the Great American Outdoors." — Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in an address to Congress, 13 May 2005.

 
Photos by kind permission of the Cefn Croes Campaign

The construction of turbines and their enormous foundations has the potential to disrupt water flow to many shallow water wells. On the construction site, several liquids that can cause contamination are used. If there is a spill of gasoline or hydraulic oil, many wells could be destroyed and many homes could be left without clean water.

Fire is another risk: "There are many ways in which a wind turbine can ignite a wildfire. Electrical short circuits, an overheated bearing, downed electrical cables, welding splatter from technicians servicing the turbines, or even the catalytic converter on service vehicles can start a conflagration." ~ Paul Gipe in Wind Energy Comes of Age

Documents preceded by require Adobe Acrobat or Acrobat Reader to view. If you don't have Acrobat, you can get a free copy here.

• The hidden cost of wind turbines: New Scientist Print Edition, 08 July 2006..."It started with Turbine 68. On 16 October 2003, following excavations for the 49-metre tower's massive foundations, the peat bog above the village of Derrybrien in county Galway, Ireland, began to move. That night almost half a square kilometre of bog slid 2.5 kilometres down the hillside, engulfing an unoccupied farmhouse and blocking two roads. Journalists dubbed it the "bogalanche", and speculated about what might have happened had the weather been wet. Two weeks later they found out. Heavy rains washed peat soup into the Abhainn Da Loilioch river, where the sludge killed 50,000 fish and affected 50,000 more.

  Anxious not to delay Ireland's renewable energy programme, politicians reassured local people that the bogalanche was an isolated incident. The operators were fined ¬1250 for polluting the river, they adopted new working practices, and completed construction of the 71-turbine project to create Ireland's largest wind farm. But the residents of Derrybrien were not prepared to leave it there. They felt ignored by the planning system and uncertain about what might happen next, so they commissioned their own report. The findings highlighted various shortcomings of the project, and concluded that the environmental impact assessment had failed to consider the implications of constructing major infrastructure on a peat bog. As a result, the European Union is now prosecuting the Irish government in the European Court of Justice..."

• Contamination of aquifers and ground water: by Mark Duchamp, former Windfarms/Birds Research Manager of Proact International. Mark has written many papers on this subject. This report contains some revealing quotes from developers' own environmental "studies", including this: "A pollution incident during construction could have an impact of major magnitude on the water quality of the surface and ground waters of the area, potentially irrevocably damaging the ecology." and this: "During the upgrading works a number of potential pollutants may be present on site, including oil, fuels, chemicals, unset cement and concrete. Any pollution incident occurring on the site may detrimentally affect the water quality of the nearby surface waters and groundwater. Where there are fisheries and water supply interests this may have a significant impact."

  Also see Mark's report:
  

• Windfarms do not save on greenhouse gases: ..."Conveniently, it is near impossible to estimate the quantity of CO2 and other gases emitted in order to back-up intermittent windpower: there are too many variables involved. So the wind industry has an easy job dismissing the critics. But the fact remains that CO2 emissions are increased, possibly to the point where they fully compensate the savings realized by windpower. The example of Denmark seems to confirm this: producing 15 to 20% of its electricity from the wind, this most windpowerized country in the world has failed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. And California, Germany, Spain are building more fossil-fuel power plants in spite of their massive investments in windfarms. This, better than anything else, proves the point that windfarm opponents across the world are trying to make. "

• Don't be fooled by wind power's 'green' image: David Van Tassel, The Land Institute scientist..."We should not let wind power's 'green' image trick us into abandoning the principle that some places and some species should be saved for their own sakes. We should reject the argument that everything must be 'useful,' that every place and every aspect of life should be commercialized.

  The problem of fossil fuel consumption belongs to each community and each person. Rural people contribute, of course, every time they drive a truck or flip on a light switch. But this is negligible compared with the impact of urban areas.

  You might argue that rural communities are in a unique position to help us, and that they will suffer the effects of climate change as much as anyone. But the truth is that simply adding new energy sources, even green ones, without a firm plan to reduce, or at least cap, our total energy production will not reduce national carbon emissions."

• State agencies take turn tilting at windmill plan - Several state agencies fear the windmills will harm endangered animals and the viewshed: March 12, 2006 by John Cramer in The Roanoke Times..."The company's studies show the proposed project -- which would put 19 windmills atop two ridges on Alleghany Mountain in Highland County -- would cause minimal damage to the environment. But state biologists say the giant wind turbines could harm endangered bats, birds, viewsheds, other natural resources and tourism in rural Highland County, known as 'Virginia's Switzerland.'...The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality last week suspended the state's review of the project until Highland New Wind responds to the state agencies' concerns."

• Is sense blowing in the wind?: Feb. 27, 2006... "In what one co-author concedes is 'kind of ironic,' two King’s College environment professors – one teaches politics, the other science -- wrote a paper questioning whether windmills are really an earth-friendly way to make electricity... Proponents contend wind power can reduce the use of fossil fuels burned to produce electricity. But the authors point out that wind turbines only provide power about one-third of the time, at the whim of the wind, so coal plants must stay on line all the time regardless of how many windmills you build, and additional plants, usually fueled with natural gas, must be available for peak demand periods.

  'The decision to grant permission to build and ultimately approve a wind plant is held by the local government,' the authors wrote, and that jurisdiction often is limited to whether or not the turbines meet planning and zoning ordinances, not environmental criteria. Cash-strapped municipalities may be hard pressed to justify blocking construction and giving up potential income. The authors suggest national energy policy might be better served if state or federal agencies were more involved, or if local officials were given more training in deciding when and where to allow wind turbines."

•  Boost for wind turbines opponents: January 25, 2006, BBC News...A report by Devon County Council's environment director says the impact on the environment far outweighs the renewable energy benefits.

•  Greenwash Explained: The Green Life has an excellent page on "greenwash", which explains the techniques companies use to present a green image to the public and the substantial benefits they receive from their deceptive campaigns..."Dealing in lies of omission, image ads belong to a business strategy known as greenwash, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.' In this report we run a background check, investigating whether those credentials should be accepted. On the contrary, we find, they should in most cases be revoked, for rarely do they convey a company’s true identity."

  Number 9 in their report, titled "AMERICA'S TEN WORST GREENWASHERS", is Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices, front group for Xcel Energy, one of the nation’s leading wind-power providers.

•  EU Study Urges Ecological Review of Offshore Wind Projects: www.microclimetrics.com..."Most current research into offshore renewable energy options fails to take sufficient account of the ecological implications, according to a major new review published in the Journal of Applied Ecology.

  The review by Andrew Gill of Cranfield University in the UK found that despite the high academic interest in offshore renewable energy - with almost 400 papers published in 2003 - few of the studies looked at environmental impacts, either positive or negative."

•  Huge protests by voters force the continent's governments to rethink so-called green energy: Apr. 4, 2004, The Telegraph (UK)..."They introduced the world to "environmentally friendly" energy, but now some of Europe's "greenest" countries are under pressure to backtrack on wind farms in the face of public anger over their impact on the countryside...Voters are outraged by the unsightly turbines, the loud, low-frequency humming noise that they create and the stroboscopic effects of blades rotating in sunshine...The dream of environmentally friendly energy has turned into highly subsidised destruction of the countryside," Germany's influential magazine Der Spiegel pronounced last week."

   

  
  
  
  Return to top | Back