Region ripe for wind power?

Moderated by Rick Badie

Last week, the world’s largest convention for the industry of wind-generated electricity was held in Atlanta. Why Georgia? Because the wind power industry is a perfect fit for the Peach State, writes Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, the convention sponsor. Meanwhile, wind energy critic Eric Rosenbloom calls the industry a waste of money and a poor job creator. He argues that the wind’s actual record has not lived up to its promises.

By Denise Bode

The South is America’s new manufacturing heartland. It’s a region of innovation and tremendous growth and one of the best places in the country to see how America can still produce great products and create great jobs in the process.

That is why American wind power is such a perfect fit for this region.

Our industry has grown so much recently that it’s almost unrecognizable from just five years ago. We’ve installed 35 percent of all new American electric generating capacity over that time (second only to natural gas) and we’ve kept 75,000 Americans working through the recession.

American wind also is powering one of the fastest-growing new U.S. manufacturing sectors, now 500 factories strong from coast to coast.

That is why our industry recently came to Atlanta to host Windpower 2012, the global wind energy industry’s largest annual trade show and conference.

We chose Atlanta because the South has become a hub for our manufacturing supply chain.

More than 90 plants currently manufacture wind energy components across the South. Last year, $200 million worth of wind products shipped through the Port of Savannah.

The ZF Wind Power gearbox plant in Gainesville is a perfect example. Workers there produce precision-built gearboxes that translate the slower rotation of the iconic three-bladed wind turbine into the faster speeds needed to spin the electric generator inside. ZF invested $98 million to locate in Georgia and employs 150 people, including more than 60 highly skilled manufacturing technicians.

Technological innovation at plants like ZF’s has transformed wind energy. Just as new technology has allowed the natural gas industry to tap shale formations, significant advances in the wind industry over the past five years also have been game changing.

Taller and better towers to reach higher wind speeds, new longer blades employing carbon and improved materials, and enhanced turbines are increasing capacity and making wind more cost-competitive.

These technologies have unlocked the South for some of the first wind developments in the region’s history.

At the same time, wind’s affordability and unbeatable fixed-cost contracts have encouraged utilities in Alabama and Louisiana to make their first-ever wind power purchases.

Consider what we’ve accomplished since President George W. Bush extended our main federal policy driver, the Production Tax Credit, in 2005. We’ve created hundreds of American manufacturing facilities as the domestic content of wind turbines has increased 12-fold, from less than 25 percent to more than 60 percent made in the United States today.

But this American success story is suffering from congressional gridlock and an uncertain business climate. Unless Congress acts, the PTC will expire at the end of the year, in effect raising taxes on these American businesses and costing 37,000 Americans their jobs within a year.

This is already impacting hiring decisions at facilities like ZF’s.

“ZF is seeking to add 110 jobs, and the PTC would help ensure the stable policy and low taxes, which accelerate job growth and economic development for the wind energy industry,” plant manager Carolin Wolfsdoerfer said recently.

“A delay in the extension of the PTC causes a drop-off in wind turbine orders, which slows down our ability to add jobs. It also affects the entire supply chain as well. We source all of our steel from North America, so when we have a lower volume of orders our suppliers — the forging companies, the casting companies and the steel mills — will experience a downturn as well.”

Don’t let this happen.

Denise Bode is CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.

By Eric Rosenbloom

Climate change, dwindling resources, ecological and geopolitical concerns surrounding conventional sources of electricity — all are prominent worries today, as they should be.

Wind power companies and their lobbyists — and many in the environmentalist community — assure us that industrial wind can break our dependence on other fuels, reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and help build a “green” economy of 21st century jobs.

A closer look, however, reveals that wind’s actual record has not lived up to those promises — despite billions of dollars of public and private investment and an increasingly undeniable toll on the environment and on the citizens, mostly rural, who must bear the personal costs of 500-foot turbines thrust into their neighborhoods.

The wind is intermittent and variable, and when the realities of the electrical grid are taken into account, wind energy’s theoretical benefit is drastically reduced because other sources have to stay on line — and operate less efficiently — to not only provide electricity on demand, but also balance the fluctuating wind-generated supply.

Generous handouts — paid for by every American — intended to create a smattering of factory jobs (as promised, for example, in Georgia) could be much more efficiently spent to help the economy as a whole and to work towards seriously addressing concerns of resource depletion, energy security and pollution control.

Not only are industrial wind turbines a waste of money, they also have serious negative impacts.

Wind projects usually target open land or undeveloped mountain ridges. A single turbine weighs 250 tons or more and requires wide heavy-duty roads for construction and maintenance. It is supported by an underground foundation of hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced concrete. A group of turbines is a sprawling facility that dominates the landscape for miles. In addition, the facility needs a substation and high-voltage transmission lines to connect to the grid.

In addition to wind energy’s impact on rural landscapes and wild habitats, human neighbors often suffer from the noises generated by the giant machines. Leases typically include “gag orders” to keep landowners quiet about their complaints. Neighbors — many of them unsuspecting — are induced to silence in return for small “forbearance” payments.

As more people speak out, many jurisdictions are insisting that at least 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) separate the turbines from any residence to protect people’s health. Others are recognizing the necessity of limiting low-frequency and pulsating noise.

The wind industry has benefited for decades from favorable treatment by all levels of government. Yet to this day it has been unable to demonstrate the results that are still promised. Against this backdrop of a failed experiment, the clear burdens imposed by industrial wind — on our diminished landscape, on wildlife, on people’s right to enjoy their homes — are unacceptable.

It is time to hold this industry to account. Strict environmental siting and nuisance regulations are needed to limit its impacts. We need to end the many direct and indirect subsidies that prop it up.

Industrial wind has shown itself to be a great waster of resources, both natural and human. As more communities around the world learn about the harm it does and stand up to say no, our business and political leaders would do well to take heed.

The people speaking up are your neighbors, and they’re getting louder.

Eric Rosenbloom is the president of National Wind Watch Inc.

By Eric Rosenbloom

Climate change, dwindling resources, ecological and geopolitical concerns surrounding conventional sources of electricity — all are prominent worries today, as they should be.
Wind power companies and their lobbyists — and many in the environmentalist community — assure us that industrial wind can break our dependence on other fuels, reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and help build a “green” economy of 21st century jobs.
A closer look, however, reveals that wind’s actual record has not lived up to those promises — despite billions of dollars of public and private investment and an increasingly undeniable toll on the environment and on the citizens, mostly rural, who must bear the personal costs of 500-foot turbines thrust into their neighborhoods.
The wind is intermittent and variable, and when the realities of the electrical grid are taken into account, wind energy’s theoretical benefit is drastically reduced because other sources have to stay on line — and operate less efficiently — to not only provide electricity on demand, but also balance the fluctuating wind-generated supply.
Generous handouts — paid for by every American — intended to create a smattering of factory jobs (as promised, for example, in Georgia) could be much more efficiently spent to help the economy as a whole and to work towards seriously addressing concerns of resource depletion, energy security and pollution control.
Not only are industrial wind turbines a waste of money, they also have serious negative impacts.
Wind projects usually target open land or undeveloped mountain ridges. A single turbine weighs 250 tons or more and requires wide heavy-duty roads for construction and maintenance. It is supported by an underground foundation of hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced concrete. A group of turbines is a sprawling facility that dominates the landscape for miles. In addition, the facility needs a substation and high-voltage transmission lines to connect to the grid.
In addition to wind energy’s impact on rural landscapes and wild habitats, human neighbors often suffer from the noises generated by the giant machines. Leases typically include “gag orders” to keep landowners quiet about their complaints. Neighbors — many of them unsuspecting — are induced to silence in return for small “forbearance” payments.
As more people speak out, many jurisdictions are insisting that at least 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) separate the turbines from any residence to protect people’s health. Others are recognizing the necessity of limiting low-frequency and pulsating noise.
The wind industry has benefited for decades from favorable treatment by all levels of government. Yet to this day it has been unable to demonstrate the results that are still promised. Against this backdrop of a failed experiment, the clear burdens imposed by industrial wind — on our diminished landscape, on wildlife, on people’s right to enjoy their homes — are unacceptable.
It is time to hold this industry to account. Strict environmental siting and nuisance regulations are needed to limit its impacts. We need to end the many direct and indirect subsidies that prop it up.
Industrial wind has shown itself to be a great waster of resources, both natural and human. As more communities around the world learn about the harm it does and stand up to say no, our business and political leaders would do well to take heed.
The people speaking up are your neighbors, and they’re getting louder.

25 comments Add your comment

Hillbilly D

June 13th, 2012
2:59 pm

Wind power is a good idea for some parts of the country but I don’t think it’s a good one where I live. What happens in July and August when we go 2-3 weeks without a breeze?

Bernie

June 13th, 2012
2:45 pm

Oh yes we are ripe for wind power all right. Just go and stand outside of the Georgia State Capital and get a good whiff of it. There are enough Gas Bags there creating enough wind that could easily generate enough electricity for the entire state for years to come.

curious

June 13th, 2012
2:01 pm

Every “new” technology has to have time and effort to make it viable.

Look at the computer world. When first developed (by the Government, I think), it would have required a unit as big as the pentagon to house the computer capable of what today’s hand held devices can do.

The auto industry didn’t start with a Corvette and I’m pretty sure there were many calling the idea impractical.

Mike Barnard

June 13th, 2012
1:36 pm

Eric Rosenbloom is much quoted, but looking at the sources he uses makes it obvious that he will listen to any argument against wind energy and ignore valid, peer-reviewed and solid information in support of it. On his http://www.aweo.com site, for example, he has an entire section devoted to his belief that wind turbines consumer almost as much electricity as they generate. His sources? Unlisted private correspondence and a discussion with a student on a now inaccessible blog site.

Some necessary debunking of his points:
1. Wind energy intermittency is much more predictable than the major loss of power when a large hydro, coal or nuclear plant fails either directly or through the failure of their transmission infrastructure as happens regularly. Wind are nicely predictable in time frames that grid managers actually use for management.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/The-wind-doesn’t-blow-all-the-time-Doesn’t-this-make-wind-power-ineffective/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/How-much-backup-generation-or-storage-does-a-wind-farm-require-and-how-does-that-compare-to-conventional-generation

2. Wind energy subsidies are a pittance compared to the much larger and much longer term subsidies provided to hydro, fossil fuel and nuclear generation plants and don’t even level the playing field. If those subsidies were eliminated and even a fraction of the negative externalities of fossil fuels were added into the market price, then coal plants would be shut immediately and natural gas plant construction would slow considerably, while wind energy would grow even faster than it is today.
http://www.quora.com/Clean-Energy/Renewable-Energy-What-are-the-ways-beyond-government-subsidies-that-can-help-in-making-renewable-energy-technologies-more-competitive/answer/Mike-Barnard

3. Wind farms take up less than 0.2% of the land they are constructed on and have net positive impacts on aquifers and ground water.
http://www.quora.com/How-much-land-does-1-gigawatt-of-wind-energy-require/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Do-wind-turbines-have-an-impact-on-aquifers/answer/Mike-Barnard

4. 17 major health reviews world wide and undoubtedly an 18th coming soon in Australia have found no connection between wind farms and health problems. They all agree that some people who live very close to wind farms find the noise annoying and a subset of those people get stressed by it. There’s a much stronger causative correlation between anti-wind advocates stirring up fears and people complaining about health impacts than there is between operating wind farms and health impacts.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/What-might-cause-people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-to-get-sick/answer/Mike-Barnard

5. Wind turbines produce less low frequency noise than surf on a beach, much less than driving in a car. The levels of low frequency noise produced by wind turbines can’t be heard, felt and have no health impacts.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Is-the-infrasound-emitted-by-wind-turbines-harmful-to-humans-or-animals/answer/Mike-Barnard

6. There are about 165,000 wind turbines generating clean, safe, economically sensible electricity world wide today. Wind power has quadrupled in generating capacity since 2005 and is on track to surpass world wide nuclear generating capacity by 2016. New wind energy projects are going in with 4-7 cents USD per kWh full-lifecycle costs and capacity factors in the 35-47% range. Wind turbines are part of the reason why Ontario has eliminated 70% of its CO2 from generation in the past 8 years, dropping coal from 20% of the electricity mix to 3% and on track to eliminate it entirely.
http://www.quora.com/How-effective-are-wind-turbines-compared-to-other-sources-of-energy/answer/Mike-Barnard

Tanisha

June 13th, 2012
1:10 pm

We rat hole so many $ billions on useless wars, foreign aid to countries that hate us, welfare entitlement programs that create lifetime dependency on government…things that don’t move us forward. So I see nothing wrong with redirecting a modest portion of that money to turbines to generate some electricity from “industrial wind”.

Unless you believe the U.S./Georgia population, and energy demand, will stop growing it’s hard to argue against taking advantage of every free natural resource at our disposal.

Choices

June 13th, 2012
12:26 pm

We have a choice – more fossil fuels and nuclear reactors, or renewable energy. If Rosenbloom wants to kill American jobs, that’s his business. His group has the smackings of an astroturf campaign funded by coal and oil execs.

Atlien

June 13th, 2012
11:47 am

There’s no wind resources in Georgia except on the coast, and I wouldn’t want to pay for hurricane insurance. Let’s use renewable energy where it makes sense (windbelt, sunbelt, etc.)

williebkind

June 13th, 2012
11:15 am

Well, if we educate our kids in math and science toward the goal of being number one instead of 25 in the world what will that do for us? The educated kids will want an airconditioned office, work 9 to 5, have paid holidays and vacations, receive enormous bonuses along with their large paychecks, and a retirement to travel the world. Yep, then innovation will disappear! However, do not get despondent, the progressive liberals will have government build a candle factory and issue all citizens candles for their homes. We will eat more dried fruits and berries. Liberals will teach us to love animals and not eat them. We will barter for goods and services–I will give you six eggs for a half pound of flour. Hollywood will send actors to our communities to entertain us paid for by the government. Or we can vote those looney toons out of office and build more refineries producing one formula, upgrade and build more coal plants and nuclear facilities. Drop the pay for politicians back down to 80k and tell the elected that it is a service to their community and country–not a career.

MANGLER

June 13th, 2012
11:00 am

Hmmm, which is more annoying to me … whoosh whoosh whoosh, or cough cough cough? Oh that’s right, wind farms don’t generally get built near cities where most people would hear them.

Yes, some land is required to stick the turbine tower into, and there is an infrastructure of road and wire involved as well. However, unlike solar or fossil fuel, the surrounding land can be fully utilized for farming, agriculture, recreation, or anything that doesn’t rise up above the blade threshold (like, say, light industrial or commerce). Try farming or recreating in the immediate vicinity of a coal or gas power plant. They too are nosy, but also quite unfriendly to neighbors – hundreds of miles away not just next door.

As for the argument against tourists wanting to see a turbine near the ocean … really? You don’t go to the beach to look back inland. Or in hilly regions where a skyline of blades spinning would ruin a particular view? Again, these don’t get built in lush forests or Yosemite. Heck, paint them green or blue so the blend better.

zeke

June 13th, 2012
10:23 am

REALLY? NOT! Another agenda project that will have little or no effect on the economy, energy usage or anything else but a waste of taxpayer money! And how will you defend the myriad lawsuits surely to come from enviro nuts?? Just saying!