New Study Says Wind Turbines are Bad For The Health

[bush_cheney2004]

IF we could just point the turbines south, and speed them up, we could send all that air pollution coming across !

Still wouldn't make up for decades of filthy air and acid rain from Ontario's Nanticoke power plants crossing into the U.S.

<Cough-cough>

[waldo]

Shades of Ontario

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.

"Shades of Ontario"??? How so?

this is nothing more than British hackneyed tabloid journalism at its best! The actual source for this "article" is a database maintained by the so-called and atrociously misnamed "Renewable Energy Foundation" in the UK. We've had past crapola spun from the so-called "Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)" in past MLW threads... from this anti-wind stink tank! In actual fact, there is no formal report... apparently, miscreants from the Telegraph, no doubt aided and abetted by REF, had a go at the database and spun their best. Read the tabloid Telegraph article carefully - you won't find a direct reference to a report, a link to a report, or a direct reference associating the report to the REF. Instead you get a very vague mention of the REF. In any case, find... cite the report, hey! Sure you can!

more pointedly, even if one accepts the data and the tabloid Telegraph/REF spin, the (non-existent) "report" presumes to speak, in isolation, to direct jobs associated with wind farms. Of course, after installation, wind farms are minimally direct job intensive. The tabloid Telegraph spin completely ignores the manufacturing, supply chain, development, installation, etc., conduits and, of course, ignores all manner of separate benefits wind energy brings forward.

the actual UK government subsidies take the form of the "Renewables Obligation (RO)" ... with actual subsidy amounts directly based upon the amount of eligible renewable electricity generating companies provide.In 2011, these RO subsidies added 3.4% to the average consumers monthly electricity bill... 3.7% to medium sized business users.

Of course, whenever subsidies are spoken of, a full comparative perspective is required. One you'll never/rarely hear from the anti-wind stink tanks! In the UK case, per the latest OECD data available, the UK government's subsidies to fossil fuels increased by £500 million between 2010 and 2011 to £4.3 billion of support.

[waldo]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1275521/wind_farms_threaten_endangered_whooping_crane/

Wind Farms Threaten Endangered Whooping Crane Yet US Fish & Wildlife Service continue to approve more wind farms in that migration corridor

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/windfarms-bird-mortality-cover-up-in-the-uk.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html

Dozens of birdwatchers who travelled to a Scottish island to see an extremely rare swift have been left distraught after it was killed by a wind turbine.

and in Spain

http://www.seo.org/2012/04/24/el-grupo-local-seo-burgos-localiza-12-avutardas-muertas-bajo-un-tendido-electrico-en-la-zona-de-castrojeriz/

PAIN: 40 to 60 great bustards killed by the power lines of the Villasilos windfarm.

same response... to you: an earlier reply - here: "wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009, while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants killed more than 14 million birds."

and a new June 2013 study:

Up to half of all birds threatened by climate change

Between a quarter and a half of all birds, along with around a third of amphibians and a quarter of corals, are highly vulnerable to climate change. These findings have emerged from the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impact of global warming on life. Its results have led some researchers to warn of the need for unprecedented conservation efforts if we don't cut our emissions.

.

[waldo]

the latest wind turbine release from General Electric... incorporating an assortment of innovations and efficiency improvements, including ~25% more power generation than the previous 'best in class' turbines... and integrating short-term, grid scale battery storage. This storage capacity targets previously lost power where wind farms must 'spill power' to accommodate grid conditions - the so-called 'ramp-curtailment' scenarios... curtailment scenarios that, today, account for up to ~8.5% of all wind farm generation being lost. Effectively, this integrated battery storage enables wind farm operators to capture and store this previously lost power generation, allowing the stored electricity to be sold/fed back into the grid at a later point.

Edited July 22, 2013 by waldo

[Topaz]

In my view, the province and the wind companies didn't handle this the right way. IF they had given more of a break either on the hydro bills or property taxes for those affected by the turbines, then I don't think there would have been so many against them. When people found out how much the land owner' s were getting, everyone said where mine share. Then we found out that there is a huge surplus of hydro from these turbines and ALL of it goes to the US, at a low price. In Ontario, out of the three parties, I've only heard the NDP, say we have too high of hydro rates, compared to Manitoba and Quebec.

[Wild Bill]

Still wouldn't make up for decades of filthy air and acid rain from Ontario's Nanticoke power plants crossing into the U.S.

<Cough-cough>

Now BC, usually we agree but in this case, I differ!

Sure two wrongs don't make a right but still, shouldn't we consider the differences in scale? Uncle Sam, having 10 times the population, tends to have 10 times the smoke stacks.

You sound like an elephant who, having wet the bed, demands the mouse he was sleeping with share the blame!

What's more, Canada has done far more than many American states who share borders on the Great Lakes to clean up pollution. You can still visit the Canadian side of the Niagara River and see the raw sewage on the American side dripping out of pipes that empty directly out of the Gorge.

Take a walk some morning in Windsor, then go back to Detroit in the afternoon. Get a good look around both places.

<cough-cough-puke!>

Wasn't that long ago when some rivers actually caught fire! Don't recall any doing that on the Canadian side.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Wild Bill

[Moonlight Graham]

Cutting and pasting stuff from a website when one has no understanding of the material is not that helpful. Being able to express an argument in one's own words demonstrates an understanding of the material which waldo does not have.

Waldo backs up a large portion of his claims with evidence he links to. Any way you try to slice it, it's better than making claims, such as the ones you make below, that have no sources, or that you even admit are guesses and not fact:

The problem with wind is there are no benefits since it is basically useless as a power source (expensive, unreliable).

If wind actually provided useful amounts of power then it would be a different discussion.

That said, I suspect most of the effects are nocebo effects

(i.e. caused by people believing that there negative effects - there is no physical basis for the effects).

[scribblet]

Why were these turbines ordered removed but are still there and how many others are there because regulations were ignored or overlooked.

http://windsor.ctvnews.ca/questions-surround-wind-turbine-removal-near-chatham-airport-1.1329519

[cybercoma]

There's over 300 wind turbines in Chatham-Kent. Transport Canada ordered the removal of 8 because they're too close to the airport. The turbine owners are looking to discuss the matter with Transport Canada because they don't believe they're an obstruction to flight traffic. What point are you trying to make here?

[Icebound]

meh... wind turbines are huge and boring. They are the Vic 20 or the Betamax of power generation.

They will do for a while, but will they survive "the next big thing" whatever it might be.... Small economical nuclear, perhaps??

[Keepitsimple]

...deleted - double post

Edited August 7, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Are the people objecting to wind mills willing to go back to horse and buggy. We bought our place because we fell in love with the wind mill in our backyard. Although this one has to be decorative, it doesn't get enough wind to use but we could probably run a generator off it if we had too. My husband does not have the technology to figure out how to use it but it certainly is a lovely thing on a sunny day when it sends rays of light into my kitchen. I love it. We are on the side of a hill but I would not object to having a big one on top of the hill. We just don't have anyone sufficiently interested in setting one up. But they would not object if someone did.

I think I've mentioned this before. I don't really think you'd love a wind turbine that is over 300 feet high - 30 stories. They are incredibly huge and you don't get a full appreciation until you get close to one. Unless your hill is a mountain, the view from your kitchen window will no longer be idyllic.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[FutureCanadian]

Improved Battery technology and upgraded grids shouldn't make renewable intermittency too much of a headache.

For the OP: lulz.

[Keepitsimple]

Improved Battery technology and upgraded grids shouldn't make renewable intermittency too much of a headache.

For the OP: lulz.

How many batteries will it take to run a city - or even a small town?......the latest automobile technology weighs well over a hundred pounds and runs one car for about an hour at best......and how do you dispose of thousands upon thousands of pounds of batteries once they've reached their lifespan? And why would we want to do that......?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

apparently you don't understand electrical grids. No one with any understanding presumes wind is a stand-alone energy source... it's a part of the mix in moving away from a complete and total reliance on fossil-fuels.

A very small part, what you don't understand is the billions wasted on wind. No wind no power. LOL Actually today they are producing a little but that does not happen much. Here is a site you can watch and see how much is produce. Look at the generation by fuel.

http://www.ieso.ca/

[PIK]

How many batteries will it take to run a city - or even a small town?......the latest automobile technology weighs well over a hundred pounds and runs one car for about an hour at best......and how do you dispose of thousands upon thousands of pounds of batteries once they've reached their lifespan? And why would we want to do that......?

How about 1 house? If we had spent a fraction of the money we have spent on green energy, we could have invented a battery for house use. But I imagine hydro and unions will put a stop to that.

[FutureCanadian]

How many batteries will it take to run a city - or even a small town?......the latest automobile technology weighs well over a hundred pounds and runs one car for about an hour at best......and how do you dispose of thousands upon thousands of pounds of batteries once they've reached their lifespan? And why would we want to do that......?

Depends on the scale being used. A small house could store any excess power during intermittent demand into an electric car battery (ranging anywhere from 24-85 kWh (average household use is around 32 per day). These are all recyclable by the way. If we are talking utilities, that technology is still in its early stages but these batteries would be pretty large. Japan is testing this out right now actually. That's just one part of the puzzle though. Still need to improve grid flow and manage distribution regulations over feed-in-tariff policy and stuff like that from the household side.

[FutureCanadian]

How about 1 house? If we had spent a fraction of the money we have spent on green energy, we could have invented a battery for house use. But I imagine hydro and unions will put a stop to that.

Hypothetically, battery technology and improved solar, effeciencies etc. could mean one could go off the grid and say "eff them".

[Accountability Now]

How about 1 house? If we had spent a fraction of the money we have spent on green energy, we could have invented a battery for house use. But I imagine hydro and unions will put a stop to that.

Actually a new battery has been invented and is being tested now. Apparently if it works this may actually make wind power more feasible as the cost of the batteries decrease substantially. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/29/technology-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html)

Ironically I know the one of the guys that invented it as we went to University together. Nice guy....glad he may get rich off this.

[TimG]

Actually a new battery has been invented and is being tested now.

The have been many many promising technologies developed over the years. Few have made the leap from concept to mass production. That is why we are still using batteries based on technologies developed 40+ years ago.

[TimG]

If we are talking utilities, that technology is still in its early stages but these batteries would be pretty large.

Grid scale storage is not cost effective nor is it likely to be cost effective in the near to medium term outside of specialized use cases (maybe in 50 years). It is cheaper to build a gas plant that balances the load than to build a bank of batteries that can replace those wind turbines for hours at a time.

Still need to improve grid flow and manage distribution regulations over feed-in-tariff policy and stuff like that from the household side.

Preferential feed-in tariffs are a policy that is only workable if the power that qualifies for the special tariffs is a tiny fraction of total production. They become unaffordable otherwise. It also makes no sense to make capital investments that depend on future voters being willing to subsidize these costs. A real revolution can only occur when the unsubsidized cost of renewable power is less than fossil fuels. We are long way from that point today once you factor in the cost of balancing the intermittent power produced by renewables. Edited August 13, 2013 by TimG

[Topaz]

All these groups that are against the turbines should take advantage of the situation with the province and demand lowering hydro bills, especially the delivery charges, which can be over half of one's bill!! They may be able to stop some turbines from springing up, i've heard that at least 5000 in ontario this year. The discount they put on the hydro bills is nothing because they upped the rates. The turbines don't bother me as much as the hydro bill.......much stress....think maybe for health reasons I could 50% discount??

[TimG]

The turbines don't bother me as much as the hydro bill.......much stress....think maybe for health reasons I could 50% discount??

People who support government spending on useless "green" energy or people who support the NIMBYs that oppose infrastructure projects should pay double. It is only fair because those are the people that are making the bills go up. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

1) Grid scale storage is not cost effective nor is it likely to be cost effective in the near to medium term outside of specialized use cases (maybe in 50 years). It is cheaper to build a gas plant that balances the load than to build a bank of batteries that can replace those wind turbines for hours at a time.

2) Preferential feed-in tariffs are a policy that is only workable if the power that qualifies for the special tariffs is a tiny fraction of total production. They become unaffordable otherwise. It also makes no sense to make capital investments that depend on future voters being willing to subsidize these costs. A real revolution can only occur when the unsubsidized cost of renewable power is less than fossil fuels. We are long way from that point today once you factor in the cost of balancing the intermittent power produced by renewables.

Haven't figured out multiquote on mobile so I'll just number this

1) I don't know about 50 years, from the stuff I've read it's still early but VC funding is accelerating. I'm not sure about combined costs for the renewables+batteries. I don't know if those necessarily have to be funded and run by the utilities as a sole consumer for the market. I don't know enough. I can safely say I'm not an expert. Haha.

2) This was pretty much my point but I wasn't very detailed about it. It's a complex situation because you have public and private interests and public and private utilities as well as energy companies. Legalized monopolies have to maintain a certain levels of revenues for defined profits and capital investment, but incentivzed measures like FIT are counterintuitive to this. But then again the municipal allows this but also finds it necessary to increase or allow an alternative form of production. How is that weighed and completed?

[TimG]

1) I don't know about 50 years, from the stuff I've read it's still early but VC funding is accelerating.

VC funding poured into fuel cells in the 90s. In the 2000s solar was all the rage. These technologies have improved but there has been no 'game changing' tech developed that addresses the fundamental economics which makes them great ideas of little practical use outside of special use cases. There is no reason to believe that investment in 'grid scale batteries' will play out any differently.

It's a complex situation because you have public and private interests and public and private utilities as well as energy companies.

It is not so complicated. It costs money to produce and distribute power. Increase those costs and power bills go up. Increase those costs too much and voters revolt. Renewables cost a lot more than fossil fuels so no matter what games you play to increase the % of renewables in the public will see higher power bills and will eventually turn on the politicians who raised them. That makes renewables a dodgy investment until the economics makes the viable without subsidies. We are not there yet. We may get there eventually but until then government involvement should be limited to funding R&D into cheaper tech rather than trying to get the existing inadequate tech deployed. Edited August 14, 2013 by TimG