Air Quality Keeps Getting Better, But Wind Turbines Do Have Drawbacks

Remember how smelly diesel trucks used to be and how loudly their engines clattered? Remember those photos of the Pittsburg skyline with smokestacks belching black smoke from the steel mills and the dense black clouds that hovered over the hills of the city? Do you recall the firehouses on the Cuyahoga River that runs though Cleveland, firehouses built because the river was in the habit of catching fire four times a year?

These were a few of the memories that came to mind as I read yesterday's Energy Bad Boys' column titled Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert. And the clever subhead: Hot air from the wind indusry.

The column begins, "A few weeks ago, we wrote about how Gallup polling found 66 percent of Americans think the environment is getting worse despite the fact that air quality in the United States has improved dramatically since the 1970’s. This improvement was due in large part to the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, as a reader noted."

The authors argue that if the goal is to avoid harmful warming, why build something that causes immediate, noticeable local warming for people, animals, and plants living near the turbines today — especially when the climate benefit is small and far in the future?

They estimate the extra warming from all those turbines could cost the U.S. economy $72–75 billion per year in damages (based on earlier studies of warming costs).

Here's another consideration when discussing wind and solar. The size of their physical "footprint" compared to the energy they produce.

Click chart to enlarge

Bottom Line

Wind (and solar) are often hyped as planet-saving technologies, but they come with their own real, immediate temperature impacts. Instead of spending trillions on wind, the authors strongly suggest we should choose nuclear power instead, because it produces reliable electricity with almost no emissions and no local air-mixing warming effect.

I mention these things because our current Minnesota energy policies include a moratorium on nuclear (based on fear driven by misinformation) and a mandate to be "Net Zero" by 2040. [Fwiw, "Net Zero" in environmental law and policy refers to a state where the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere by human activities is balanced by an equivalent amount removed from the atmosphere over a specified period.]  

And however you slice it, wind and solar still have that major issue of intermittency so that it may not be there in the moments you need it most.

Related Links

Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert

Groups align to lift Minnesota's nuclear energy ban

Is Our Energy Grid at Risk?

Wind farms pictured: Northern Iowa, Southern California, West Texas, San Gorgonia Pass