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

The Fossil Fuel Reality Check: Here's Why “Eliminate Oil Companies” Is Easier Said Than Done

We hear it constantly: oil companies are the enemy, and the fastest path to a green future is to shut them down yesterday. Yet most of the loudest voices seem unaware of how deeply fossil fuels are woven into everyday materials and processes that even “green” technologies depend on. The uncomfortable truth, laid out clearly by energy scholar Vaclav Smil in Numbers Don’t Lie, is that while solar and wind have matured and can now be added quickly to decarbonize electricity, several massive economic sectors have no realistic non-carbon alternatives that can replace fossil fuels rapidly and at the required global scale.

Consider long-distance transportation. Jetliners run on aviation kerosene; container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers burn diesel, bunker fuel, or liquefied natural gas. There are no batteries or hydrogen systems ready to power these vessels across oceans at the scale of today’s fleet. The same fossil fuels fire the massive rotating kilns that produce more than four billion tons of cement every year and provide the coke needed to smelt more than a billion tons of primary iron in blast furnaces—the very steel used to build wind-turbine towers and monopiles.

Then there’s agriculture and manufacturing. Nearly 200 million tons of ammonia (the backbone of synthetic fertilizer that feeds roughly half the world) and about 300 million tons of plastics start with compounds derived from natural gas and crude oil. Even space heating in much of the world still runs on natural gas. These are not niche uses. They are foundational.

Smil puts the scale in perspective: displacing roughly 10 billion tons of fossil carbon annually is fundamentally different from scaling up smartphones or electric cars. The latter happened in years; the former is a multi-decade challenge. Wishful thinking can't change chemistry or physics. Pretending we can simply “ban” oil companies ignores that the steel in wind turbines, the fuel in cargo ships, the fertilizer in our fields, and the plastics in our hospitals. They all trace back to the same hydrocarbons activists want to eliminate overnight.

Energy transitions are inevitable, but they must be guided by numbers, not slogans. Understanding the full scope of fossil fuels’ roles isn’t climate denial—it’s honesty. Until we acknowledge these dependencies, we’re not solving the problem; we’re just shouting at it.

Related Links

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Where Does Plastic Come From?

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics

--The Graduate (1967)

Do you remember that scene from The Graduate? It takes place at Dustin Hoffman's grad party. For me it was one of the most memorable lines in the film. "Plastics."

Most of us at this point in human history take it for granted. We grew up in a world where plastic is everywhere, and we never give it a thought as to where it came from. That is why I wrote Monday's post Where Do Plastics Come From?

All across the country, Duluth included, cities are working to eliminate lead pipes, most of it currently being replaced with PVC and other plastic materials or (expensive) copper. Likewise, we've been replacing lead paint with latex paints, which are polymeric. (Synthesized hydrocarbons.) 

Plastics are exceedingly versatile materials used across numerous industries due to their durability, flexibility, and low cost. We hardly realize how extensively plastics are used, hence the following list is a reminder. 

1. Packaging (40% of global plastic use):
• Single-use plastics like bottles, bags, food wrappers, and containers (e.g., polyethylene, PET).
• Used for food, beverages, cosmetics, and consumer goods due to lightweight, protective properties.
2. Construction (20%):
• Pipes, insulation, flooring, and window frames (e.g., PVC, polyethylene).
• Valued for durability, corrosion resistance, and insulation.
3. Automotive (10%):
• Interior components, bumpers, dashboards (e.g., polypropylene, ABS).
• Reduces vehicle weight, improving fuel efficiency.
4. Electronics (6%):
• Casings for phones, computers, and appliances (e.g., polycarbonate, ABS).
• Provides insulation and lightweight durability.
5. Textiles (7%):
• Synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon for clothing, carpets, and ropes.
• Offers strength and flexibility.
6. Medical (5%):
• Syringes, IV bags, prosthetics, and sterile packaging (e.g., PVC, polypropylene).
• Ensures hygiene and biocompatibility.
7. Agriculture (3%):
• Mulch films, greenhouse covers, and irrigation pipes (e.g., polyethylene).
• Enhances crop protection and water efficiency.
8. Other Uses (9%):
• Includes toys, furniture, and industrial applications (e.g., acrylics, polyurethane).
• Versatile for custom molding and design.

In 2021, ~390 million tons of plastic were produced worldwide, with packaging dominating due to its widespread use in consumer goods.

These plastic products are generated by processing crude oil and natural gas. When Greenpeace says they want to put the oil companies out of business, they hardly realize what they are saying. Furthermore, we'd also be unable to convert wind into energy or generate solar power because hydrocarbons are necessary for wind turbines and solar panels.

Hydrocarbons in Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

Hydrocarbons, primarily derived from petroleum and natural gas, are integral to the production of wind turbines and solar panels, as they are used to manufacture plastics and other materials. Here’s a breakdown:

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines rely on hydrocarbons for key components, particularly plastics and composites:

1. Blades:
• Made from composite materials like fiberglass-reinforced polyester or epoxy resins (both petroleum-derived).
• These composites use hydrocarbons for the resin matrix (e.g., epoxy derived from benzene, a petroleum product) and reinforcing fibers.
• A typical 50-meter blade contains ~20-25% resin by weight, equating to ~2-3 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per blade.
2. Nacelle and Tower Components:
• The nacelle (housing the generator) uses polycarbonate and polyurethane for casings and insulation, both derived from hydrocarbons. 
• Coatings and paints (petroleum-based) protect against corrosion.
• As with everything that has moving parts, lubricants are necessary. The synthetic gear lubricants inside the nacelle must be changed periodically just like the oil in your car engine. 
3. Manufacturing and Transport:
• Hydrocarbons are used in lubricants, mold-releasing agents, and energy for manufacturing processes.
• Transporting turbine components relies on fossil fuel-powered ships, trucks, and cranes.

Quantification:

• A single 2 MW wind turbine may require ~50-100 tons of materials, with ~10-15% being hydrocarbon-based plastics or composites (5-15 tons per turbine).
• For a 100 MW wind farm (~50 turbines), this translates to ~250-750 tons of hydrocarbon-derived materials.

Solar Panels

Solar panels also depend on hydrocarbons for various components:

1. Encapsulation and Backsheets:
• Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), a petroleum-derived plastic, is used to encapsulate solar cells, protecting them from moisture and UV damage.
• Backsheets often use polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) or polyester (PET), both hydrocarbon-based.
2. Frames and Mountings:
• Frames are typically aluminum, but mounting systems may use polypropylene or PVC for components like junction boxes or cable insulation.
3. Manufacturing:
• Hydrocarbons are used in solvents, adhesives, and energy-intensive processes like silicon purification (requiring ~100-150 kWh/kg of silicon, often powered by fossil fuels in many regions).
• Polysilicon production relies on trichlorosilane, a hydrocarbon-derived chemical.

Quantification:

• A typical 350 W solar panel contains ~0.5-1 kg of plastic (EVA, PET, etc.), equivalent to ~0.5-1 kg of hydrocarbon-derived materials.
• For a 1 MW solar installation (~2,857 panels), this equates to ~1.4-2.9 tons of hydrocarbon-based plastics.
• Additional hydrocarbons are used indirectly in manufacturing and transport, but exact amounts vary by region and energy mix.

Broader Context

• Energy Input: Both wind and solar rely on fossil fuels for manufacturing. For example, producing a wind turbine generates ~10-20 tons of CO2 equivalent, and a solar panel ~0.3-0.6 tons CO2 per kW, largely due to hydrocarbon-based materials and energy.
• Recycling Challenges: Plastics in turbines and panels are hard to recycle due to their composite nature, leading to waste management issues.
• Renewable Alternatives: Some research explores bio-based resins (e.g., plant-derived epoxies) for turbines or panels, but these are not yet widely adopted.

Getting rid of oil sounds like an easy and noble objective to many but as with most things, the devil is in the details.

Summary:

• Plastics, mostly hydrocarbon-derived, are critical for packaging, construction, automotive, electronics, medical, agriculture, and more.
• Wind turbines use roughly 5-15 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per 2 MW turbine, mainly in blades and casings. Solar panels generally use 1.4-2.9 tons per MW, primarily in encapsulation and backsheets.

EdNote: The information on this page was gathered from Grok (X.com LLM),  Google and years of reading.

* * * * * 

Are You Protopian, Utopian or Dystopian?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-you-protopian-utopian-or-dystopian.html

For the Birds

Painted Bunting. Courtesy John Heino

A number of years back I recall reading about a North Dakota wind turbine firm that was fined a million dollars because their wind turbine killed a predator bird of some kind that was an endangered species. I've forgotten the details now, but do recall the size of the fine.

That story came mind this morning as I read another story about how hazardous wind turbines are to birds. This prompted me to dig a little deeper into hard numbers, and here is what found. Instead of focusing on win turbines I looked at skyscrapers, windows and other human actions that kill birds. 

Actual numbers vary widely depending on the source, but here's a general summary based on the best available research.

Bird deaths from building and window collisions

It is estimated that between 365 million and 1 billion birds are killed annually by birds crashing into windows. Most deaths occur from collisions with residential and low-rise buildings, not skyscrapers. This happens because birds often cannot perceive glass as a barrier, especially when it reflects sky, trees or other vegetation.

Bird deaths from wind turbines
The estimated annual deaths from wind trbines in the U.S. is around 140,000 to 500,000 birds. In other words, wind turbines account for a much smaller fraction of total human-related bird mortality compared to buildings, cats, and vehicles.

Bird deaths from cats and cars

For comparison, outdoor cats kill an estimated 2.4 billion birds annually in the U.S. We have one cat and it's true, cats are quite skilled at reducing the bird population. As much as we love birds, we do not have a bird feeder outside our window for that very reason.

And then you have cars and trucks, which kill about 89–340 million each year. Cars are more aerodynamically designed now, but I remember how when we drove home from Grandma's house in the Fifties, my dad frequently pulled a dead sparrow from the grill of the car. It was a grim business. Back then cars had those wide, flat grills to provide airflow and keep the engine cooler. 

Bottom Line

Wind turbines do kill birds, but windows and other human-related factors like habitat loss and predation by domestic cats are far greater threats to bird populations.  

Things People Don't Realize About Wind Energy and Why We Can't Shut Down Oil Production

Creative Commons. © Hans Hillewaert

When the Biden administration recently approved the proposed Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in New Jersey, the Sierra Club rejoiced. While many who long for the elimination of fossil fuels are celebrating, it might be useful to learn more about the role oil plays with regard to the ever expanding wind turbine push.

Few people realize how much fossil fuels are required to get electricity from wind. When we look at wind turbines, those towering giants you see on wind farms, we're looking into the face of green energy. But here's the twist: while they capture wind, a totally free and eco-friendly resource, the turbines themselves are actually built and maintained using fossil fuels.

Until I read Vaclav Smil's Numbers Don't Lie, I had no idea of the degree to which fossil fuels are needed to manufacture a single wind tower, even though I was involved in the wind business to a certain extent. (AMSOIL makes gear lubes for these wind-driven power plants.)

Here's an excerpt from Smil's book.

 

Large trucks bring steel, and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats the path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures – and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5 MW turbine, the steel alone averages 150 tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator) and 500 tons for the towers.

If wind generated electricity were to supply 25% of global demand by 2030, then even with a high average capacity factor of 35% the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450,000,000 tons of steel. And that’s without counting the metal for towers, wires, and transformers for the new high voltage transmission lines that would be needed to connect it all to the grid.

Making steel also takes a ton of energy, Smil writes. It starts with sintered or pelletized iron ore that gets smelted in blast furnaces filled with coke made from coal. They also add powdered coal and natural gas to the mix. The pig iron produced in these blast furnaces is then decarbonized in basic oxygen furnaces. After that, the steel goes through continuous casting, which shapes the molten steel into rough forms of the final product. For turbine construction, the steel used typically contains about 35 gigajoules of energy per ton.

 

To make the steel required for the wind turbines we want by 2030, Smil writes, you need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million tons of coal. 

This is before we consider the 60-meter long airfoils, each of which weighs 15 tons. Making these giant blades also requires hydrocarbons--liquefied petroleum, gas or natural gas.

That's not all. Smil adds still more including the cost of fiber-reinforced composite material, water-proofing with resins, rotors and the gearbox itself. Then you have the lubricants for those gearboxes, which must be changed from time to time like the oil change on your typical car or truck, albeit not as often but on a very large scale.

Undoubtedly, and lastly, Smil suggests that a new wind turbine will generate as much energy as it took to produce it, but it will be in the form of intermittent energy production. (i.e. the turbines turn only when the wind blows.)

Generating electricity – installation, production and maintenance -- remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies. Moreover, most of these energies -- coke for iron ore smelting; coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns; naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass; diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery; lubricant for gearboxes – we have no non-fossil substitutes readily available on the requisite large commercial scale.

Smil sums up his chapter thus: For a long time to come – until all energy that is used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells comes from renewable energy sources – modern civilization will be fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels.

* * *

See: Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing Is A Humbling Warning