Wind power deconstruction
The idea of a renewable energy source like wind gets me really excited. It’s clean, doesn’t pollute and is limitless. — Kate Smolski, Greenpeace
I’m not the first, and I wont be the last, educated liberal with an axe to grind regarding Greenpeace. When a group tries to position itself as a rational alternative, they need some basic concepts, such as information on manufacturing, physics, and weather systems.
It’s clean: To use. Mostly. It will still probably need lubricants, paint, and so forth. And the land for wind farms could be used for other things, such as, oh, growing food.
doesn’t pollute: After it’s made! But you don’t plant a seed and grow a wind turbine. It’s heavy industry to build one, move one, and install one, and smelting, fiberglass construction, metalworking, trucking, and any other conceivable, related technology are all energy-intensive and polluting.
is limitless: What are we talking about? Magic? The energy has to come from somewhere. Saying “We can take as much energy out of the wind as we like with no side effects” is as daft as saying “We can put any amount of CO2 into the atmosphere without side effects” or “There are an infinite amount of American Bison, it’s OK to shoot them from trains.” Every joule taken out of the air changes weather patterns. It slows down airflow, might easily have dramatic effects on microclimates, and maybe even the macro climate. I don’t have the figures on this — anyone know of estimates of how many wind turbines it would take to cause significant climate change?
When arguing for new technologies, you are usually arguing that something is better. Rarely is something perfect. You could say that reading a book at night to the light of two LEDs is better than powering a whole CRT to watch TV (even if you’re watching Nova) — it has less impact on the planet. But it’s not perfect. Arguing that people in warm climates should scatter a few tomato seeds on the ground in the spring and basically ignore them, then harvest the crop, seems perfect, but those seeds take time and energy to process, prepare, package, and something-that-means-transport-that-starts-with-P. So, again, it’s just better, not perfect.
If Greenpeace do not have the numbers, they need to find them. Wind is going to be a stopgap at best. I expect it would be an environmental catastrophe if 100% of the world’s energy were to be derived from wind power. Wind is better than coal. No doubt. But what’s better than wind? Fusion, for instance. But that’s “nuclear”, so Greenpeace would probably fight against it, tooth and nail.
Email subscription
February 19th, 2008 at 9:47 am
1. “…anyone know of estimates of how many wind turbines it would take to cause significant climate change?”
I’m not sure, but I found these images instructive:
Here’s Palm Springs today.
And here it is during the Ford administration.
The truth seems clear.
2. “something-that-means-transport-that-starts-with-P.”
Ptransport. The P is silent. The first one anyway.
3. I am not creeped out by you referring to Greenpeace with plural verbs.
That is all.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Follow Dave’s pictures, they are quite funny.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am