An Environmental Choice

For the sake of this discussion, let’s just assume that we are in agreement on this much: a) that there IS such a thing as global warming, b) that it IS mostly man-made, and c) that we need to do something meaningful about it, ASAP. OK, so what should we do?

Well, how about industrial wind power?

On the surface wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a free, clean, renewable source of energy, etc. And wind power developers promote it by saying that it will reduce emissions from fossil fuel utility plants. Sounds good!

Well, the developers’ promise turns out to be inaccurate — but let’s just pretend that it is true. The question still remains: is wind power a good environmental (and financial) choice?

The fact is that we actually have several options available to us to deal with our energy consumption and global warming problems. To continue to keep it simple here, we will look at just two. Then you decide which is better for you, your community, and our planet.

CHOICE #1: Industrial Wind Facilities

The US government would like to have wind power supply about 5% of our current usage of electricity. This would require at least 100,000 1.5 MW wind turbines.

Here are just some of the consequences and costs of 100,000± industrial wind turbines — The environmental effects of: Æ building hundreds of miles of roads, etc.; Æ removing hundreds of thousands of trees, etc.; Æ excavating 350 million± cubic yards of earth (plus bedrock dynamiting), etc. (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the production & delivery of 250 billion± pounds of concrete (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the manufacture & delivery of 30 billion± lbs. of steel (for the towers); Æ the refinement & delivery of 200 million± gallons of oil (each turbine uses oil); Æ the gas used and exhausts emitted for all other transportation; Æ having to build hundreds of miles of new transmission lines, etc.

The cost to taxpayers between government subsidies and higher electric rates: $20± Billion The cost to citizens for the loss of natural views, wildlife, peace & quiet:PRICELESS!

CHOICE #2: Ban Most Incandescent Light Bulbs

Doing this would save MORE than the energy generated by the 100,000+ wind towers above!

[Surprisingly, most light bulb manufacturers favor this (e.g. NY Times: March 14, 2007 “A US Alliance to Update the Light Bulb”).]

Apply the subsidy money earmarked for wind power to genuinely benefit the environment (e.g. alternative energy research) and we could make some real progress here. [A variation of Choice #2 is that the government could put a $5 tax on every incandescent bulb sold.]

Which do you think is the simplest, least expensive, and best environmental choice? john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
PS — I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on an Adirondack lake. No wind farms are proposed for my community, so this is not a NIMBY issue to me. To research this for yourself, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are reported at such sites as: , , , .