Because windpower does not emit toxins into the air and its source of
energy is recurrent, it offers the promise of a clean, renewable
alternative to fossil fuels, along with the significant environmental
problems they generate. Renewable energy has a long contrapuntal
history, of course. A few hundred years ago, timber seemed
inexhaustible, but our demand made short work of the supply for energy
production. Coal, too, is renewable, but again, our demand will at some
time overrun supply—and our meager lifespans won't extend the tens of
millions of years necessary to replenish it. A few generations ago,
hydroelectric dams were all the rage. While these do produce a lot of
electricity from a renewable source, they are so environmentally
damaging that many are now being dismantled, at taxpayer expense.
Into this breach comes windpower—if it can produce enough electricity
and if it is, on the whole, environmentally benign. Herein lies the
problem, weighing costs against benefits. If the wind industry is
successful with its campaign in the uplands of the eastern US, thousands
of mammoth wind turbines, each over forty-stories tall, will soon loom
for hundreds, even thousands of miles atop the most beautiful and
environmentally important ridges of the East, visible for scores of
miles, imposing high risk to millions of birds and bats which will have
to run this gauntlet twice annually. These ridges typically form the
backbone for numerous large and unbroken patches of forest—which are the
last "best" places to maintain ecologically significant tracts of
scarce, very valuable forest interior habitat. For each huge wind
turbine recently erected on Eastern forested ridgetops, more than four
acres of forest were bulldozed. But the impact on forest-interior
habitat was much greater: the deleterious "edge-effects" from each
turbine clearing and consequent access roads actually contribute to an
average loss of nearly fifteen acres of forest-interior habitat per
turbine.
At the same time, despite this intrusiveness, such windplants will
contribute only a small and diminishing percentage of the region's total
electricity needs because they will produce only "a piddling amount of
electricity" relative to our demand. The rush to site industrial wind
facilities in the East seems unnecessary, especially given that the
development potential in the upper Midwest alone would dwarf the total
output of all wind energy facilities ever likely to be built in the
eastern United States.
Nonetheless, there is a clamor for wind initiatives in the East, fueled
by uninformed wishful thinking of well-intentioned advocates for clean,
renewable energy, as well as by extraordinarily lucrative
government-induced programs offering tax credits and other means to
shelter income for wind investors—which are not indexed to any
reductions in the mining or burning of fossil fuels.
Windpower would not exist in its present industrial form without these
"incentives." The relatively feckless energy produced is a front for the
real business of generating tax avoidance schemes benefiting a few at
the expense of many, while playing havoc with the environment while
claiming to be saving it. The industry is in fact a spiritual descendant
of Enron, the "energy" company that, before its demise, owned and
operated the nation's largest collection of wind facilities; it
pioneered the tax shelter as a commodity.
In pursuit of a financial bonanza, the wind industry fiercely resists
any federal or state regulation guiding windplant installation. To
protect their investment potential, eliminate the perception of negative
effects, and neutralize their critics, wind developers have unleashed a
sophisticated public relations campaign permeated with false and
misleading claims, appealing to those hoping for the benefits of a
safer, more healthful alternative to the mining and burning of fossil
fuels. This campaign has helped build a political alliance attractive to
many politicians, who give the impression their bills will result in
improved public policy (but really reinforce the comfort of the status
quo, especially for the coal industry). The same politicians bestow
government-sponsored financial incentives which wind investors seek.
This cycle exemplifies much that is problematic about national and state
policies, where corporate lobbyists influence lawmakers to gain
financial reward at the expense of public well being. The zeal for
maximal profit now too often overrides the quest for responsible
citizenship.
After the fact law suits brought because of predictable windplant
nuisances are difficult, expensive, and time consuming. These massive
windplants often precipitate incivility, pitting neighbor against
neighbor. A major reason for government to exist is to mitigate—even
anticipate—this incivility. The failure of many local governments to
provide appropriate leadership on this issue is appalling. Regulatory
agencies should not use the failures of local government to shun their
responsibility to protect the public.
To better understand the wind industry's public relations campaign and
its implications for public policy, and to provide the public with
better information about the industry itself, here is a list of the most frequent false and misleading claims the wind industry makes on its behalf, accompanied by an analysis of each. Ethanol Ethanol is produced biologically by fermenting sugar with Saccharomyces
yeasts. Under anaerobic (meaning in the absence of oxygen) conditions,
when yeast metabolize sugar, they produce ethanol and carbon dioxide.
Bioethanol (meaning ethanol production derived from crops) is the most
common renewable fuel today and is derived from corn grain (starch) and
sugar cane (sucrose) [1]. Thus, ethanol is an inherently renewable
eco-friendly resource, contributing nothing in itself to greenhouse
gases. However, a study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T)
concludes that if every vehicle in the U.S. ran on ethanol-based fuel,
the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would
likely increase. You read that right, widespread use of E85 would likely result in an
increase in respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations. Stanford University atmospheric chemist Mark Z. Jacobson, author of the study said [2]:
“Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will
reduce global warming and air pollution, but our results show that a
high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health
than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”
Jacobson used a sophisticated 3-D atmospheric computer model that
accounted for the transport of tailpipe emissions across the U.S. along
with chemical and radiative transformations in the atmosphere – key
components that have been neglected in previous studies. He combined the
ambient concentrations with health effects and population data to
simulate air quality in the year 2020, when ethanol-powered vehicles are
expected to be widely available in the U.S. He then determined the
health risks due to gasoline and ethanol, and analyzed the results at
high resolution in Los Angeles and at lower resolution in the entire
U.S. Jacobson explained that:
“… chemicals that come out of a tailpipe are affected by a variety of
factors, including chemical reactions, temperatures, sunlight, clouds,
wind and precipitation. In addition, overall health effects depend on
exposure to these airborne chemicals, which varies from region to
region. Ours is the first ethanol study that takes into account
population distribution and the complex environmental interactions.”
The study results show that converting to E85 (85% ethanol, 15%
gasoline) could result in higher ozone-related asthma, hospitalization
and mortality. The death rate increases about 9% in Los Angeles and 4%
in the U.S. over projected death rates with gasoline vehicles. E85 vehicles reduced atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene
and butadiene, but increased two others, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for
gasoline. In some parts of the country (Los Angeles and the Northeast),
E85 use was projected in increase ozone levels. The oxidant ozone is a
well-known air pollutant. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
ozone inhalation is associated with respiratory tract inflammation and
functional alterations of the lung [3]. The increased levels of ozone
were partially offset by decreased levels in the Southeast. Nonetheless,
future E85 use may be a greater overall public health risk than
gasoline. Jacobson concludes that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality
over future gasoline vehicles and that unburned ethanol emissions from
E85 may result in a global-scale source of acetaldehyde larger than that
of direct emissions. Brazil is the only country in the world where a large-scale ethanol
fuel program, introduced in 1979, has been implemented. By 1997,
approximately 4 million Brazilian automobiles ran on neat ethanol (100%
ethanol) and another 9 million ran on an ethanol-gasoline blend (22%
ethanol) [4]. Since the introduction of ethanol fuel in Brazil, several
studies on air quality have been conducted that confirm Jacobson’s
recent projections. In 1990, the concentration of ambient acetaldehyde was determined to
be the most abundant carbonyl in three major cities of Brazil [5].
Indeed, acetaldehyde concentrations in urban areas of Brazil were
substantially higher than concentrations measured elsewhere in the
world, and was thought to be the result of large-scale ethanol fuel use.
A more recent study measuring the ambient concentrations of up to 61
carbonyls in Rio de Janeiro found that the most abundant were
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde [6]. The authors ranked measured carbonyls
with respect to ozone formation potential and reaction with OH and
found that ozone formation is dominated by formaldehyde (43% of total)
followed by acetaldehyde (32%). In children, repeated short-term exposure to ozone may damage
developing lungs and may lead to permanent reductions in lung function
[7]. Indeed, time spent outside in areas of high ozone is associated
with a higher incidence of asthma than areas of low ozone. Adults
exposed to ozone exhibit impaired lung function and irritative lower
airway symptoms [8]. Ozone exposure has been associated with an
increased number of hospital admissions [9-12] E85 clearly has no advantages: there is no potential carbon
savings and reduced impact on global warming because of the harvesting
and transportation of corn, E85 raises the cost of our food in almost
every respect because corn is used as a major feedstock for our
livestock industry. However,
although most everyone is all for decreased dependence on fossil fuel
energy, it
shouldn’t come at the expense of our health. There are alternatives, including natural gas and coal liquefication, and Thermal Depolymerization. |
