Nonsense and Rumors About Wind Power

“Nonsense and Rumors About Wind Power” is not a super-fact post but just what I consider interesting information regarding nonsense and rumors about wind power.

Wind power has been on the receiving end of false claims, nonsense, and strange rumors for a while. It is not the only energy source maligned by false information. Another example is Nuclear Power. However, this post is about some of the incorrect claims about wind power that I have come across. I am starting out with three bizarre claims.

Nonsense and Rumors About Wind Power
Photo by Kervin Edward Lara on Pexels.com

False claim : Wind Power requires an additional power source to operate (like a diesel engine)

This bizarre claim is akin to saying that sailboats need a diesel motor to sail. If you get something to rotate (a turbine), whether it is pushed by running water, wind, or an engine, and you connect it to a coil in a magnetic field (generator), you get electricity. This is high school physics. You don’t need anything else. It is the principle behind hydro power, nuclear power, coal power, gas power, and wind power.

For a wind power station, the moving air rotates the wind turbine’s blades. That turning motion spins a generator just downwind from the blades (or rotor) in the nacelle, which also stores all the other working parts of a turbine. The generator produces electricity. When you read about how wind power works it says nothing about an additional power source needed (or click here).

For fun let’s also ask Google AI : Does wind power use other energy sources while operating?

Google AI: No, wind power itself does not use any other energy sources while operating; it solely harnesses the kinetic energy from the wind to generate electricity, meaning it only relies on wind to function as its primary energy source.

However, it should be noted that wind power is intermittent, so if it is part of a power grid other power sources or energy storage/batteries may need to be used more when wind speeds are too low to generate electricity.

Also, as is true with any power source, energy is needed when constructing wind power plants. In addition, a small amount of external electricity may be needed for startup and maintenance. It is possible that these facts were misunderstood and turned into “Wind Power requires an additional power source to operate” by confused listeners.

Nonsense and Rumors About Wind Power
Photo by Nitin Sharma on Pexels.com

False claim : Wind Power generates less power than it consumes

This is another bizarre claim made by confused politicians (here in Texas). If wind power generated less power than it consumed, why would anyone invest in it?

The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) states that the average wind farm will pay back the energy that was used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation. This article in the journal Renewable Energy found that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years.

For fun let’s ask ChatGPT this question : Does wind Power generate less power than it consumes?

ChatGPT : Wind power does not consume more energy than it generates. In fact, wind power is one of the most efficient and sustainable energy sources available. The energy required to manufacture, install, and maintain wind turbines is small compared to the energy they produce over their lifespan. This is known as their energy return on investment (EROI), which is quite favorable for wind energy.

Nonsense and Rumors About Wind Power
Photo by Andrew Del Castilho on Pexels.com

False claim : The sound from wind power stations cause cancer

Donald Trump stated on April 2, 2019, in a speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee that “The noise (from windmills) causes cancer.” A poll was conducted in Iowa, a state where wind power is thriving and only 1% of registered voters agreed with Trump that wind turbines cause cancer, 84% disagreed and 15% did not know. So, it is not a widespread belief, but it does exist. The claim was quickly debunked by the American Cancer Society.

On the contrary, the pollution from the fossil fuel power plants that wind power will likely replace causes cancer.

Just for fun let’s ask ChatGPT this question : Does windpower cause cancer?

ChatGPT : No, wind power does not cause cancer. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that wind turbines or wind energy have any connection to causing cancer. This misconception might stem from misinformation or misunderstandings about how wind turbines work. Wind power is a clean and renewable energy source, and studies have shown that it does not pose significant health risks.

Some people have raised concerns about possible health effects from wind turbines, such as “wind turbine syndrome,” which includes symptoms like headaches or sleep disturbances attributed to the noise or vibrations of turbines. However, extensive studies have not found conclusive evidence to support these claims either. The noise levels and vibrations from wind turbines are generally well within safety limits set by health and environmental standards.

Solar panels and wind turbines.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Next, I am going to focus on three claims which are partially true but that are greatly exaggerated and need to be understood in context.

False claim : Wind power kills an enormous amount of birds causing an environmental disaster

Wind power killing birds is often presented as if it is a huge environmental problem and only a problem for wind power. When presented this way it is false. A study made in 2012 claimed that fossil fuels killed 24 million birds per year in the US, which correspond to 35 times more birds per GWh than wind power kills. That means that wind power saves the life of birds as it replaces fossil fuels.

In addition, the biggest bird killer is not fossil fuels but cats. Cats kill 5,600 times more birds than wind power stations and 77 times more birds than fossil fuels. See the graph from Wikipedia below. The problem with wind power plants killing birds should be addressed (and has been addressed) but let’s be honest about the scale of the problem.

The graph shows that Wind Turbines kill 328,000 birds per year in the US, Electrocutions kill 6,250,000 birds, Collisions with powerlines kill 32,500,000 birds, Poison kills 72,000,000 birds, Vehicle collisions kill 214,500,000 birds, Collisions with glass kill 676,500,000 birds, and cats kill 1,850,700,000 birds per year in the US.
From Wikipedia: Universiteit van Nederland, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

False claim : Wind power is only a marginal energy source

Wind power currently accounts for around 7.8%  of the world’s electricity up from 3.5% in 2015 and 1.63% in 2010. Wind power accounts for 10% of US electricity and 57.7% of Denmark’s electricity. It may also some as a surprise to some that in the fossil fuel capital of the world, the great state of Texas, where I live, wind represented 28.6 percent of the energy generation in 2023, second only to natural gas (41.8 percent). That is not a marginal energy source.

I can add that Texans are in general not favorable towards wind, and the local politicians are hostile towards wind. Fossil fuel is after all our bread and butter. Why wind power is so prominent in Texas is because of the Texas ERCOT system in which energy sources compete on price and the cheapest always goes first. In practice that means wind goes first.

Wind turbines, sunset in the background.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

False claim : Wind power is extremely expensive

Wind power used to be expensive. It has been and still is subsidized by the government, but that is basically true for all energy sources, not just wind. Below is the average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy according to Lazard (from Wikipedia). Notice that the light blue line indicates that wind power is pretty cheap.

The image shows 8 graphs representing the price of Nuclear, Gas (peaker), Thermal Solar, Coal, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Solar Panels, and Wind. Today Wind is the cheapest.
Mir-445511, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons.

To see the Super Facts click here


Electrification

This is not one of the super fact posts. It is just a post related to an interest of mine that is informational. I volunteer for an organization called Citizens Climate Lobby, or CCL. CCL is a bipartisan organization that works with both Democrats and Republicans to create the political will for climate solutions. During the month of August CCL is promoting what is called electrification. Clean energy is taking the world with storm, but energy / electric power is not the only source of carbon emissions / greenhouse gases.

Take for example, transportation. Most cars still use gasoline and to move towards a fossil fuel free future we must move towards using transportation that uses less fossil fuels such as EV cars. We need to electrify transportation. Another aspect of electrification is replacing gas stoves with induction stoves, installing solar panels, as well as lowering the energy use of your house.

A picture of houses by a lake | Electrification
Lowering the energy consumption of your house lowers your emissions. Photo by Frans van Heerden on Pexels.com

EV Cars

At least here in Texas it is quite common to believe that EV cars do not reduce emissions. After all EV cars use electricity from the dirty grid, right? Often this is said to environmentalists and people who care about fossil fuels emissions as if they don’t understand that the electricity for EV cars typically comes from the dirty grid. However, they do know that. In fact, they know a little bit more. EV cars are much more efficient than Internal Combustion Engine cars , or ICE, and therefore the emissions caused by EVs via the electrical grid, even a coal powered grid, is significantly less per mile. In fact, replacing gasoline-powered cars with EVs saves energy, regardless of the energy source used to recharge the EVs. For an ICE 16-25% of the original energy goes to the wheels whereas for an EV 87-91% of the original energy goes to the wheels.

Image showing an ICE car and its various losses | Electrification
16-25% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.
Image showing an EV car and its various losses | Electrification
87-91% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.

On the other hand, it takes more energy to manufacture an EV battery for an EV car than it does to produce a combustion engine. So, the production of an electric vehicle does emit more carbon than a petrol car. However, the lower emissions resulting from driving an EV means that an electric car quickly pays back its debt, so to speak. It is typically paid back within two years.

According to Hannah Richie at Our World in Data the statistics show that switching from an average ICE to an equally sized EV will save 1.2 tons of carbon emissions per person and year. That is a lot considering that the average carbon footprint per year is 4 tons worldwide and 14.4 tons per year for an American. Hannah Richie at Our World in Data also states that other environmental damages related to EVs such as mining for minerals are less than mining and extraction for fossil fuel cars, and she claims that the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 98% over the last three decades.

Blonde woman pumping gas.
Photo by Andersen EV on Pexels.com

EVs are becoming increasingly common. According to Our World in Data in 2022, 88% of all cars sold in Norway were EVs and 54% of all cars in Sweden were EVs. The United States is lagging a bit at 7.5% but there is a tax credit $7,000.00 for new EVs and a $4,000.00 tax credit for buying used EVs. I should add that we have not yet bought an EV because after I took early retirement, I did not need a car. We just share my wife’s hybrid, which we hardly ever drive.

Induction Stoves

We bought an electric stove, an induction stove, a couple of years ago when our previous stove stopped working. They come with an $840.00 rebate. I’ve read that professional chefs prefer gas stoves. However, our induction stove provides everything we need for our cooking needs and my beer brewing needs and it is easier to clean. If you are a professional chef you may want to be able switch the high heat on and off quicker, but we are not professional chefs even though the food we cook is delicious.

Another downside of an induction stove is that if the power goes out you can’t cook, but that has not been a problem for us. Considering that we get our electricity from a power company, Green Mountain Energy, that utilizes renewable energy, wind and solar, you can claim that our stove is 100% fossil fuel free.

One cooking plate is red hot. The stove itself is made of granite.
Our induction stove with the lights in the kitchen turned off.

Heat Pumps

Air source heat pumps, which are the most common type of heat pumps, are a great, energy efficient choice for heating your home and water and as well as being low maintenance, they can help to cut your heating costs and lower your carbon footprint. An air source heat pump absorbs heat from the air outside a building and releases it inside. It uses the same vapor-compression refrigeration process and much the same equipment as an air conditioner, but in the opposite direction.

Air-to-air heat pumps provide hot or cold air directly to rooms. Heat pumps are the main way to phase furnaces but are also typically more efficient than other types of heaters and air conditioners and thus they reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is an up to $8,000.00 upfront discount for heat pumps and a 30% tax credit up to $2,000.00. I should say we do not have a heat pump.

Grey heat pump standing towards the wall of an old red brick house.
Air heat pump installed on the exterior facade of the old house. Sustainable heating solutions for old construction. Stock Photo ID: 2349325553 by Snapshot freddy.

Rooftop solar

Another great thing that we have been thinking about but do not have yet is rooftop solar. Rooftop solar power system, or rooftop photo voltaic systems, consist of electricity-generating solar panels mounted on the rooftop of a residential or commercial building or structure. Residential rooftop solar power systems typically feature a capacity of about 5–20 kilowatts.

The average American household uses 1.2 kilowatts on average. Most rooftop solar systems are connected to the grid and can feed the extra power into the grid for compensation. I should add this is not entirely without difficulty. There are also hybrid systems which include any combination of wind turbines, diesel generators, and batteries for electricity on demand. There is a 30% tax credit for rooftop solar.

Solar panels being installed | Electrification
Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Miscellaneous Energy Savings

Saving energy is not exactly the same thing as electrification but it is a related topic. If you electrify your home and also reduce your energy needs, you are reducing emissions.

A few years ago, we changed the insulation in our house to reduce our energy needs and our electric bill. It made a difference. We also did weatherstripping, installed three pane windows and high security doors, that were well-insulated and reduced heat-loss. We received significant tax credits for doing this. I don’t remember how much, but it was several thousand dollars. I can add that you get a $150 tax credit for a home energy audit.

What do you think about electrification and energy savings?

Do you have additional ideas for electrification and energy savings?


To see the Super Facts click here