Molly Campbell
In a world where climate change is a real and serious problem, governments and environmental organizations are on a desperate search for clean, green energy sources. Harnessing energy from wind is one of the cleanest methods of generating power because it does not produce pollution or greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It is abundant and infinitely renewable, and is considered by many environmental scientists to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and, potentially, a solution to the global climate change issue. However, like any developing technology, this method of power generation has consequences that must be explored and taken into consideration. Wind energy production has serious negative environmental impacts and poses health risks for humans and animals, and for these reasons it cannot be considered a safe or sustainable way of powering cities.
At first glance, it is easy to say that wind energy is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide emissions for electricity generated from fossil fuels are estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.0 pounds per kilowatt-hour, and for coal generated electricity, estimates are between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds. Wind turbines only produce 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour; at least fifteen times less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels and at least 35 times less than coal (Environmental). However, this is without regard to the amount of land that is required for the production of this wind energy. A recent survey by the United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that wind facilities use anywhere from thirty to 141 acres of land per megawatt hour of power generated, more than coal or fossil fuels (Environmental). Because wind turbines must be placed five to ten rotor diameters apart (Environmental), and the average rotor diameter of current utility scale wind turbines is 116 metres (Anatomy), there is a significant amount of wasted space between turbines in a wind energy facility, space that could be better used through a different energy production method. In a recent study based out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was discovered that one-third of the projected electricity demands of the United States in 2050 could be generated with solar energy on 11,000 square kilometres of land or with nuclear energy on 1,489 square kilometres (Jenkins). Doing this with wind energy would require 66,576 square kilometres (Jenkins). Trying to meet the world’s energy demands with wind is not practical or sustainable. While it is true that the planet will never run out of wind, it will eventually run out of open space needed to harvest this wind. Tens of thousands of acres of forest would need to be cleared, resulting in the destruction of the habitats of countless wildlife species. The natural environment that would be destroyed is worth more than the clean energy that could be produced.
The risks posed to animals because of this energy harnessing method are too great to be ignored. The large, fast-moving blades of wind turbines are very dangerous to flying animals, specifically birds and bats. Many species are at risk of being killed either by the blades or by the drastic changes in air pressure surrounding the turbines (Farmers). Bird experts say that this could cause a chain reaction across North America or potentially on a global scale because many of the at-risk species are migratory birds (Farmers). Supporters of wind energy argue that the safety of birds and bats is taken into account and assessed during the construction of each facility, but according to BirdLife International Scientist Raul Ortiz-Pulido these tests are only run with a few wind turbines over a very brief time period (Farmers). Because the research is done on such a small scale there is a fairly minor injurious effect on avian species, many scientists and wind energy activists consider it negligible. However, a negative effect during such a short amount of time and with very few turbines is going to grow exponentially once the wind facility is operating at its maximum capacity for an indefinite time frame. It is the long term effect that will be detrimental; many species of bats and birds could eventually face extinction if enough wind power continues to grow in popularity as an energy source. Wind harnessing facilities are placing birds and bats in direct danger of injury and death and therefore are not an acceptable energy alternative.
It is not only birds and bats, though, that are threatened by wind harnessing facilities. Wind turbines have been shown to cause a variety of symptoms in humans, which together make up what is known by some as “wind turbine syndrome” (Campbell). These symptoms are the result of constant low-frequency noise, the shadow flicker effect from the blades, and electromagnetic radiation emissions and include sleep disturbances, headache, nausea, dizziness, increased blood pressure, weight changes, irregular heart rhythms, mood problems, chronic fatigue, depression, and tinnitus (Campbell). Dr. Albert Aniel, a physician, explains some of these problems and warns, “With low frequency noise, primarily generated by turbines, people feel that they must breathe at that rate, causing loss of balance, dizziness, and psychiatric disorders” (Adams). Because the emissions of the turbines and the way that individuals perceive them are both highly variable, some scientists argue that these symptoms cannot be considered a real medical condition and are not direct evidence that wind turbines adversely affect human health (Information Paper). Nonetheless, the fact that people living in close proximity to wind facilities have experienced these negative effects cannot simply be ignored. Whether or not all medical professionals and environmental scientists choose to accept this research as evidence, it is verifiably true that wind turbines make people sick. If wind energy use continues to grow, the number of people affected will grow even more quickly due to the increasingly large area occupied by wind turbines. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions while sacrificing public health is not a reasonable solution to the climate change issue; this trade-off would do our world more harm than good.
The risks of wind energy are not worth the reward. Energy from non-renewable resources can be replaced with energy from wind, however this comes at a great cost— too great a cost to be considered a viable option. Powering the world with wind would mean giving up thousands and thousands of acres of land. It would mean threatening countless types of birds and bats with extinction, potentially leading to a world-wide wildlife crisis as migratory species are killed off. It would mean jeopardizing the health of the public. Ultimately, the negative consequences of wind energy far outweigh its benefits. So, what is the solution to the global climate change issue? It isn’t fossil fuels, and it isn’t coal. Maybe it’s solar energy, or maybe it’s nuclear energy. Maybe it has yet to be found. But it isn’t wind.
Works Cited
Adams, Eileen M. “Pros and cons of wind energy debated.” Tribune Business News. 5 Feb. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
“Anatomy of a Wind Turbine.” American Wind Energy Association. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. Campbell, Jackie, BScPharm, L.L.B. “Wind Energy and Health Effects.” Pharmacy Practice. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
“Environmental Impacts of Wind Power.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2015
“Farmers and Scientists Consider Risks in Developing Wind Energy; source: IPS].” Noticias Financerias. 02 Mar. 2007. Proquest. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.
“Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health.” National Health and Medical Research Council. Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
Jenkins, Jesse. “How Much Land Does Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Energy Require?” The Energy Collective. 24 June 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.