![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I find this whole section a bit dodgy.
Finally, once you take out the "windmills do not cause nuclear meltdowns" and other such, how much is left here that's not already said elsewhere in the article? -- Dmh ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
Answering Dmh's questions higher up: A typical 1.5MW single turbine requires about half a ton of rare earth magnet (currently neodymium, yes, but anticipating that different REs can be used in the future). Given that one coal fired power station with four turbines produces say 2000MW, that would require 1,300 (one thousand three hundred) turbines to replace one power station, ie, 650 tons of RE. That is a LOT.
Also, consider that all of the REs are chemically very similar, which means that it takes a lot of clever chemistry to separate them, and therefore also inevitably produces a lot of pollution. China, currently the world lead exporter of REs, has drastically cut its export of REs for mainly that reason (although my personal POV is that they have done it to up the price, a tactic that is working very well).
Finally, 1,300 wind turbines are going to consume a heck of a lot more real estate than that one coal-fired power station. The maths is very simple: with a typical 250m separation between turbines, if you have 1000 turbines spaced as a grid of 65 X 20 that's a footprint of 16km X 5km (about 10 miles X 3 miles), a LOT more than a power station, its piles of coal, its water supply, everything. So yes, Dmh, at the moment, it is environmentally VERY disruptive to produce electricity from wind turbines on a scale similar to coal. The sad truth at the moment is that "there is no such thing as green electricity, there are merely different shades of dirty brown". Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This entire section focuses on a few fringe theories that aren't widely accepted or repeated in scientific literature. Why is it citing a paediatrician as a valid source? This entire bit reads as though it was written by conspiracy nuts and technophobes. I think this falls under WP:Fringe IanBushfield ( talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty here is not Dr Pierpont's qualifications, that is attacking the source instead of the work itself. Pierpont's study and book about it are scientifically worthless. Uncontrolled, unverified results, too small a sample size and the worst example of selection bias that I have personally ever seen. The anti-wind turbine activists seize upon any opinion they can find to bolster their hypotheses and discredit any work that opposes their belief systems that they hold with religious fervor(the comprehensive report sponsored by AWEA/CANWEA, the Australian government report, the report of the Chatham-Kent Health Unit and the report of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), mostly by attacking the supposed partiality of the authors rather than refuting the findings. This extends even to denial of global warming. If a consensus can be reached about what is a health effect (pathological effect versus annoyance) I think we could get to a reasonable conclusion quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkentine ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me illustrate this by commenting on studies of real estate values. The object of the research is to determine whether the presence of wind turbines affects real estate values. One study typical of the ones I have seen looked at real estate transactions within a 5 mile radius of the wind farm. I forget the exact numbers but say there were 100 such transactions and the study found only 5 that were significantly below the mean for the area and perhaps 5 that were significantly above the mean. Conclusion: no impact on values. But what this large sample size and seemingly reasonable methodology masks is the potential fact that a 5 mile radius is in fact rather large and that other factors may play a significant role in valuation. For example, it might be the case that only 15 of those 100 homes have direct line of sight with the turbines and only 5 of those homes are within 750 meters of the turbines. What then is the appropriate population to be sampled.... the full 100 transactions; the 15 with direct line of sight; the 5 that could be expected to be more directly impacted by the presence of the turbines? If the 5 homes within 750 meters were the same 5 that sold significantly below the mean then I think one might draw a different conclusion than that of the larger sample study.
Add to this the apparent restrictions placed on potential members of the “relevant population” (gag orders; good neighbour clauses and the like) and the findings associated with “case studies” become much more relevant. Rphillips51 ( talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)RPhillips
There was a study done in Australia by a university that tackled this issue from a completely different angle. They collected statistics from pharmacies regarding the sale of various prescription drugs sold to combat the supposed effects of turbines, and correlated this with distances from wind turbine farms. They found no - as in zero - correlation.
Old_Wombat (
talk) 10:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Something which, surprisingly, is entirely ignored in this article is the ecological footprint left by the process of manufacturing wind turbines - namely, the mining of rare-earth metals. 95% of these come from China, and the environmental impact of these mines is, frankly, appalling.( New York Times) ( The Times) While these rare earth metals have other uses, they remain as intrinsic to the function of a wind turbine as uranium is to a nuclear power plant (I notice our article on that subject goes so far as to talk about the carbon dioxide emitted in the transportation of uranium from mines to power plants. No such mention here of the carbon produced shipping enormous windmill components cross-country via semi-trailer, or of shipping rare-earths across the ocean). Shouldn't the article address this in some capacity? » S0CO( talk| contribs) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources.
My original response above was made a good faith one, hoping to elicit some more scientific and rational discussion of the situation. My concern now is about the way the term rare earths is bandied around, very much in the same way as chemicals in the mass media, implying something mystical and possibly evil. I also get the feeling that there is an element of racism and political point scoring, targeting those inscrutable and evil Chinese. It's really time to get some facts into this discussion rather than just emotion. What are rare earths? Is it really true that the evil Chinese have a "a 95% lock on the rare-earth metal market"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a hate journal. There is a reason I used the word quality in my first post. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is interesting, however it appears to be misplaced as the new revised text noted above should be in the Environmental concerns with electricity generation article. You do realize this subject is a bit of a canard, since all that the rare earths do is make generators more efficient? As far as can be determined, every single energy utility uses generators, be they driven by coal, nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, hydro or solar-thermal. While there's no harm in mentioning in this article that there's presently an issue with the production of rare earths, it should be noted at the start of the text that the issue applies to all sources of electrical generation. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the DailyMail cite in the article that sheds light on the mismatch of quantities shown above: "A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material."
There's no indication of what size generator was involved with that figure, and currently 5 and 6 MW generators are starting to be deployed, so the figure is a bit sketchy, but it is close to 2 long tons (long tons being used in various industries). "Neodymium-based permanent magnet material" obviously refers to a mixture of Neodymium and other constituents that goes into these super-magnets, so the neodymium is therefore a certain percentage of that 4,400 pounds that makes up the permanent magnets in the generator's armature. My hunch is that the 300 kg figure of Neodymium for a 2 MW generator quoted in Scientific American is correct, while the Daily Mail/PBS figures mistakenly referred to the total weight of the permanent magnets, which is both misleading and incorrect. Can anyone dig out some wind turbine permanent magnet specs to resolve this? HarryZilber ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously. 2. Nuclear also has no emissions. 3. Visual impact of turbines not mentioned. This is a huge environmental effect. 4. "Other man-made structures also kill birds". Unsourced and obvious nonsense, many birds are reliant on man-made structures for nesting sites - don't see many houses or barns shredding raptors. 5. Wind in fact does have emissions in the form of spinning reserve backup.
Reads like a wind industry propoganda piece. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Coldnorthwind, let me take another one of the silly assertions you have made on this page: that 'Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously'. Wind power for electricity generation (which is what this article is about) is a relatively new technology, not a mature one like fossil fuels and nuclear. Look at the graph at the right, and you can see that "take-off" really only started in the 2000s and now there are very large increases in capacity being added each year. Let me put a question to you: if wind power is such a problematic technology why is it so popular? Why are we seeing these very large increases in use?
These large increases are expected to continue into the forseeable future. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power. [6]
Coldnorthwind, you are bringing to this article a lot of old-fashioned ideas, and a pro-nuclear/ anti-wind agenda, which is just not supported by the facts. Please stop. Johnfos ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hang on, is hydro a "traditional" form of power? Also has no emissions and very important eg. in Norway. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
[Post comment:] Wikipedia has a bad reputation? Perhaps in your mind, but not as the New York Times contends, as seen here. It appears you prefer to rate sources favourably if they agree with your opinions. Wikipedia is not concerned with your opinions. HarryZilber ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Please read our core policy WP:NPOV before editing further. -- John ( talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Coldnorthwind is continuing his POV-pushing involving the aggressive presentation of anti-wind power agenda. Please stop and adhere to WP:NPOV policy.
Also, please avoid bare URLs in citations by using as many of the parameters in WP:Citation templates as possible to record the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source. Johnfos ( talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let us take the UK. I certainly accept that there are a few prominent individuals and a few notable organisations in the UK which have developed anti-wind interests, and that this should be mentioned in their respective WP articles. But the British Wind Energy Association, now known as RenewableUK, have reviewed wind farm public opinion surveys in the UK and found that [10]:
"With over 15 years’ experience and more than 60 separate surveys, the results can be taken as conclusive, showing as they do a consistently high level of support for the development of wind farms, on average 70-80%, both in principle, as a good thing, and also in practice, among residents living near wind farms".
"What is evident in the UK is that it is the minority 10% or so who do not like wind energy who too often lead the debate over wind’s future. This has given rise to the misconception that wind energy is unpopular and unwelcome". [11]
So it is this bigger picture that you seem to be missing Coldnorthwind, and you are repeatedly inserting negative snippets which often fuel misconceptions, are out of context, and are misleading to the reader. And you are pushing these contributions into the lead section wherever possible. It is this that amounts to serious POV-pushing. Johnfos ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: Some material relevant to community attitudes is located in the Renewable energy debate article. Johnfos ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the American wind industry lobby can be regarded as any more reliable as a source than its British equivalent. The fact remains >half of onshore wind revenue in the UK is from subsidies. For offshore it is >two thirds. This establishes a 2-3x cost premium for wind, before accounting for backup. Backup requirement is 90% - if there is a blocking high over the British Isles during winter, wind output is effectively zero and temperatures plunge resulting in peak energy demand. This happened in December 2010 when temperatures plummeted to -20C. This has to be met by backup gas-fired stations, 17 more of which will be required by 2020. These stations will be operating well below optimum levels resulting in highly inefficient operation. But they will still require the same ROI as any other capital investment, hence real world cost for wind is 3-4x conventional sources. Increasing fossil fuel prices will merely increase capital costs of wind: concrete, steel, jack-up ships etc. Alternatively, investment in fracking could actually reduce gas prices as in the US where WTI is trading well below Brent for precisely this reason. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
From the wind industry themselves [13]. I think if you were genuinely interested in NPOV you would welcome an openly contrarian voice in this debate. At the moment the article is edited entirely by wind industry cheerleaders and clearly reflects that bias. It is bizarre to think that contrary voices are not welcome, and even attacked by an admin in contravention of WP:NPA - "ill-informed POV-pusher". Would this approach be acceptable on the astrology or creationism articles - only supporters welcome? I think not. It would result in ludicrously biased articles. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I dispute Coldnorthwind's characterization of David Bellamy as "respected" in the comment of 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC) above. Bellamy's switch to climate change denial in the early 2000s has moved him outside the mainstream of respect, at least among people who accept the Scientific opinion on climate change. (Are AIDS denialists "respected"? Not among people who accept mainstream medicine. The main functional difference between AIDS denial and climate change denial is the lack of rich industry support for the former.) He may have earned respect among devotees of the Heartland Institute and Christopher Monckton. Exaggerated alarmism about wind turbines is common among climate change deniers (for example Christopher Booker and James Delingpole), and so are the cherry-picked arguments and the lack of evidence-based thinking. Coldnorthwind is reading from the playbook of people who reject the scientific method and claim or imply that the international scientific consensus on climate change is all a vast eco-communist conspiracy of some sort. Even so, everyone has biases and these need not preclude anyone from editing neutrally on Wikipedia. -- Teratornis ( talk) 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Little things mean a lot. At the end of the lead section I read "Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these statements.[6][7]" Fine, except that the references quoted are just a report commissioned by the wind energy industry and a newspaper article about the same report. I've now thought better of editing it because it's quite revealing to any serious reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Yelland ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll expose my POV. Sorry, but I'm generally in favour of wind energy. Here in the UK there is a politically and financially inspired rush to onshore wind, and the consequent imposition of wind farms within a few hundred of metres of dwellings, within kms of AONBs, etc is deservedly giving the industry a bad name. Offshore wind turbines are wonderful, no CO2, no radiation leaks, no unrenewable energy source - and unfortunately no electricity when there is no wind. So backup is needed...A very serious drawback, but I accept outside the ambit of your title. This is a well written and fairly complete article, but it is not objective, and I am not alone in saying that. I am qualified to judge (Oxford PhD, FIEE, C Eng CPhys and 40 yrs experience). How about a paragraph on the ETSU-R-97 controversy for example? John Yelland ( talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
These articles were sent in via OTRS email ( 2011071310000861):
I have not read them, and make no warranties as to the appropriateness for use in this article. I am simply passing them along to those editors working on the article in the hopes they can be used. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what site you're referring to, and I suggest you stop giving simplistic labels, presumably intended to be derogatory, to those you disagree with. What we're here for is to agree on good content for the article. not to discuss the merits or otherwise of wind power. Do you understand that yet? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Tasmanian sub-species of this bird is being driven to the brink of extinction by wind turbines. I invite Aussie editors here to demonstrate their NPOV by rectifying this glaring omission from Wikipedia. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
HU12: on this recent edit you reverted the insertion of an External link to a bird conservancy group that had a policy page related to to the protection of birds from turbine rotor strikes (among several other policy pages). The contributor of the link has a solid record of edits on bird articles, but that in itself doesn't create a conflict of interest, just as a physicist is not in conflict of interest for editing general physics-related articles.
The website itself for American Bird Conservancy is environmentally related to birds, and is a non-profit group which would meet WP's standards for inclusion under WP:External link. Would you elaborate on your deletion rational? Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-farm-north-sea-positive-net.html
"New species establish themselves, and communities of animals arise on the wind turbine piles and the rocks piled around the columns, leading to a local increase in biodiversity. The fish fauna turns out to be very variable, and some minor positive effects have been observed so far. For example, the wind farm seems to provide shelter to cod. Porpoises were also heard more often inside the wind farm than outside it. A striking feature is that various bird species, including the gannet, avoid the wind farm, whereas others, such as seagulls, do not seem to be bothered by the wind turbines. Cormorants were even observed in greater numbers."
"The number of birds that collided with the turbines was not determined but was estimated to be quite low on the basis of observations and model calculations." -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
At 04:51, 14 August 2011, I added the following external link.
The linked page has a large amount of useful, relevant information, and many links to other web pages (external to that website) with much additional information that is both useful and relevant.
At 18:54, 30 August 2011, it was
removed.
I have two questions about the addition of that external link.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This citation is dead:
| url= http://media.cleantech.com/node/509 | title= Wind energy scores major legal victory in U.S. | author= Dana Childs
I could not find the original article, so I have removed the citation, and I will be sweeping the citations in the coming days to update links. Anything removed will be posted here as a reference for future editors. Emb1995 ( talk) 03:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Wind power consumes no fuel and no water[8] for continuing operation"
Wind turbines that are connected to the power grid use a transformer to step the turbine's power up to line voltages. These transformers consume electricity even when the turbine is not producing power. Thus it is incorrect to state that "wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation."
"Every wind turbine has a GSU [Generator Step-Up] transformer stepping up the generator-output voltage from 690 to 34,500 volts...However, no-load losses are constant, no matter what the collector current. They are impacted only by the collector voltage. No-load losses come from magnetizing the iron core, which happens when voltage is applied to the transformer."
Improving a Project’s Rate of Return, Windpower Engineering, July 21, 2011, retrieved January 7, 2012{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
"When turbines are idling generation is not zero, it is negative. This is because there is a transformer connected to each turbine to step up the voltage to the wind farm's substation level, and that transformer must be kept powered. Since a transformer is always powered from the higher voltage side, it will draw from the substation and ultimately the system grid."
Berman, Robert (September 15, 2011),
Optimised Transformers Boost Wind Turbine Profits, Berman Economics, retrieved January 7, 2012{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Aradams ( talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense to me, why doesn't the transformer stay offline until sufficient voltage is produced by the turbine, activating the transformer to start drawing power from the grid? 137.111.13.167 ( talk) 03:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Curious to understand more, I read the reference given for the first paragraph lede of the article. It was written by a college professor who is not NPOV. I could not find anything but opinion in his paper to support the statements here. The paragraph talks about "large" and "small" but the paper has no figures, nor do its references lead to quantitative reports. I have read and followed the links for much of this article and this is a repeating pattern. Much opinion, few quantitative studies. I do not wish to engage in an edit war - I notice this is a contentious topic. I placed one tag to point out that I was unable to find qualitative or scientific studies in that citation to back up the paragraph. I have an M.S. in Geology, taught for ten semesters at university level before retirement. I have driven through Altamont and Palm Springs, as well as through Indiana wind mill arrays. Other than that, I have no connection to the wind turbine industry. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 08:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
found on Talk:Wind power in the United States ...
Wildlife Slows Wind Power; New U.S. Rules to Protect Bats and Birds Create Uncertainty in Growing Industry by Ryan Tracy, excerpt ...
New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape. The death of an endangered bat in September at a wind farm in Pennsylvania was the latest in a series of incidents that have caught the attention of regulators and conservation-minded scientists, who worry that large numbers of bats, bald eagles and other birds are being killed by wind turbines' spinning blades. In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to publish new guidelines telling wind-farm operators how ...
99.35.12.74 ( talk) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's a possible source for the article:
-- Teratornis ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Re edit deletion of Mar 10, Perhaps editor Johnfos ought to consider the point that IF a Civitas article cannot be cited because it is not regarded as a reliable, peer-reviewed information source, then cites referencing manufacturer product information as proof of windturbine advantages must surely fall into this category too. Perhaps as many as 50% of the cites in the article fall into the category of manufacturers' or proponents' advertising copy. They are clearly not peer-reviewed material, and are from a source with a vestased financial interest. (awful pun in there, sorry) -- Anteaus ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
e cigs gimme duh goods so I can take it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.186.118 ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe second hand (also not reviewed) opinion papers such as Simon Chapman's should not be quoted in place of the original - reviewed - paper (British Acoustic Bulletin) - although it is more difficult to obtain and read than a newspaper one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.82.96 ( talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on noise is a disgrace. The first few paragraphs is an obvious attempt by someone to justify wind energy: Modern wind turbines produce significantly less noise than older designs. Turbine designers work to minimise noise, as noise reflects lost energy and output. Noise levels at nearby residences may be managed through the siting of turbines, the approvals process for wind farms, and operational management of the wind farm. There is absolutely no reason EXCEPT PROPAGANDA to start by saying "noise is less than it was". What is the point of this, if e.g. it was absolutely terrible in the past? At the very least this section should start with a simple over-view of how much noise is produced from wind and what parts of that noise are either harmful and/or contentious. A good place to start would be a paper like Bowdler (2010) [17] The phrase "turbine designers work to minimise noise" is about as pointless as it gets. Is anyone suggesting they work to increase noise? By how much do they try to reduce noise ... NOT GIVEN. In other words this is propaganda. Noise levels may be managed. And they also may not. Why not just write: "wind companies are very nice people". In other words, I don't believe a word of this and I will look elsewhere to see if anyone gives an impartial review of the evidence and not just some stupid POV push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
See Figure 1.11 Contribution of Environmental Impacts by Life Cycle Stages. Vestas 2.0 MW. http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html
So as I have been saying, although small, you can't say wind turbines don't generate nuclear waste in construction, as that is misleading. This article really doesn't reflect reality at all. It's chock full of Greenwashing, especially considering that others were trying to argue with me, when Vestas themselves acknowledge the point I was making.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This article makes a lot of wild claims, and lacks hard science. Yes it is true that wind power has a low impact on the environment according to the the most rigorous and impartial ExternE study on the matter. Wind is placed right between Nuclear Power and- determined to be the lowest impact- Alpine Hydropower.
While I'm here, I want to know why isn't this EU studies findings not given prime position?
operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
A major EU funded research study known as ExternE, or externality of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account.
It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included. http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/externen.pdf The study also found that the cost to the environment and to human health from Nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was lower than that caused by biomass and Photovoltaic solar panels, but was marginally higher than the external costs associated with Wind power and alpine Hydropower. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/exterpols.html ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
Boundarylayer ( talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As I've said, it found alpine hydropower to have the least impact on the environment. Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
1990 data is still consistent with 2013 and indeed 2030 data-
I initially added the following Berkeley paper.
That compares 1990 Wind and 1970 Nuclear plants on a steel and concrete usage basis, per unit of energy delivered. This was ridiculed as irrelevent, however Wind power(including modern/ next generation 2030 turbines) will still use more concrete and steel than Nuclear power per MW. The reference below by the USGS augments and supports the argument of the earlier 1990 Wind turbine & nuclear plant Berkeley study.
According to the United States Geological Survey modern wind turbine towers - contain large quantities of steel and concrete, with current and next generation, that is Circa -2030- wind turbines not appreciably changing this fact, with 139.9 metric tons of steel and Iron required per MW(of nameplate) wind power installed in 2011 turbines, and 123 metric tons of steel and Iron in next generation, 2030 turbines.
With this 120+ metric tons of steel and Iron per MW being nameplate 2030 wind turbines, and therefore not actual power generation, one must apply the correcting calculation for the low capacity factor of the power source being used, as was corrected for in the prior University of California Berkeley study that cites 460 metric tons/MWe(ave) of steel being required for a 1990 Wind system when corrected for capacity factor.
Use the formula on the page below(as the Berkeley professor used) and you arrive at almost the same figures for even the 2030 wind turbines. If you'd like to double check for your own piece of mind. I did not include that corrected value in the article for the very reason as that would be considered Original research.
Nevertheless even without correcting for capacity factor, in comparison the quantity of steel for nuclear is 40 metric tons (MT) per MWe(ave) being required for a 1970’s vintage nuclear power plant, and this is to say nothing of modern Generation III reactor and future Generation IV reactor designs which are following a trend of using less concrete and steel than older generation reactors.
This wind agency further backs up the USGS data. A wind turbine with a tower of 50-120 meters in height requires 100-200 metric tons of steel, with the hub and nacelle requiring 7-20 metric tons of Iron, and the drivetrain 15-25 metric tons of steel
Boundarylayer ( talk) 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I find this whole section a bit dodgy.
Finally, once you take out the "windmills do not cause nuclear meltdowns" and other such, how much is left here that's not already said elsewhere in the article? -- Dmh ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
Answering Dmh's questions higher up: A typical 1.5MW single turbine requires about half a ton of rare earth magnet (currently neodymium, yes, but anticipating that different REs can be used in the future). Given that one coal fired power station with four turbines produces say 2000MW, that would require 1,300 (one thousand three hundred) turbines to replace one power station, ie, 650 tons of RE. That is a LOT.
Also, consider that all of the REs are chemically very similar, which means that it takes a lot of clever chemistry to separate them, and therefore also inevitably produces a lot of pollution. China, currently the world lead exporter of REs, has drastically cut its export of REs for mainly that reason (although my personal POV is that they have done it to up the price, a tactic that is working very well).
Finally, 1,300 wind turbines are going to consume a heck of a lot more real estate than that one coal-fired power station. The maths is very simple: with a typical 250m separation between turbines, if you have 1000 turbines spaced as a grid of 65 X 20 that's a footprint of 16km X 5km (about 10 miles X 3 miles), a LOT more than a power station, its piles of coal, its water supply, everything. So yes, Dmh, at the moment, it is environmentally VERY disruptive to produce electricity from wind turbines on a scale similar to coal. The sad truth at the moment is that "there is no such thing as green electricity, there are merely different shades of dirty brown". Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This entire section focuses on a few fringe theories that aren't widely accepted or repeated in scientific literature. Why is it citing a paediatrician as a valid source? This entire bit reads as though it was written by conspiracy nuts and technophobes. I think this falls under WP:Fringe IanBushfield ( talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty here is not Dr Pierpont's qualifications, that is attacking the source instead of the work itself. Pierpont's study and book about it are scientifically worthless. Uncontrolled, unverified results, too small a sample size and the worst example of selection bias that I have personally ever seen. The anti-wind turbine activists seize upon any opinion they can find to bolster their hypotheses and discredit any work that opposes their belief systems that they hold with religious fervor(the comprehensive report sponsored by AWEA/CANWEA, the Australian government report, the report of the Chatham-Kent Health Unit and the report of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), mostly by attacking the supposed partiality of the authors rather than refuting the findings. This extends even to denial of global warming. If a consensus can be reached about what is a health effect (pathological effect versus annoyance) I think we could get to a reasonable conclusion quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkentine ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me illustrate this by commenting on studies of real estate values. The object of the research is to determine whether the presence of wind turbines affects real estate values. One study typical of the ones I have seen looked at real estate transactions within a 5 mile radius of the wind farm. I forget the exact numbers but say there were 100 such transactions and the study found only 5 that were significantly below the mean for the area and perhaps 5 that were significantly above the mean. Conclusion: no impact on values. But what this large sample size and seemingly reasonable methodology masks is the potential fact that a 5 mile radius is in fact rather large and that other factors may play a significant role in valuation. For example, it might be the case that only 15 of those 100 homes have direct line of sight with the turbines and only 5 of those homes are within 750 meters of the turbines. What then is the appropriate population to be sampled.... the full 100 transactions; the 15 with direct line of sight; the 5 that could be expected to be more directly impacted by the presence of the turbines? If the 5 homes within 750 meters were the same 5 that sold significantly below the mean then I think one might draw a different conclusion than that of the larger sample study.
Add to this the apparent restrictions placed on potential members of the “relevant population” (gag orders; good neighbour clauses and the like) and the findings associated with “case studies” become much more relevant. Rphillips51 ( talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)RPhillips
There was a study done in Australia by a university that tackled this issue from a completely different angle. They collected statistics from pharmacies regarding the sale of various prescription drugs sold to combat the supposed effects of turbines, and correlated this with distances from wind turbine farms. They found no - as in zero - correlation.
Old_Wombat (
talk) 10:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Something which, surprisingly, is entirely ignored in this article is the ecological footprint left by the process of manufacturing wind turbines - namely, the mining of rare-earth metals. 95% of these come from China, and the environmental impact of these mines is, frankly, appalling.( New York Times) ( The Times) While these rare earth metals have other uses, they remain as intrinsic to the function of a wind turbine as uranium is to a nuclear power plant (I notice our article on that subject goes so far as to talk about the carbon dioxide emitted in the transportation of uranium from mines to power plants. No such mention here of the carbon produced shipping enormous windmill components cross-country via semi-trailer, or of shipping rare-earths across the ocean). Shouldn't the article address this in some capacity? » S0CO( talk| contribs) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources.
My original response above was made a good faith one, hoping to elicit some more scientific and rational discussion of the situation. My concern now is about the way the term rare earths is bandied around, very much in the same way as chemicals in the mass media, implying something mystical and possibly evil. I also get the feeling that there is an element of racism and political point scoring, targeting those inscrutable and evil Chinese. It's really time to get some facts into this discussion rather than just emotion. What are rare earths? Is it really true that the evil Chinese have a "a 95% lock on the rare-earth metal market"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a hate journal. There is a reason I used the word quality in my first post. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is interesting, however it appears to be misplaced as the new revised text noted above should be in the Environmental concerns with electricity generation article. You do realize this subject is a bit of a canard, since all that the rare earths do is make generators more efficient? As far as can be determined, every single energy utility uses generators, be they driven by coal, nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, hydro or solar-thermal. While there's no harm in mentioning in this article that there's presently an issue with the production of rare earths, it should be noted at the start of the text that the issue applies to all sources of electrical generation. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the DailyMail cite in the article that sheds light on the mismatch of quantities shown above: "A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material."
There's no indication of what size generator was involved with that figure, and currently 5 and 6 MW generators are starting to be deployed, so the figure is a bit sketchy, but it is close to 2 long tons (long tons being used in various industries). "Neodymium-based permanent magnet material" obviously refers to a mixture of Neodymium and other constituents that goes into these super-magnets, so the neodymium is therefore a certain percentage of that 4,400 pounds that makes up the permanent magnets in the generator's armature. My hunch is that the 300 kg figure of Neodymium for a 2 MW generator quoted in Scientific American is correct, while the Daily Mail/PBS figures mistakenly referred to the total weight of the permanent magnets, which is both misleading and incorrect. Can anyone dig out some wind turbine permanent magnet specs to resolve this? HarryZilber ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously. 2. Nuclear also has no emissions. 3. Visual impact of turbines not mentioned. This is a huge environmental effect. 4. "Other man-made structures also kill birds". Unsourced and obvious nonsense, many birds are reliant on man-made structures for nesting sites - don't see many houses or barns shredding raptors. 5. Wind in fact does have emissions in the form of spinning reserve backup.
Reads like a wind industry propoganda piece. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Coldnorthwind, let me take another one of the silly assertions you have made on this page: that 'Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously'. Wind power for electricity generation (which is what this article is about) is a relatively new technology, not a mature one like fossil fuels and nuclear. Look at the graph at the right, and you can see that "take-off" really only started in the 2000s and now there are very large increases in capacity being added each year. Let me put a question to you: if wind power is such a problematic technology why is it so popular? Why are we seeing these very large increases in use?
These large increases are expected to continue into the forseeable future. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power. [6]
Coldnorthwind, you are bringing to this article a lot of old-fashioned ideas, and a pro-nuclear/ anti-wind agenda, which is just not supported by the facts. Please stop. Johnfos ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hang on, is hydro a "traditional" form of power? Also has no emissions and very important eg. in Norway. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
[Post comment:] Wikipedia has a bad reputation? Perhaps in your mind, but not as the New York Times contends, as seen here. It appears you prefer to rate sources favourably if they agree with your opinions. Wikipedia is not concerned with your opinions. HarryZilber ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Please read our core policy WP:NPOV before editing further. -- John ( talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Coldnorthwind is continuing his POV-pushing involving the aggressive presentation of anti-wind power agenda. Please stop and adhere to WP:NPOV policy.
Also, please avoid bare URLs in citations by using as many of the parameters in WP:Citation templates as possible to record the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source. Johnfos ( talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let us take the UK. I certainly accept that there are a few prominent individuals and a few notable organisations in the UK which have developed anti-wind interests, and that this should be mentioned in their respective WP articles. But the British Wind Energy Association, now known as RenewableUK, have reviewed wind farm public opinion surveys in the UK and found that [10]:
"With over 15 years’ experience and more than 60 separate surveys, the results can be taken as conclusive, showing as they do a consistently high level of support for the development of wind farms, on average 70-80%, both in principle, as a good thing, and also in practice, among residents living near wind farms".
"What is evident in the UK is that it is the minority 10% or so who do not like wind energy who too often lead the debate over wind’s future. This has given rise to the misconception that wind energy is unpopular and unwelcome". [11]
So it is this bigger picture that you seem to be missing Coldnorthwind, and you are repeatedly inserting negative snippets which often fuel misconceptions, are out of context, and are misleading to the reader. And you are pushing these contributions into the lead section wherever possible. It is this that amounts to serious POV-pushing. Johnfos ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: Some material relevant to community attitudes is located in the Renewable energy debate article. Johnfos ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the American wind industry lobby can be regarded as any more reliable as a source than its British equivalent. The fact remains >half of onshore wind revenue in the UK is from subsidies. For offshore it is >two thirds. This establishes a 2-3x cost premium for wind, before accounting for backup. Backup requirement is 90% - if there is a blocking high over the British Isles during winter, wind output is effectively zero and temperatures plunge resulting in peak energy demand. This happened in December 2010 when temperatures plummeted to -20C. This has to be met by backup gas-fired stations, 17 more of which will be required by 2020. These stations will be operating well below optimum levels resulting in highly inefficient operation. But they will still require the same ROI as any other capital investment, hence real world cost for wind is 3-4x conventional sources. Increasing fossil fuel prices will merely increase capital costs of wind: concrete, steel, jack-up ships etc. Alternatively, investment in fracking could actually reduce gas prices as in the US where WTI is trading well below Brent for precisely this reason. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
From the wind industry themselves [13]. I think if you were genuinely interested in NPOV you would welcome an openly contrarian voice in this debate. At the moment the article is edited entirely by wind industry cheerleaders and clearly reflects that bias. It is bizarre to think that contrary voices are not welcome, and even attacked by an admin in contravention of WP:NPA - "ill-informed POV-pusher". Would this approach be acceptable on the astrology or creationism articles - only supporters welcome? I think not. It would result in ludicrously biased articles. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I dispute Coldnorthwind's characterization of David Bellamy as "respected" in the comment of 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC) above. Bellamy's switch to climate change denial in the early 2000s has moved him outside the mainstream of respect, at least among people who accept the Scientific opinion on climate change. (Are AIDS denialists "respected"? Not among people who accept mainstream medicine. The main functional difference between AIDS denial and climate change denial is the lack of rich industry support for the former.) He may have earned respect among devotees of the Heartland Institute and Christopher Monckton. Exaggerated alarmism about wind turbines is common among climate change deniers (for example Christopher Booker and James Delingpole), and so are the cherry-picked arguments and the lack of evidence-based thinking. Coldnorthwind is reading from the playbook of people who reject the scientific method and claim or imply that the international scientific consensus on climate change is all a vast eco-communist conspiracy of some sort. Even so, everyone has biases and these need not preclude anyone from editing neutrally on Wikipedia. -- Teratornis ( talk) 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Little things mean a lot. At the end of the lead section I read "Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these statements.[6][7]" Fine, except that the references quoted are just a report commissioned by the wind energy industry and a newspaper article about the same report. I've now thought better of editing it because it's quite revealing to any serious reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Yelland ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll expose my POV. Sorry, but I'm generally in favour of wind energy. Here in the UK there is a politically and financially inspired rush to onshore wind, and the consequent imposition of wind farms within a few hundred of metres of dwellings, within kms of AONBs, etc is deservedly giving the industry a bad name. Offshore wind turbines are wonderful, no CO2, no radiation leaks, no unrenewable energy source - and unfortunately no electricity when there is no wind. So backup is needed...A very serious drawback, but I accept outside the ambit of your title. This is a well written and fairly complete article, but it is not objective, and I am not alone in saying that. I am qualified to judge (Oxford PhD, FIEE, C Eng CPhys and 40 yrs experience). How about a paragraph on the ETSU-R-97 controversy for example? John Yelland ( talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
These articles were sent in via OTRS email ( 2011071310000861):
I have not read them, and make no warranties as to the appropriateness for use in this article. I am simply passing them along to those editors working on the article in the hopes they can be used. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what site you're referring to, and I suggest you stop giving simplistic labels, presumably intended to be derogatory, to those you disagree with. What we're here for is to agree on good content for the article. not to discuss the merits or otherwise of wind power. Do you understand that yet? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Tasmanian sub-species of this bird is being driven to the brink of extinction by wind turbines. I invite Aussie editors here to demonstrate their NPOV by rectifying this glaring omission from Wikipedia. Coldnorthwind ( talk) 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
HU12: on this recent edit you reverted the insertion of an External link to a bird conservancy group that had a policy page related to to the protection of birds from turbine rotor strikes (among several other policy pages). The contributor of the link has a solid record of edits on bird articles, but that in itself doesn't create a conflict of interest, just as a physicist is not in conflict of interest for editing general physics-related articles.
The website itself for American Bird Conservancy is environmentally related to birds, and is a non-profit group which would meet WP's standards for inclusion under WP:External link. Would you elaborate on your deletion rational? Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-farm-north-sea-positive-net.html
"New species establish themselves, and communities of animals arise on the wind turbine piles and the rocks piled around the columns, leading to a local increase in biodiversity. The fish fauna turns out to be very variable, and some minor positive effects have been observed so far. For example, the wind farm seems to provide shelter to cod. Porpoises were also heard more often inside the wind farm than outside it. A striking feature is that various bird species, including the gannet, avoid the wind farm, whereas others, such as seagulls, do not seem to be bothered by the wind turbines. Cormorants were even observed in greater numbers."
"The number of birds that collided with the turbines was not determined but was estimated to be quite low on the basis of observations and model calculations." -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
At 04:51, 14 August 2011, I added the following external link.
The linked page has a large amount of useful, relevant information, and many links to other web pages (external to that website) with much additional information that is both useful and relevant.
At 18:54, 30 August 2011, it was
removed.
I have two questions about the addition of that external link.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This citation is dead:
| url= http://media.cleantech.com/node/509 | title= Wind energy scores major legal victory in U.S. | author= Dana Childs
I could not find the original article, so I have removed the citation, and I will be sweeping the citations in the coming days to update links. Anything removed will be posted here as a reference for future editors. Emb1995 ( talk) 03:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Wind power consumes no fuel and no water[8] for continuing operation"
Wind turbines that are connected to the power grid use a transformer to step the turbine's power up to line voltages. These transformers consume electricity even when the turbine is not producing power. Thus it is incorrect to state that "wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation."
"Every wind turbine has a GSU [Generator Step-Up] transformer stepping up the generator-output voltage from 690 to 34,500 volts...However, no-load losses are constant, no matter what the collector current. They are impacted only by the collector voltage. No-load losses come from magnetizing the iron core, which happens when voltage is applied to the transformer."
Improving a Project’s Rate of Return, Windpower Engineering, July 21, 2011, retrieved January 7, 2012{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
"When turbines are idling generation is not zero, it is negative. This is because there is a transformer connected to each turbine to step up the voltage to the wind farm's substation level, and that transformer must be kept powered. Since a transformer is always powered from the higher voltage side, it will draw from the substation and ultimately the system grid."
Berman, Robert (September 15, 2011),
Optimised Transformers Boost Wind Turbine Profits, Berman Economics, retrieved January 7, 2012{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Aradams ( talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense to me, why doesn't the transformer stay offline until sufficient voltage is produced by the turbine, activating the transformer to start drawing power from the grid? 137.111.13.167 ( talk) 03:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Curious to understand more, I read the reference given for the first paragraph lede of the article. It was written by a college professor who is not NPOV. I could not find anything but opinion in his paper to support the statements here. The paragraph talks about "large" and "small" but the paper has no figures, nor do its references lead to quantitative reports. I have read and followed the links for much of this article and this is a repeating pattern. Much opinion, few quantitative studies. I do not wish to engage in an edit war - I notice this is a contentious topic. I placed one tag to point out that I was unable to find qualitative or scientific studies in that citation to back up the paragraph. I have an M.S. in Geology, taught for ten semesters at university level before retirement. I have driven through Altamont and Palm Springs, as well as through Indiana wind mill arrays. Other than that, I have no connection to the wind turbine industry. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 08:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
found on Talk:Wind power in the United States ...
Wildlife Slows Wind Power; New U.S. Rules to Protect Bats and Birds Create Uncertainty in Growing Industry by Ryan Tracy, excerpt ...
New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape. The death of an endangered bat in September at a wind farm in Pennsylvania was the latest in a series of incidents that have caught the attention of regulators and conservation-minded scientists, who worry that large numbers of bats, bald eagles and other birds are being killed by wind turbines' spinning blades. In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to publish new guidelines telling wind-farm operators how ...
99.35.12.74 ( talk) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's a possible source for the article:
-- Teratornis ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Re edit deletion of Mar 10, Perhaps editor Johnfos ought to consider the point that IF a Civitas article cannot be cited because it is not regarded as a reliable, peer-reviewed information source, then cites referencing manufacturer product information as proof of windturbine advantages must surely fall into this category too. Perhaps as many as 50% of the cites in the article fall into the category of manufacturers' or proponents' advertising copy. They are clearly not peer-reviewed material, and are from a source with a vestased financial interest. (awful pun in there, sorry) -- Anteaus ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
e cigs gimme duh goods so I can take it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.186.118 ( talk) 14:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe second hand (also not reviewed) opinion papers such as Simon Chapman's should not be quoted in place of the original - reviewed - paper (British Acoustic Bulletin) - although it is more difficult to obtain and read than a newspaper one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.82.96 ( talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on noise is a disgrace. The first few paragraphs is an obvious attempt by someone to justify wind energy: Modern wind turbines produce significantly less noise than older designs. Turbine designers work to minimise noise, as noise reflects lost energy and output. Noise levels at nearby residences may be managed through the siting of turbines, the approvals process for wind farms, and operational management of the wind farm. There is absolutely no reason EXCEPT PROPAGANDA to start by saying "noise is less than it was". What is the point of this, if e.g. it was absolutely terrible in the past? At the very least this section should start with a simple over-view of how much noise is produced from wind and what parts of that noise are either harmful and/or contentious. A good place to start would be a paper like Bowdler (2010) [17] The phrase "turbine designers work to minimise noise" is about as pointless as it gets. Is anyone suggesting they work to increase noise? By how much do they try to reduce noise ... NOT GIVEN. In other words this is propaganda. Noise levels may be managed. And they also may not. Why not just write: "wind companies are very nice people". In other words, I don't believe a word of this and I will look elsewhere to see if anyone gives an impartial review of the evidence and not just some stupid POV push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
See Figure 1.11 Contribution of Environmental Impacts by Life Cycle Stages. Vestas 2.0 MW. http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html
So as I have been saying, although small, you can't say wind turbines don't generate nuclear waste in construction, as that is misleading. This article really doesn't reflect reality at all. It's chock full of Greenwashing, especially considering that others were trying to argue with me, when Vestas themselves acknowledge the point I was making.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This article makes a lot of wild claims, and lacks hard science. Yes it is true that wind power has a low impact on the environment according to the the most rigorous and impartial ExternE study on the matter. Wind is placed right between Nuclear Power and- determined to be the lowest impact- Alpine Hydropower.
While I'm here, I want to know why isn't this EU studies findings not given prime position?
operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
A major EU funded research study known as ExternE, or externality of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account.
It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included. http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/externen.pdf The study also found that the cost to the environment and to human health from Nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was lower than that caused by biomass and Photovoltaic solar panels, but was marginally higher than the external costs associated with Wind power and alpine Hydropower. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/exterpols.html ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11
Boundarylayer ( talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As I've said, it found alpine hydropower to have the least impact on the environment. Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
1990 data is still consistent with 2013 and indeed 2030 data-
I initially added the following Berkeley paper.
That compares 1990 Wind and 1970 Nuclear plants on a steel and concrete usage basis, per unit of energy delivered. This was ridiculed as irrelevent, however Wind power(including modern/ next generation 2030 turbines) will still use more concrete and steel than Nuclear power per MW. The reference below by the USGS augments and supports the argument of the earlier 1990 Wind turbine & nuclear plant Berkeley study.
According to the United States Geological Survey modern wind turbine towers - contain large quantities of steel and concrete, with current and next generation, that is Circa -2030- wind turbines not appreciably changing this fact, with 139.9 metric tons of steel and Iron required per MW(of nameplate) wind power installed in 2011 turbines, and 123 metric tons of steel and Iron in next generation, 2030 turbines.
With this 120+ metric tons of steel and Iron per MW being nameplate 2030 wind turbines, and therefore not actual power generation, one must apply the correcting calculation for the low capacity factor of the power source being used, as was corrected for in the prior University of California Berkeley study that cites 460 metric tons/MWe(ave) of steel being required for a 1990 Wind system when corrected for capacity factor.
Use the formula on the page below(as the Berkeley professor used) and you arrive at almost the same figures for even the 2030 wind turbines. If you'd like to double check for your own piece of mind. I did not include that corrected value in the article for the very reason as that would be considered Original research.
Nevertheless even without correcting for capacity factor, in comparison the quantity of steel for nuclear is 40 metric tons (MT) per MWe(ave) being required for a 1970’s vintage nuclear power plant, and this is to say nothing of modern Generation III reactor and future Generation IV reactor designs which are following a trend of using less concrete and steel than older generation reactors.
This wind agency further backs up the USGS data. A wind turbine with a tower of 50-120 meters in height requires 100-200 metric tons of steel, with the hub and nacelle requiring 7-20 metric tons of Iron, and the drivetrain 15-25 metric tons of steel
Boundarylayer ( talk) 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)