7 Popular Myths About Wind Power (Debunked)

David Dietle | 26 June, 2012 | Clean Tech, Galleries, Wind

Wind power is an up-and-coming form of clean energy that has the rare distinction of being up-and-coming while simultaneously being older than dirt (ancient Greeks used wind power to ventilate buildings, and before that it was pushing ships through the water). However, with the rise in popularity of clean energy, wind power is becoming more and more commonplace. As a result, a lot of misinformation is spread about it, both from those who would actively seek to discredit it, and from simple ignorance and “common sense.”

Here are seven popular myths about wind energy, and why they are wrong.

Turbines Are Spinning Blades of Avian Death

It’s been shown that birds and bats occasionally run into the turbine blades of windmills, so on the surface, it’s true; turbines kill flying creatures. So do airplanes, buildings, and mean-spirited brats with pellet guns, and any one of those three kill more birds in a year than turbines do.

This myth stems from a wind farm built in Altamont Pass in California. Someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided to put many turbines close together right smack in the migration path of certain types of birds. They were also built low to the ground and close together, making it much more likely that the birds would run into them. Newer turbines are taller (over many birds’ flight path), more widely spaced, and not built on bird highways where generations of imprinting told them it was safe before someone placed a food processor in their way.

Statistics state the turbines annually kills less than one out of every 30,000 birds that live around them. Compared to the number of birds killed every year by buildings, roughly 19,300 birds die by running into an immobile structure than the blades of turbines. If you’re going to use this as an argument against wind-power, then you should probably protest the existence of cities and homes before tackling the windmill issue.

Wind Power Causes Localized Global Warming

The same people who will shriek “shenanigans” the second you mention global warming or man-made climate change will happily jump on this one as an argument against clean energy. “Your precious wind power causes global warming! Which isn’t real! Except in this case in which it works for me!”

They then drive off listening to Cat Scratch Fever and offering up prayers to Ted Nugent. Or maybe not, but it really is hard to comprehend that people will believe Earth either isn’t getting warmer, or if it is, it must be hippies trying to keep things green and not their 40-year-old truck.

This is another myth that has some grounding in actual data, but it is nothing close to what the opponents would claim. Recent studies have shown that wind farms can have an effect on the local climate, but to have a worldwide impact, the amount of land covered by wind turbines would have to exceed that used for farming, and I doubt that is in our near future, no matter how many people decide wind power is the way to go. The studies found that the turbulence caused by the turbines’ wake can cause warm air to be dragged down, increasing the overall temperature of the area behind the wind farm. It also turns out that this side effect might lead to increased use of wind power, since you can set up a wind farm for free power, then use the naturally occurring side effect of their presence to allow farms located downwind to grow crops over a longer portion of the year thanks to the mild increase in temperature.

Mind you, these changes are very localized, and wind farms are not causing the ice caps to melt. That is still the fault of burning coal and drag racing stepside trucks.

Wind Power Is Expensive

Like most myths, there is a certain degree of truth to this. Start-up costs for a wind farm are in the millions since modern wind turbines are not exactly some fabric and sticks on a twisty thing for running a simple mill or dredge up water. They have to hook into an existing power grid, require a decent expanse of land, and have to deal with the typical costs associated with building anything massive on Earth where a government holds sway (which is most of it).

While it does cost a virtual arm and leg to build a wind farm, it also costs a disturbing amount to build a new coal or oil plant, and wind power does not require mining or drilling operations, dependence on other countries, or a near-constant supply of dangerous fuel to be shipped in. You build it, maintain it, and let the air do what it’s been doing since there has been an atmosphere and convection currents (that’s a few billion years, for Earth anyway.)

Wind Power Is Noisy

Noise created by wind turbines used to be an issue; there are stories of nearby wind farms driving locals mad with the constant wooshing noise and the annoying flicker caused by the spinning blades. I’m the kind of person who goes nuts if the fan has a slight rattle or I’m trying to sleep with a single LED on the radio showing, so I can understand the concern here, and it was an issue with older models.

However, as with all technological improvements, the newer turbines are quieter, and are typically built away from dwellings so that any noise and obnoxious strobing they cause will be away from the people it is supposed to be helping. According to a noise comparison chart, the noise generated by a wind farm is somewhere between a quiet bedroom and a car at 40 mph. That almost sounds downright relaxing, but I will reserve judgement since the closest wind turbine to where I live is almost an hour away.

Wind Power Is Unreliable

Wind is like the sun, the ground and obnoxious teenagers on the internet; it’s always there, even if occasionally circumstances make it so that we can’t tell. While almost everywhere experiences some break in the wind (oh, grow up), wind farms are typically built in areas with a fairly constant windflow, so the amount of time it is viable on any given day is statistically about as good as solar power is on any given day.

The intermittency issue brings us to the fact that there will be times that the wind is simply not blowing, or perhaps not strong enough to move the turbines. This does not mean that the fossil fuel energy source must then kick in to provide backup, thereby generating more pollution. In reality, if the wind power is hooked into the same grid as, say, and natural gas plant, then they are both being used at the same time, all the time. With the current state of things, the fossil fuels aren’t providing a dirty helping hand to the wind turbines, the wind is alleviating the load from the fossil fuels.

Wind Turbines Are Ugly

This is mostly in the eye of the beholder, but it appears that most people find the new, sleek designs of windmills to be somewhat pleasing, if not downright pretty. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone, but surveys seem to imply that people on the whole find them to be acceptable, if not actually enjoying their presence.

Wind Power Is a Drain on the Local Economy

Pick your poison here; turbines drop property values, kill tourism, cost taxpayers more money than other types of energy, they are unsafe. For the first one, property values are determined by a great number of variables, and the numbers appear to support the “inexpensive, clean energy nearby” is only a turn-off to people who hate money and love pollution. This is not typically the demographic people want to live near, so it’s kind of a dead argument.

For tourism, it has been shown in the UK that wind farms are actually often a tourist attraction. My math may be off, but attracting tourists seems to be in the list of top 10 things that actually help the tourist trade. As far as costing taxpayers more, the government subsidizes all forms of energy, and wind power does not come with the requisite need to work on maintaining clean air (it causes no air pollution), nor does require the massive insurance needed for a nuclear plant. While nuclear is relatively safe, it only takes one mistake to make the surrounding area unlivable for a generation.

Lastly, wind turbines are safe. The blades do not spontaneously fly off, and ice buildup is not much of a concern because the engineers who designed them accounted for it when they made plans. As far as human fatalities are concerned, in the last 35 years, there have been 20 accidents that resulted in a human death related to wind energy — and most of them were people falling from the turbines because they did not take the necessary precautions when climbing a multi-story structure with moving parts. You are at more risk of being killed simply by being outside. Statistically, you could stand next to a turbine to increase your chances of living (I have nothing to back that up).

In the end, wind is safe and effective. Like any technology, it requires intelligent, consistent use and care when operating it. If you are worried about having a wind farm nearby, just remember: If you don’t jump off of it or fly into the blades, odds are pretty good all you will experience is cleaner air and a drop in your electric bill.

Main photo credit: Eclipse.sx

Avian death myth photo credit: Dirk Ingo Franke

Warming myth photo credit: Evelyn Simak

Expensive myth photo credit: Winchell Joshua

Noisy myth photo credit: Davagh

Unreliable myth photo credit: Trent Brome

Ugly myth photo credit: John Wright

Economy drain myth photo credit: Winchell Joshua

D Halkin

What a stupid article.
Just the facts man

Every one of your claims is provably false and devoid of facts. You call this “debunking”? Ha!

Sounds like the same propaganda as wind turbine developers when they lie to get their projects approved.

How do you explain the hundreds or maybe thousands of people who have abandoned their homes due to low frequency noise & health impacts? This is a growing trend in the US, Europe, Australia, etc. And as the turbines are getting larger (i.e., more “efficient” AND more subsidy per acre of raped land) this trend is growing exponentially.

Building them further? What a joke! Most developers want the right to build them 1.1X the height, as if tip over is the only protection needed. But if accident safety is added as a factor, one must realize that a spinning turbine can throw a chunk of its 7-ton blade(s) beyond 3/4 mile. Ice chunks too, in northern climates.

I can name at least 11 different projects that are proposed smack in the middle of migratory bird routes, and at least 8 that are already doing what you claim does not happen. Dead bird picker-uppers is a pretty standard job around these projects for a reason. Also, the wind industry has pushed to have federal laws give THEM a waiver on killing protected species of birds….the very same birds that you or me would go to jail for killing or be fined 100′s of thousands of dollars if we were the oil industry who killed them. But I guess they spent so much money lobbying for the bird-kill rights just for grins, eh?

I don’t know why I even waste my time responding to a gent who does NO actual research.

Lisa Wardle

Could you provide some data (e.g., links to reports) about the problems you state?
The author mentioned that old turbines were louder, so it makes sense that there is a history of folks moving away. He also noted that some wind developers are stupid enough to build turbines in migratory routes, but not all of them.
Craig Brunetti

Awesomely, your entire banter is exactly what you claim to refute. How about you NAME those 8 or 11 projects? Or prove that the turbines aren’t built above flight altitudes, like the author claims? Or heck, explain how some kind of waiver for avian deaths (if that even exists! again, no real proof or reference) is any different than all the grants coal and oil plants get when they’re allowed to dump waste into rivers and the air and such?

Not only if your manner of perspective completely wrong, but you try to tread on some supposed problem of speculation with… speculation. Honestly, I agree, I don’t know why you even wasted your time, because it was just that, a waste.

DengieBoy

This article is a waste of time and just reinforces my position as a doubter.
Dealing with JUST the myth that “Wind Power is Expensive” Dietle states “While it does cost a virtual arm and leg to build a wind farm, it also costs a disturbing amount to build a new coal or oil plant”
Precisely so, and once you have spent your arm and leg building your wind farm then you must also spend your disturbing amount building thermal plant, to supply power when the wind doesn’t blow. To add insult to injury, you then must pay your thermal generator not to produce power when the wind is blowing!
Putting it in simple terms, you must build your generating capacity twice over and then the “clean” electricity so produced twice over. This is the reason why wind power is so expensive to develop on the network.

http://www.facebook.com/David248 David LaBedz

DB, did you forget that when the wind drops to nothing or is variable and light, wind turbines do not produce! Oil, coal and nukes are only down for maintenance.
Wind power can supplament but not replace fossil or nuke fueled plants.

D Halkin

Not to mentionion that you need 1000 2 MW wind turbines oerating at 25% capcity factor (typical performance) to equal 1 500 MW oil, gas or nuclear plant.

Craig Brunetti

That’s interesting, how much do 1000 2MW turbines cost to build and maintain vs 1 500MW oil, gas, or nuclear plant (pick whichever suits your reasoning)?

Heck, how much does one spend FEEDING an oil or gas plant? I’d ask about nuclear, but its construction cost likely makes such a question irrelevant.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Miller/100000952005408 Bruce Miller

An America on the decline and fully dependent on foreign oil must quickly find domestic energy, in the form of electricity, like: Solar, Wave, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal, sources – else we could go without foreign oil or find our U.S. Dollar so diluted that gasoline at the pumps would be unaffordable by most folks.

Craig Brunetti

Finally! This is the big picture, right on Bruce!
Alex Vargas

Clear and realistic words.

sandcanyongal

I live right in the Tehachapi Pass. 1) Look closely at your electric bill for the added fees that you’re paying for. 2) The taxpayers are subsidizing 30% of the total cost of the installations. Then the businesses are “flipped” to investment companies. For example Oak Creek Energy developed the construction of many wind farms, then last year they sold the business to a subsidiary of Barclay’s bank, PLC, American Wind Capital bought the wind farms.BNRI is a private hedge fund investment company.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/marubeni-corporation-of-japan-to-invest-166-million-in-california-wind-developer-oak-creek-energy-systems-58522327.html

As for birds, they have no idea to stay away from the equipment. I’ve seen California condors in our canyon and the closest wind facility is about 1/2 mile away. Others have spotted Bald eagles. We have a grand total of 3 scrub jays and some sparrows that use my feeders. The rest have been killed by the hundreds of turbines.

When the projects are approved 100% of the land is disturbed – sometimes between 21-50 sq miles of mountainous terrain. Wetlands are used as the water source to wet down roads and along with local batch plants to make concrete pads. Those wetlands go down 9 feet or more. People complain to our Board of Supervisor that there are dead kit foxes and baby bobcats dead in the roads. They’re hit when running away from their territories as the heavy bulldozers levels their habitats.

The designers of the open bladed turbines must have been high on something to have neglected to design equipment with protective grills on them and unmuffled. I can hear the accumulated sound and vibration of the turbines from 4 or more miles away. The noise penetrates my double paned windows.

Renewable “green” energy isn’t very green when everything dies when it is installed. I want them shut down permanently. In the history of man, there has been no greater cruelty to our resources than the industrial wind turbines and massive solar plants. Go look for yourselves and then judge. Get up close to the turbines and they will terrorize you.
cowcharge

Such smugness and condescension, the hallmarks of a true liberal. Well if anyone wants facts instead of 4th-grade-level denigration devoid of any real information, I recommend that you read this:
http://www.friendsofmainesmountains.org/learn/20-facts-about-wind-power-with-citations
cowcharge

We replaced windmills with steam engines 150 years ago for a reason, and that reason is just as valid today as it was then. Betz’ Law hasn’t changed, you can still never extract more than 59.3% of the energy contained in the wind, even if you could build a perfect turbine with perfect blades and perfect bearings and put it on a perfect site with perfect wind. We can do none of those things, so we’ll never even get the 59.3%. Grid-scale wind is utter folly, the energy density is absurdly low. You say that to have a global effect on temperature, you’d have to use more land for turbines than for farming. Well that is also true of having any global effect on energy supply. It’s like trying to light the Superbowl with candles.

Craig Brunetti

150 years ago, coal was cheap and nobody knew that pollution could smog a city. We’re supposed to be smarter about this today.

Nobody in their right mind says that wind can solve 100% of the power picture. Get a clue. It’s economical where it makes sense, and we have to start investing in every little bit, or else countries like Germany will continue to leave us in the dust.

cowcharge

It doesn’t solve any part of the “power picture” (whatever that is). All it does is waste money and destroy the landscape.

http://www.facebook.com/JLBurton0 Justin Burton

Your words have very little in common with reality. If wind farms were such failures, they wouldn’t be built. From a business perspective, no one would ever bother. In reality, the size of wind farm projects and technology in the area is advancing. This doesn’t when there’s no benefit. You’re assumptions are in that there is a plan to replace all forms of power with wind power. You’ve created an all or nothing environment that doesn’t exist in intention or aim of wind power use. There are earthships already in existence that draw from wind/solar/geothermic that are 100% off grid, Why? With such inefficiency, why would such a system work? These systems are scale-able, and intertwined, a weakness from one area doesn’t make the system fail as a whole. Scale-down fossil-fuel power to a per/house system…it won’t work. You’ll have to import the fuel, which costs fuel, defiles landscapes beyond the point of even being able to simply remove a wind turbine, and entire local ecosystems will be disrupted not just birds that might decide to fly through a windmill. Again, if wind power was such a horrible return on investment, power companies wouldn’t be stepping up the scale and frequency of these projects.

cowcharge

A national performance of 25% of rated capacity is a failure in my book (although they keep using data plate capacity to sell these things, claiming x number of homes will be powered, all the while knowing there is no chance of reaching those numbers). Economically, wind turbines are also a dismal failure. First Wind’s IPO drew no investors, due to the uncertainty of the permanence of the PTC and subsidies, because without government participation it’s a losing investment. The only reason these giant lawn ornaments get built is because the taxpayers pay for 30% of every project, and without those subsidies there would be no private investment. That is why every time the PTC is threatened, the industry starts up the “losing jobs” guilt trip, even though the vast majority of jobs in the industry are overseas. An industry that can’t survive without being propped up by taxpayers is only a success at lobbying.
We’re not talking about solar or geothermal here, so don’t try to make wind sound like part of some green holy trinity. But if we were talking about solar, it still takes 30 years for a private residential PV system to pay for itself with its “free” electricity. Having been a solar system installer, I know solar. Geothermal is outside my range of experience, so I won’t comment on its economics.Off-grid, private systems are a different matter, although it still takes decades for them to pay for themselves (with wind turbines that means it takes longer then the turbines’ lifespan, talk about a money pit). Those are closed systems using batteries for storage, without the problems of blending into a grid. It’s fine with me if private citizens or groups feel that paying extra is worth it, just as in if you can afford to shop at a mom ‘n’ pop store instead of Walmart, more power to you. But don’t force me to pay more for my bread and milk when I’m already struggling, just to make you feel good for making that “mom ‘n’ pop” rich.

http://www.facebook.com/anthony.longabard Anthony Longabard

And power plants that burn fossil fuels can’t exceed the limitation of the Carnot cycle, what is your point?

cowcharge

My point is that fossil fuels have millions of years of heat and pressure energy stored in them, which is why it takes comparatively so little energy input to obtain that energy for end use. Wind energy is so diffuse that the energy input needed to harvest its pitiful output makes it a crappy deal for everyone but those selling the turbines.

http://twitter.com/Sewallhouse Sewall House Yoga

if they place them in the “correct” places then why are they placing them where migratory birds are in Maine on forested hills that I have been told by a wind transmission engineer who has worked in the field for 10 years says is the worst place to put them because of their ineffectiveness? and the company does not CARE about the noise level that will impact lake dwellers, both human and nonhuman?( not to mention risk of forest fires) My experience is the wind companies lie, shut people up with gag agreements and that the politicians getting rich off it do not care enough about their State’s beauty or legacy to do the research and listen to the truth. see Windfall.

Craig Brunetti

Are you trying to imply that OTHER methods of power generation aren’t noisy, and/or that they’re never built next to people or animals? Why arbitrarily choose wind generation against all others? You must hate the future.

First, wouldn’t it make sense that the paths birds use tend to be windy, wouldn’t it be in their favor to use them? Like, how we use the gulf stream. So, duh, wind power comes efficiently where efficient flight happens. Second, again, the new turbines are taller, and quieter, and the problems you mention simply aren’t there anymore.

OR, better, how about you come up with a better idea? Honestly, all I ever see from people opinionated against the future is what doesn’t fit their view of the world, and never what OTHER next idea would help make things better, for everyone.

Frustrating, this all is. Power diversification is the future, we need a little of all of this. Get on board.

heatherGirl

Did I miss something or did they pretty much say there was something to each of the myths. Does not seem very good “debunking”………….
Veritas Vincit

As someone responsible for about half the wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, these are NOT myths as the author would have you think. Bottom line? Wind generators are sold on “installed capacity” or the amount they could produce IF the wind was just right 24/7/365 and “available capacity” the amount you might get when you need the power. Based on available capacity, wind power is very cost prohibitive. This site with its diversions of truth is a dis-service. Oh, by the way, over 1,000 Golden Eagles (an endangered species) were killed last year by wind mills.

Alex Vargas

This is indeed an issue. And therefore, some of the info on this article is downright misinformed.
Wind is a good solution provided it is installed in an area that does not interfere with flying beings. There will always be death though, and we cannot rely only only on wind. Germany has already shown us what can be done with solar, something that does not kill or pollute. Something that may turn out to be too effective and clean. I don’t believe for a second that these wind turbines have been installed without respect to bird migration or local wild life. Too much cost involved. A clever mind that wants to hold on to oil sets up failing alternative energy wind farms instead of solar. This way, subsidies are actually placed in favor of the oil industry. The oil industry is a huge machine already in place and with 350 million consumers, it is not going to let go until the last drop is sold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8NAAzBArYdw
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wind-energy-under-attack-for-thousands-of-wildlife-deaths/

arun1

Paint them green so they are pleasing to the eye.
http://www.facebook.com/angrybeardedman Duncan McGinnis

It seems to me that the haters I see below must be shills, I did a fair amount of research on some of their claims (not exhaustive) I found no mention anywhere of thousands of people abandoning their homes because of the noise. I stood in the middle of a wind farm outside Amarillo and the boats and jet skis on lake Conroe create more noise than that whole wind farm. Just remember that many people were critical and dismissive of electrical power when it was first introduced. Same as the telephone. The automobile and the Internet. Thankfully, in human history, forward looking people usually win out.
http://www.facebook.com/angrybeardedman Duncan McGinnis

It seems to me that the haters I see below must be shills, I did a fair amount of research on some of their claims (not exhaustive) I found no mention anywhere of thousands of people abandoning their homes because of the noise. I stood in the middle of a wind farm outside Amarillo and the boats and jet skis on lake Conroe create more noise than that whole wind farm. Just remember that many people were critical and dismissive of electrical power when it was first introduced. Same as the telephone. The automobile and the Internet. Thankfully, in human history, forward looking people usually win out.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFJMHDVZQW7KCCARPE2QGHVXPM Aly

Mmm. Virtually every scrap of ground in existence is a migration route for SOME species of bird. And miles upon miles of them will add up. Also, turbines detectably reduce wind speeds, which will inevitably do something (not yet known) to the weather. The real question is whether this is more harmful than any other energy source.
FSDA

Thanks for the prapa piece.
FSDA

When I saw the title, I expected that one of the popular myths might be that there is anything cost effective about wind energy. For example, some analysis that the the Federal subsidy per megawatt hour of wind energy is $56.29, according to the U.S. Dept of Energy, compared to $0.64 for oil and gas or $0.82 for hydro and $0.64 for coal. But a bargain compared to the federal subsidy for solar of $775.64 per megawatt hour. Wind is such a bargain, such a great use of taxpayer monies, and what a view! I can actually see the energy created! I just love to see the windmill in my backyard, spinning merrily as it slices and dices the local avian population.
Terence1313

I’m all for using energy where possible but surely again the science has been rushed in without any thought – although in practise the idea of millions of turbines on land and just off the coast is a good idea for cheap electricity let’s have a look in the wider picture.

1) When I go to the ” sea-side” eg Great Yarmouth and Clacton to name but 2 they look awful against the natural sea scape not pleasing to the eye at all not very nice when you want to relax with a nice view. You would have thought they would have put them a bit further out just beyond the natural horizon – again rushed science

2) The design not very efficient the companies running them claim money when they are not producing and when the wind gets a bit high the speed has to be governed to stop them destroying themselves.
There are more efficient vertical designs which can work in even hurricane force winds, still producing electricity and I believe the start up speed is lower approx 3 M/s.

3) Also the ones at Clacton are stacked in straight lines not very efficient – look at birds when they fly to migrate V formations using every scrap of wind energy passed from one bird to another to maximise energy transfer – perhaps we should think a bit harder.

All in all a good idea with a bodged application typical human nature