'Mythconceptions' of wind energy

Now that wind energy has become a mature industry and wind turbines are a viable renewable energy source, also the arguments against wind energy are increasingly heard. The erection of wind turbines in our residential and living environment is a large and visible intervention. Modern wind turbines are no longer the amateurish, sympathetic structures designed by idealists from the '70's, but large energy generating facilities managed by investment companies and energy suppliers. Articles in the media concerning wind energy are often interspersed with emotional arguments and contain popular ‘mythconceptions’ or strong political undertones.

In this article Energy Watch tries to paint a balanced picture based on facts without downplaying the cost of wind energy or overestimating the benefits. It is interesting and instructive to examine some commonly heard arguments against wind energy and to provide facts and nuance.

Political sentiments and views: A famous political statement in the Netherlands against wind energy is: “Wind turbines don’t run on wind but on subsidy”. Such figurative arguments actually prevent and blur a nuanced debate on the usefulness and necessity of wind energy. Many arguments against wind energy are in fact based on political preference, framing, spin and populism. Subsidies are definitely important in supporting wind energy, but modern wind turbines are a viable renewable energy source and are economically justified.

"Global warming is a myth, therefore the focus on renewables is misplaced": The claim that global warming is outdated is based on a strong case of "selective data shopping". Opponents often claim that global temperature has not increased during the last twenty years. Indeed it seems the average global temperature between 1997 and 2012 has fluctuated considerably, but start and end points are at the same level. The premature conclusion is that global warming is a non-existent concept. However, selectively choosing an interval with specific start and end points can be very misleading. Climate change can only be reliably determined by considering intervals over multiple decades, precisely due to the strong short-term fluctuations in our climate. For example, the same average global temperature considered on a longer interval from 1970 to 2012 shows an increasing trend of 0.16 °C per decade.

If one considers successive decades, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 90's were warmer than the 80’s and the years between 2000-2010 were again warmer than the previous two periods. Eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 occurred in the past decade. Since 1985, the average global temperature rose by 0.3 degrees, and the current trend indicates an increase of 1.6 degree per century. Concerning the global warming the facts are clear: the upward trend is unmistakeable.
“Recent discoveries of large deposits of shale gas/oil make renewables redundant”: The notion that large scale extraction of shale-oil and gas will greatly expand the worldwide energy supply, thereby reducing the necessity for a fast transition to a sustainable energy system, is seriously flawed. This notion does not account for the world's population growth and increasing global demand for energy. The hard facts on the scarcity of fossil energy sources paint a different picture:

The growing gap - Regular Conventional Oil

“The European/Dutch renewable energy targets are not realistic”: This argument often stems from strong anti-European or anti-governmental sentiments. Let’s take a closer look at how the European renewable energy targets are set. The European Commission requires Member States to indicate annually how they plan to reach their renewable energy targets by 2020 [4]. These plans contain information about the current energy-mix: the percentage wind energy, biomass, etc. and how this mix must change between now and 2020 in order to achieve the goals. The overall European target is set at 20% renewable energy by 2020. Each country has individual targets that take into account the country-specific opportunities and difficulties they face in their transition towards a more sustainable energy system. Thus, the target for Malta is set at 10%, while Sweden’s target is to achieve at least 49% renewable energy by 2020. In conclusion, the renewable energy targets of the 27 European Member States have been set with great care, and the energy-mix needed to obtain those targets is evaluated and adjusted annually. Incidentally, the Netherlands focus on onshore wind, offshore wind and biomass for the generation of renewable electricity, see our article: Renewable goals Netherlands.

Whether a country’s renewable energy target is realistic should be seen in light of their objectives. Likewise, a direct comparison between countries renewable energy shares and/or ambition is best avoided. The discussion cannot be limited to a simple comparison of the status quo compared to neighbouring countries, but must reflect what each specific country must do to achieve its renewable energy target in relation to what other countries must do to achieve their goals.

“Wind farms have a deadly reputation as bird killers”: This is another example of the selective presentation of figures. According to an article in the prestigious journal Nature [5], each year an average of 4.3 birds are killed per turbine in the U.S. In total this amounts to approximately 100,000 to 440,000 dead birds in the U.S. alone (supported by research in the period 2009-2010 [6]). That certainly seems to be a significant number. However, let’s take a look at other sources of bird mortality, in order to put this number into perspective. A 2005 study estimated that in the U.S. an estimated 50-380 million birds were killed by traffic alone. Also windows are a major cause of bird deaths: 100 million to 1 billion birds are killed each year due to impact with windows. Finally, cats are estimated to kill 500 million birds per year in the US. In proportion, wind turbines are responsible for about 0.03% of the total bird mortality caused by traffic, windows and felines together.

“Wind turbines only produce power during a small fraction of a year”: Let's consider the output of a modern Dutch offshore wind farm: the Amalia wind farm. This wind farm consists of 60 turbines of the type Vestas V80-2MW and was completed in 2008. During 90% of the time the wind speed is high enough to generate power. If wind speeds are high, more power is generated; when wind speed is low, less power is produced. Each year this offshore wind park generates 435 GWh, which corresponds to a capacity factor (load factor) of 41%. The capacity factor is the ratio between the yield and the maximum yield if the wind speed would continuously be high enough for the turbine to operate at maximum performance.

“Wind turbines are noisy and cause health issues”: Wind turbines produce noise and just as any other piece of equipment or system in the Netherlands which produces sound, they are subject to the Dutch Environmental Protection Act. This act dictates the maximum acceptable level of noise in residential areas, for both night and day. When placement of a wind turbine is considered, extensive environmental impact assessment studies are carried out by an independent notified body to verify whether the noise and shadow flicker fall within the legal limits.

“Energy from wind turbines is much more expensive than stated”: It is true that the cost of wind energy is higher than the cost of the wind turbines alone. This also applies to all other energy sources. It is also true that the variability of wind is complex and entails additional costs for feed-in into the grid. At a 20% share of wind in the energy mix, the total feed-in costs (due to balancing and reinforcement of the grid) are estimated to be 0.1 to 0.4 cents per kWh [7]. (see our article: Comparison Renewables Netherlands)

“The general public opinion is against wind energy”: Opponents often state that no one wants wind energy. Indeed, the Not-In-My-Backyard principle certainly applies to wind turbines. However, doing nothing is no longer an option and fortunately there are many people who want to take responsibility and are willing to contribute to the transition towards a more sustainable future. We hope that the reader of this article feels encouraged to investigate the energy transition in greater depth and will want to base their opinion on verifiable facts. A good starting point for further reading is the book by David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air. [8]