A Critical Report on Industrial Wind Energy

Let’s start with the assumption that we are having a courteous, in-depth conversation with a legislator, scientist, environmentalist, journalist or citizen who is an industrial wind energy supporter. We ask them to explain the rationale behind their beliefs.

Inevitably a primary justification for their support will be that wind energy is a critically necessary component to effectively deal with climate change. The question is: does that claim hold up to comprehensive, objective, in-depth scrutiny? 

This report created by wiseenergy.org assesses that question — and the answer is NO. (Although this is a technical topic, I’ve again tried to keep this understandable to most citizens.)
CONCLUSION: This analysis is NOT proof that wind energy has zero climate change benefits. Rather it is conclusive evidence that the main justification for legislative support for wind energy is likely false.
{Technical note: in almost every state, a wind project must be approved by that state’s utility commission. The number one criteria in essentially all states, is that the wind developer needs to prove to this commission that there is a “public need” for their proposed project. The main “public need” justification presented by almost all wind developers is that their wind project is necessary to meaningfully address the climate change crisis. This Report shows that such a claim has little scientific basis.}
The realization of this major disconnect should be a red flag that we are again going down a policy path that history is warning us will almost certainly not be productive. If climate change is an emergency (see Report #1), we have proven solutions (e.g. nuclear power) that do substantially reduce CO2. There is no legitimate “public need” for wind energy, from any perspective.
My hope is that these two unique Reports will assist well-intentioned scientists, legislators, journalists and citizens to avoid the ditch and stick to higher-yield policy paths (with human flourishing as the objective).
If you have any constructive suggestions to improve on either of these Reports, please send me the details. I’ll update them as warranted.
Thank you for your support.

John Droz, jr. physicist & citizen advocate wiseenergy.org


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (25)

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    This should be taught in our schools it points out many of the fallacies in the whole energy debate. I don’t know how anyone can look at land covered in windmills and not see that just from the visual pollution aspect it’s a bad idea with almost no return on the investment. They kill millions of birds,you would think that this alone would deter any environmentalist from endorsing them. Once again this whole industry is dependant on tax payer subsidies handed out by either corrupt or incompetent politicians with no return value. Good article keep up the good work.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    I agree Barry. The World Wildlife Fund bemoans the birds killed by wind turbines, while at the same time commending their use to one and all. Typical alarmist hypocrisy. Did you happen to see my recent article on UK electricity generation?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Barry

    |

    Thanks a lot,very good article you have to just love the pics don’t you,nature at its finest. In Canada we have the added problem of intensive agriculture on our prairies which is served by aerial spraying. In Saskatchewan where I grew up there was a concerted effort to put all but major transmission lines underground to try and avoid collision of aircraft. Wind towers are mostly placed on farm land on the prairies as there is almost constant wind,what an added nightmare for Ag pilots.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Andy Rowlands

      |

      Cheers Barry. I love landscapes and images of them, but not when they are spoiled by bird-chomping monstrosities. The power line plan sounds a very good idea with the amount of planes you mentioned, which as you say is now being made much more difficult and dangerous by these wind turbines.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    I note there are 15 references to CO2 in the summary article, which is presumably seen as the fundamental cause for concern. However, 101 chemistry teaches us the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of sea surface temperature. See https://bosmin.com//HenrysLaw.pdf – note particularly the straight line relationship defined by EM Prof Lance Endersbee.
    The fundamental question becomes: How do wind turbines reduce the sea surface temperature? Answer: there is no possible relationship.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Brian James

    |

    Jan 20, 2020 The Truth About Wind Turbine Blades And The RENEWABLE GREEN ENERGY MYTH!!!

    “Green Energy Movement” that is dumping thousands of tons of “non-recyclable” supposedly renewable wind turbine blades in the country’s landfills creating an even bigger problem than the issue they were originally trying to solve!

    https://youtu.be/UBaX9iu38JY

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Anon_Scientist

    |

    It is variations in cosmic ray intensity which cause virtually all climate change by seeding clouds and thus altering albedo, not tasteless, colorless and odorless carbon dioxide gas comprising one molecule in 2,500 and, along with water vapor and methane, cooling all the other air molecules especially at night, radiating some of their energy back to Space. Such variations can be caused by sunspot levels and by the gravity of planets altering the paths of cosmic rays.
    The temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is formed by gravity in accord with the maximum entropy production associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is NOT caused by the radiating or absorbing properties of IR-active (“greenhouse”) gases and in fact they reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface. This is evident when comparing regions with varying concentrations of water vapor. If climatology “science” were correct, then rainforests could be shown (with their false physics) to be 50 to 80 degrees hotter than deserts. That is just how WRONG is the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.

    Circulate this message!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Dr, Richard Lindzen said that he is unsure if clouds are a net positive or negative on temperature. The sun controls the amount of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and thus the sun is the controlling factor? No one thoroughly understands the very complex climate of earth? There is no proof that man made or any CO2 is causing any warming of the atmosphere? How can the IPCC predict a 0.5 increase in temp by the end of the century?…..can the IPCC predict 0.1 degree?….0.01 degree?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    It is the sun that provides the energy that determines the climate of the Earth. The oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere absorb ultraviolet light and X-rays emitted by the sun creating the ionosphere and the ozone layer. The atmosphere above the troposphere contains far more energy from these wavelengths than the Earth is receiving from the visible spectrum passing through the atmosphere. Since object radiate energy in all directions it is the more energetic molecules in the upper atmosphere that are the primary source of heat for the Earth.
    Since visible light is emitted by the surface of the sun and doesn’t vary significantly, while ultraviolet and x-rays come from solar flares, the grand solar minimum will reveal if the Earth is heating the atmosphere or the atmosphere is heating the Earth. How the sun’s energy is distributed in the lower atmosphere (clouds, etc.) is immaterial to the climate of the Earth.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      O2, N2, H2O, and CO2 all absorb UV and near-infrared light. This is true. Together about 144 W/m^2 of UV/near-IR is intercepted by these gases. ~77 W/m^2 is sent to space, and ~77 W/m^2 is sent to the surface. In their absence, the surface would receive all 144 W/m^2.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Zoe,
        It takes 945 kj/mole to split a N2 molecule into 2 N. It takes 490 kj/mole to split O2 into 2 O.It takes 1000 kj/gram to ionize a N atom to N+. All these reactions are occurring in the atmosphere above the stratosphere creating the ionosphere and the ozone layer. The uv band is larger and contains more energy than the visible spectrum. Where do you get your 144 W/m^2?
        When there are no solar flares producing uv and x-rays we will see what happens to the Earth’s climate.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          My numbers are from measurements.

          Q=mCpdT

          That extremely low density environment can’t heat the massive sea of molecules below.

          There is no top-down heating. If there was we would never have inversions.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            I will make one more attempt to teach you some physics.
            First, uv light is not reflected its is absorbed by objects and radiated by those objects as different wavelengths of energy. UV penetrate 100s of meters into the ocean transferring energy to water molecules.
            When you talk of Watts/m^2 you are talking about the flow of energy (joules/m^2 per second) This is like cash flow. What I am referencing is the energy stored in the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (assets). Radiation is a slow way of transferring energy and depends on the total energy (assets). The rate of flow is a percentage of assets. A nitrogen ion and its electron in the atmosphere stores more than 1043 kilojoules/gram of energy. These ions radiate energy into the electromagnetic field. When the ions lose enough energy (less than 1043 kj/gram) the attractive force between the electron and nitrogen ion reforms the nitrogen atom which contains more than 950 kilojoules/mole of energy. This atom radiates energy into the electromagnetic field (which radiates both to the Earth and into space) until it loses enough energy so that the attractive force between it and another atom is great enough to create a molecule (NO or N2) which still contains energy which can be radiated.
            The amount of energy stored in the atmosphere depends on the energy it receives from the sun. The amount of energy radiated (cash flow) depends on the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere (assets). At night and during a solar minimum the assets will decrease but during a solar minimum these assets will not be replenished during the day. The amount of energy (watts/m^2) being radiated to the Earth will decrease and the Earth will grow colder.
            The amount of molecules in the atmosphere is equal to a layer of water 10 meters thick. This is more molecules than on the surface of the Earth.
            There is top down heating and there is also the transfer of energy from the Earth’s surface into the stratosphere, by water, that is radiated into space.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            The atmosphere of Venus is hotter than the surface of the planet just like the atmosphere of Earth is hotter than the surface of the Earth.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            Q=mCpdT

            A small volume being hotter doesn’t matter. It doesn’t heat the larger volume.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            So a little furnace can’t heat a house. You really know nothing about physics.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            No, a little heater will not make the air temperature hotter than the heater. You really know nothing about physics.

          • Avatar

            CD Marshall

            |

            My math sucks compared to others but top down heating is possible the orders of magnitude to increase the surface by just 1 degree is enormous. I can’t do the ratio but the results would be unlikely and this would require the Troposphere to be much warmer than it is now, which would require each layer to be hotter than the other and well, we’d be dead I’d imagine by the end result just as assuredly as if the full force of geothermal was unleashed on the surface. We’d be crispy cooked and fried to perfection.

        • Avatar

          CD Marshall

          |

          Hi Herb,
          You said,
          “First, uv light is not reflected its is absorbed by objects and radiated by those objects as different wavelengths of energy.”

          In the Thermopshere with incoming solar storms how exactly does that work if you don’t mind? I’ve been seeking a cohesive answer to this since last year and I have not found one clear enough to make any sense of it.

          I find it puzzling that CO2/NO acts as a physical barrier to protect us from the bulk of these storms. Any light shed on this would be appreciated.

          Thanks

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi C.D,
            What wavelength of radiation is absorbed by molecule depends on the bond lengths in the molecule just as what radio wave you receive depends on the length of the antenna. The double and triple bonds of NO, O2, and N2 have short bond lengths and absorb short uv light radiation not the longer visible and infrared spectrum. CO2 with its single bonds and multiple bonds absorbs longer wave lengths. Because the uv wavelengths are shorter they can be absorbed by more molecules than longer wavelengths. The reason they are making infrared telescopes satellites to look deeper into the universe is because the longer wavelengths are not absorbed by as many molecules and so travel further in space than shorter wavelengths, even though the shorter wavelengths have more energy than longer wavelengths.
            Objects do not radiate temperature they radiate energy that is absorb by molecules of the right length and converted to heat (kinetic energy). Radiated energy from an object goes in all directions while heat rises because kinetic energy causes a gas to expand and molecule rise taking energy with them.
            Energy decreases with distance from its source. The thermosphere receives the greatest amount of unfiltered energy from the sun so the object there (atoms, ions, and molecules) have the greatest kinetic energy and the lowest density.
            It is not only the atmosphere that protects the the Earth from the solar flares but also the Earth’s magnetic field which causes the charged particles in the flares to change direction (right hand rule). The x-rays and uv light produced by the solar flares are not affected by the magnetic field and enter the atmosphere where they are absorbed by N, O, NO, N2, and O2 and converted to kinetic energy. It is the breaking of chemical bonds and the ionization of atoms that is protecting us from the high energy uv and x-rays produced by solar fields and is the magnetic field that protects us from charged particles (producing the auroras).
            I hope this helps.
            Herb

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    Thanks Herb,

    Got most of it offhand but a few points I’ll need time to digest.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Herb is headed in the wrong direction.
      All are welcome to entertain his silliness. I tried it too, but it’s still silly.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via