Wind energy has never been without its critics. There are many reasons people are opposed to this form of power generation: unsightly turbines ruining the countryside, noise, cost, television interference and danger to migrating birds have all be cited in the great wind debate. Nevertheless, no matter what may be said about wind, it has always been perceived – by most – as a clean form of energy, with no fuel requirements, toxic emissions or hazardous waste. But not any more.
A recent article in the Daily Mail [1] puts the blame for a 6-mile deadly toxic lake of sludge firmly at the feet of the wind turbine industry.
What you are about to read is not a wind power myth-busting exercise nor is it trying to persuade anybody that wind power is the best thing since sliced bread. It is going to examine why wind seems to be such an easy target.
The evil that is wind power
The newspaper article in question covers the story of a rare earth mine and refinery in Baotou, China. The piece is centred around the rare earth element neodymium (Nd) and how the extraction of it is causing devastation to the local environment and populace. Some negative effects of the mining include:
- A 6-mile toxic lake in which children have fallen through the crust and drowned in sludge.
- Local villagers losing teeth, suffering from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children born with soft bones and unusually high rates of cancer.
- The covering up of toxicity and radioactive levels.
This story is truly harrowing and highlights yet another example of everyday people being on the receiving end of flagrant corporate irresponsibility and would normally be the type of story a pro-environment correspondent would cover. Unusually, though, the writers have aimed their sights directly at wind turbine manufacturers. The reason for this is because neodymium is a critical component of the magnets used in any new turbine. However, pointing the accusing finger at the wind industry is just a little weak.
Neodymium is not the only rare earth element extracted at this facility – there are 17 in total – and it is not solely used in wind turbines. There are many other uses for neodymium including: magnets (we know that); glass (usually as a colorant); alloys; catalysts and ceramics. [2]
There are then even multiple uses for neodymium magnets including: MRI scanning machines; security alarms and switches; TV and video applications; hard drives; chip detectors and maintaining the muscle tone of NASA astronauts (handy) [3].
In addition to ‘sexing up’ the link between the harmful effects and the wind industry, the article provided no proof, nor even mentioned, if this was the exact mine where all turbine manufacturers purchase their neodymium. They may well use a completely different supplier; one whose social and environmental responsibility is a bit higher up the agenda. Let’s hope so.
So why write the article?
On reading further, one grasps the true intention of the story as it begins to rant over the planning of windfarms in Scotland. At this point it becomes clear from which direction the writers are coming. This is an anti-wind article holding aloft the plight of the Chinese villagers as their standard to tell us all how evil the wind industry is.
What they are saying is not all bad, by any means. What’s happening in China is deplorable, and they do have a point when calling into question certain practices and effects of windfarms: the concrete used to create foundations and the roads that will be built to service the turbines, for instance. Nobody can blame them for being angry with this, but the article does seem to be spinning facts in order to reignite the huge backlash over the construction of windfarms.
Why’s everybody always picking on wind?
Of all the renewable energy sources, wind generally seems to be the biggest criminal. But why is it such an easy target and why is the opposition to this technology so vehement? Some possible answers could be:
- It’s expensive and consumers don’t want to see their energy bills increase any more. A popular complaint is that the renewables obligation (RO), which is forcing energy companies to produce a certain amount of their power from renewable resources, is being paid for by increasing customers’ energy bills. Well this may be true, but that will happen with the growth of any large-scale renewable technology. Also the feed-in tariff is not without its problems, but again this will happen with any technology.
- Wind farms are not very concentrated and have to cover large areas of land in comparison to, say, a coal-fired power station. This means that wind has many different planning applications and will consequently step on a lot toes.
- It’s very obvious. Nobody can argue that turbines can’t be seen. Whether you agree that they ruin the countryside or not is purely subjective and let us not forget; much of the countryside we love is man-made anyway.
- It’s intermittent. Agreed, but very few argue that wind can do the job on its own; it must be a part of a diverse energy mix.
The anti-wind sentiment goes much further than mere NIMBYism, and some of the protests do deserve to be taken seriously. However, there also seems to be a bit of a witch-hunt going on and articles like the one in question only makes it worse. The following example shows how strangely the anti-wind lobby can behave:
Much as I am wary of statistics and hypocritical it may be to use a statistic to cast dispersions on another statistic, I thought that this little titbit of information was rather interesting: Renewable UK monitor various media publications to gauge the public’s perception of wind power by examining the letters sent to praise or complain about the topic. They found that in 2001/2002 out of the 1190 letters that were published 727 of these were negative, but nearly 200 of these negative letters were written by just 12 people. That’s right, 12 people. [4] This is either really sad or – more probably – highlights a concerted effort by a few people to turn the public against wind power – just like the article.
What then do we do?
Something the writers left out of the article is, if we give up on wind; what then? Forgetting climate change for a moment – because they probably don’t believe it’s real anyway – and concentrating on other concerns such as rising energy prices, dwindling reserves of fossil fuels and security for the UK’s energy supply; what alternatives do they propose?
In the UK our choices are limited. The climate doesn’t lend itself to large-scale solar because of lack of decent sunlight. Nuclear, although a probable option, is very far from pollution-free and also very expensive; We do have the potential for wave and tidal energies, but both are fledgling industries and while they most definitely should be developed, they are not yet ready to fill the void. What we do have in the UK is wind. It may not be perfect but it’s our best option at the moment to start tackling the energy problem before it becomes a crisis. Or do we just carry on as normal and not do a thing?
The financial pinch with renewables will always come at the initial investment stage. It is a burden we have to bear. Alternatively, we could do nothing and simply let our children and grandchildren bear the brunt of whatever climate change may have up its sleeve, along with a much bigger bill to put it right. What’s happening now is exactly what the experts foretold when they said that climate change will cost more to adapt to the longer we leave it. This is it. This is the here and now where we have to spend and invest in the new technologies.
The simple law of economies of scale dictates that as more renewable energy technology is manufactured the price will come down. The RO and feed-in tariff subsidies are intended to do just that. If the lower prices are not then passed onto the consumer, then that’s an issue for the government to manage. It is not an excuse to halt the development of renewable energy.
Search any anti-wind forum and you will find a multitude of posts arguing that wind is being paid for by us, the taxpayer. There are also people who get annoyed that it’s foreign companies who are reaping the benefits of British wind farms. Well, it may be worth asking them to whom they pay their energy bill. It wouldn’t be a foreign energy company by any chance, would it?
It may be that the anti-wind lobby is relying on a techno-fix of another variety to save the day: Nuclear fusion or some kind of particle acceleration power generation may be relatively close – wonderful. But until the day the next form of clean energy emerges in such numbers that we can stop burning fossil fuels and tear down the turbines, we need a contingency plan.
The problems with the neodymium mining – and a plethora of other similar issues – cannot go on, agreed. But nor can we simply do nothing about climate change and shrinking energy reserves. No energy source is completely clean, but wind is cleaner than most. Also, with the backing of a growing, influential wind industry perhaps something can even be done to help clear up the mess at Baotou.
In summary then…
While wind may not be the perfect solution, it currently stands out as one of our best option to draw large amounts of energy from a renewable resource. It is understandable that many may have strong reservations over the technology, but the question should also be put to them: if not wind, then what? Protesting against wind energy with reasoned and valid arguments is one thing, and should be encouraged within a modern democracy. Writing misleading articles, however, in a national newspaper with the intention of swaying public opinions is not right (it’s nothing new either).
It must be mentioned, though, that the article should at least be praised for raising the issues happening in China, it’s just a shame it’s so mis-directed. Nevertheless, halting the expansion of the wind industry will not make the problems at Baotou disappear.
So, are we the public destined to languish in the middle of this eternal debate that climate change is a contrivance and everything we try to do to stop it is simply a governmental conspiracy or a corporate get-rich-quick scheme? Or are we are to forge ahead with something effective and meaningful? If so, this onslaught on wind power needs to stop.
Further reading on large-scale wind energy:
http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/131/20/Wind-Power—Large-Scale.html
http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/201/20/Building-an-offshore-green-economy.html
http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/40/20/Wind-Power-An-Advantageous-Energy-Solution.html
References
