Talk:Environmental impact of wind power/Archive 2

Effects on human health
Why is there absolutely nothing in this article (in fact, the article seems to give the impression of safety) regarding the huge uproar wind turbine are causing over their effects to human health, as well as that of livestock? People living near these things complain of really bad symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue, and terrible headaches, and it has garnered plenty of coverage. (Though I'm fairly certain there will be lots of "studies" by the distributors to "disprove" this fanatical idea) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "noise level" section is one section of the article which discusses health effects. If there are any refereed medical journal articles about the effects on human health, please let us know, as these would constitute reliable sources which could help to expand coverage of the issue. Johnfos (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how many I can find, but I know they are there. Health Canada has issued statements regarding the "peer reviewed sources in medical literature" that have been funded by lobbyists of the wind turbine industry. I also have a document open right now that shows quotes from various governments showing their caution in regards to the complaints from citizens, and the insistment for a moratorium on their construction until the effects can be studies more in-depth. The document itself isn't exactly hosted on a reliable source, but it is a well written and referenced document and I'm sure we can track-back the quotes made by various health agencies. Quotes are on pages 9-11. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ  ¢  18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that document is not a reliable source, and what you call well-referenced is what i would call cherry-picking. If you can find anything in the references that point to reliable sources, then those might be used. But i wouldn't hold my breath from my own spot-checks of the references in the section you point to.... As an example (cited as a supporting source in your doc) comes to a rather different conclusion than the text in your document:
 * Field studies performed among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines showed that there was a correlation between sound pressure level and noise annoyance, but annoyance was also influenced by visual factors such as the attitude to wind turbines’ impact on the landscape. Noise annoyance was found at lower sound pressure levels than in studies of annoyance from traffic noise. There is no scientific evidence that noise at levels created by wind turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance.
 * (emphasis mine) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Every study cherry picks, welcome to the world of science, money and power, where people find studies to back up their point of view, especially the people with money. Just fyi, the publisher of a source has nothing to do with its reliability (which just because you have decided its not, does not automatically deem it so). The science of the studies are what makes something reliable, as well as the qualifications of the doctors and scientists who have contributed to them, regardless of the website that happens to host an online version of the paper. These quotes are still from government health institutions:


 * "Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer." National Institute of Health, Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 116, pg A237 – 238, 2008
 * “The harmful effects of sound related to wind turbines are insufficiently assessed... The sounds emitted by the blades being low frequency, which therefore travel easily and vary according to the wind, constitute a permanent risk for the people exposed to them.. The Academy recommends halting wind turbine construction closer than 1.5 km from residences” French National Academy of Medicine, Panorama du Medecin, 20 March 2006.
 * “There have been many reports of adverse health events. At the outset it must be made clear that there has not been any systematic epidemiological field study that could yield authoritative guidelines for the siting of wind turbines. Secondly no epidemiological study has been conducted that establishes either the safety or harmfulness of Industrial Wind Turbines. In short there is an absence of evidence. Accordingly until more authoritative information is available it is important to consider the growing number of reports of cases and case series of adverse health effects that are emerging.” Dr. Robert McMurtry, Dean of medicine at University of Western Ontario, Cameron Chair to deputy health minister of Health Canada (the list goes on for some time). Argument presented to general government at Ontario Legislature regarding bill C-150

In addition there are papers by the WHO regarding the well documented effect of noise and annoyance on health, for example: Health. Rights section 9 EU June 2007
 * World Health Organization, Noise and Sound, Bergland et al, 2000;
 * Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN). 2004 The Influence of Night-time Noise on Sleep and
 * The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2004; publication no. 2004/14E; Human
 * 


 * There is also the following report by Dr Christopher Hanning, a well respected and more than qualified doctor who worked for 30 odd years at the University of Leicester Hospital network (so to say he is not reliable is synonymous to saying research from the Cleveland Clinic is not reliable for heart disease) written to help an anti-wind farm citizen group in approaching the government scientifically:

The standards for reliability is not pubmed. Peer reviewed pubmed sources can still be phony constructs from lobbyist groups who have simply paid for "peer review", and there is no way to prove that right or wrong. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One has to ask why there are not relevant articles in the British Medical Journal, see search results here and the Journal of the American Medical Association, see search results here. Perhaps the most relevant article found (in JAMA) is about renewable energy and occupational health, see . This article says that:
 * "The potential occupational health benefits of a transition to renewable energies are considerable. On average, extraction activities in the oil and gas industries account for more than 100 deaths annually and extraction activities in the coal industry account for more than 30 deaths annually. Thus, if renewable technologies were to, at minimum, eliminate the fossil fuel extraction phase, which is unique to the fossil fuel cycle, current trends suggest that more than 1300 worker deaths could be avoided in the coming decade." (p. 789).
 * -- Johnfos (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A Freedom of Information request in the U.K. has revealed govt suppression of evidence and recommendations regarding wind turbine noise: "Officials cover up wind farm noise report". In the released e-mail, the author of the study suggests subjecting the report to "peer review" -- consisting of letting Geoff Leventhall look over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a trivial matter. People have had to abandon their homes because reckless developers planted giant 120 metre high WTGs only a few hundred metres from their homes and can no longer sleep at night. There are several factors at work: Jon (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wind turbines are usually erected in rural areas. Rural areas are by their nature very quiet, and many people choose to live there because they prefer quiet environments and/or are averse to loud noise. For instance, the background sound level at night at my parents' property often drops below 25 dB.
 * It is not true that on quiet still nights, turbines do not turn. The main reason they are so high is so they reach above the slower ground layer of air.
 * Inversion layers at night can help carry sound many kilometres. Turbines in hilly areas may well be operating above ridges, and the sound propagated through the hilly terrain by an inversion layer.
 * Low frequency noise, even well below the hearing threshold, can still be sensed by the vestibular system (Pubmed 18706484) as well as by tension and pressure sensors in the abdomen, diaphragm and chest. Bone conduction of sound has both a lower frequency threshold, and a perception threshold 15 dB lower than hearing (Pubmed 19146919).
 * Nina Pierpont's main hypothesis in "Wind Turbine Syndrome" is that this LF input conflicts with the vestibular system and causes vertigo, migraine, nausea, fatigue and cognitive impairment. She cites as support the fact that these symptoms are prevalent in people with pre-existing history of migraines, vertigo or inner ear conditions, and that pre-existing depression or mental ill-health did not predict symptoms.
 * Cite it and write it. We need specifics, not just "studies have said...". Funny how none of the people who get paid to have turbines on their property are complaining about the noise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kind of like the people that get paid to have experimental drugs injected into them. Money makes the world - and science - go 'round. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal note: There is a lot of nonsense in this, mostly these complaints are of the nimby variant.... Last time this came up on this article, i took an excursion to the largest wind turbines that we have in Denmark, 3 turbines really produced for ocean windfarms, which for demonstration purposes are erected on land near Esbjerg. And the noise these make are truly negligible. Despite standing right underneath them, there was no overwhelming noise - nor was it the slight sound of the wings enough to drown out (or influence) the sound of a moped that was driving a couple of kilometers away.
 * Now there might be some places where topography and specific weather conditions make the sound travel far, and even amplify it, but from personal experience it is almost non-existing. Denmark would be fraught with complaints if this wasn't the case - since we have turbines all over the country side, and since there are lots of people living with them.
 * We will need some serious reliable sources for this - not just the usual complaint articles, and "independent" reviews. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the Bitish Medical Journal said that every scientist on the planet unanimously rejected the idea of health effects being caused, the thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people complaining is statistically significant. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People with Medically unexplained physical symptoms or Somatization disorder often blame such outside influences as "chemicals" (generic), WiFi, power lines, mobile phones. People who think they are "electrosensitive" turn out not to be in controlled conditions. Some people with tinnitus blame underground gas pipes. That people ascribe their symptoms to a cause does not make it so. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and people who live in houses a few hundred metres from very large wind turbines can't sleep at night because of the noise. That's hardly somatisation disorder. Sound can even be below the threshold of hearing and still have health repercussions. Wind farms are fantastic, but don't build them next to people's houses, because they make too much noise. Jon (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, sources. Here's a report from January from the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health in Canada:. Here's a report from October 2009 by a company called Exponent for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission:. Here's a report by Lloyd's Register ODS for Statoil:. Here's an "Expert Panel review" for the American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association from December 2009:. What I conclude from these references and work by Pedersen et al. (e.g. ) is that the "health effects" are actually people being annoyed by wind turbines to the extent that this annoyance may affect their sleep. People who are paid to have turbines on their property (and who experience the greatest acoustic and visual impact from them) report less noise annoyance than people who live further away (who have no control over the wind turbine placement), those who cannot see the turbines report less annoyance, and people who complain about turbine noise are more annoyed by it than by train or traffic noise of the same volume. The problem appears to be a lack of tolerance for turbine noise - cognitive behavioural therapy would probably help. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yaa... Except almost all of those sources (save Environmental Health Canada) are are studies carried out by the companies with a vested interest in the infrastructure. They might as well be self-published. Whether the BMJ or Lancet has something is irrelevent - There are plenty of other sources that are reliable. Money influences, even the reputable journals. Who funds the research? But I digress; I provided half a dozen very reliable sources above from governments, not from distribution companies. Those sources were blatantly ignored, instead I was pointed to the BMJ/Lancet herring. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Claim
The statement "The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation" is apparently sourced by an opinion statement on an advocacy site. It doesn't cite the methodology as to how he arrived at this figure, and it also conflicts with what I've read in other areas. Seems highly dubious. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FellGleaming: I'd be extremely surprised to see a well researched and reliable source contradicting the above statement, since it appears high in common-sense. Once a wind turbine is manufactured and installed, its ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and overhaul requirements would range from low to negligible, especially when compared to conventional hydrocarbon powerplants.


 * I once discussed conventional powerplant operations in detail with a former powerplant engineer, and it was surprising how much carbon-generating activity is required to support such power generation over and above the fuels they directly consume. Compare that with 5 or 6 MW wind turbines, once they're up and running, they require virtually no additional resources to keep them in good working order. The amount of resources and energy required to produce and install the wind turbines would appear to be minor compared to the energy resources produced by them, from a  non-empirical common sense point-of-view, i.m.h.o.  Especially so when calculated on a project life-cycle basis.  Have I misunderstood your comment above?


 * If the sentence you're disputing, "...within a few months of operation" is an inaccurate estimate, what does your research show as being an accurate estimate? 6-12 months?  2-4 years? 5-8 years? I'd like to know.  Best HarryZilber (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that wind turbines require vast amounts of resources to build for the power they generate. The last actual study I saw showed that, per MW-h generated wind turbines used 5 times the concrete and 10 times the steel as a nuclear plant.   For that AND this other claim to be true, it would mean a nuclear plant would have a payback period of a couple weeks, which is ludicrous.  That study, btw, was done by a Berkeley professor who disclosed the actual figures and methodology.  Here, we have a wind promotion site tossing out random numbers.   This is clearly not a [WP:RS]] in this context.    Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our research is rather irrelevant. All that matters is what reliable sources say. If no reliable sources claim anything, then no statement should be in the article. Also, five times the concrete and ten times the steel? They're either comparing a miniscule nuclear plant, or a wind farm of 5000 windmills. A nuclear plant is gargantuan in comparison to a wind turbine. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed the  per-MWh generated part. The study compared resource usage per unit energy generated.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, that makes much more sense now. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We're getting off-tracked by comparisons of other types of power-generation. Let's get back to the statement being disputed: ""The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation"''. The statement is either accurate or inaccurate. If the existing citation is unreliable, then a citation tag should be added so a more reliable reference can establish its veracity.

Referring to the previous discussion on which is more energy efficient in terms of construction and life-cycle, wind or nuclear, I'd be truly surprized if nuclear had a lower energy payback time. I've been in one of the world's largest nuclear power plants which had an output approx. 600 times that of a very large wind turbine. I would doubt anyone saying that it used only 600 times the resources of such a turbine -that nuclear plant was absolutely vast. In that regard, please supply the citation for the Berkeley professor's research. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "the world's largest nuclear power plants which had an output approx. 600 times that of a very large wind turbine."  I'm sorry, but this statement is not true.  The world's largest nuclear plant is Kashi-Kari, with an output of 8.2GW.  The average nameplate capacity of a large wind turbine is around 3MW.  That put the plant as equal to 2,700 such turbines right there.  But that's only part of the story.  A wind turbine has a capacity factor of about 30%, whereas a nuclear plant is closer to 85-90%.  That means a plant like Kashi-Kari averages the  the output of about eight thousand large wind turbines.   As for the citation for Pev Peterson's work, it's in the lede now. Regards  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming: Check the wording in my prior post more carefully: it said: "I've been in one of the world's largest  nuclear power plants", not 'the largest'. A very large wind turbine, at 5 MWs, is one six-hundreths of the 3,000 MW powerplant I visited, so my assessment stands correct disregarding capacity factors. HarryZilber (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But your assessment isn't correct, because we're comparing energy output here, not nameplate capacity. A 3GW nuclear reactor equates to roughly 1,800 of your 5MW windmills. And how much resource do one of those windmills take?  I did a little research: here's one in Scotland.  It requires 1,300 cubic meters (46,000 cubic feet) of concrete foundation + 40 concrete piles, each of them 24 meters (75 feet) tall + 180 tons of steel.  That's just for the base. Total turbine weight is 900 tons + 18 tones for each blade:


 * * http://www.reuk.co.uk/Worlds-Largest-Wind-Turbine-Generator.htm


 * And we only need to do this 1,800 times to match the capacity of that nuke plant you visited.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No-one has ever explained to me how you can make money at a plant that makes energy without paying for the energy used to build the plant in the first place. The only thing that comes close to a wash in energy payback terms is fuel ethanol from corn - that's only kept going by subsidies, not because it makes energy sense. But the windmill people believe they can make a buck, so they have to pay for all the embodied energy in their plants.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Subsidies aside, as long as you're selling your product (electricity) at a greater price than its cost (which obviously includes the amortized cost of building your powerplant, which in this article is a wind turbine), then you get to stay in business. The greatness of wind turbines is that once you plant them in the ground and hook them into a power grid, they have little to very little operating costs to run, as compared to conventional powerplants that are moderately priced to build, but expensive to run.
 * Another advantage overlooked by alternative energy naysayers is that wind turbines, unlike strip-mined coal fields, are almost completely removeable. When a better, cleaner energy source comes along, you can bring in the same mobile crane that erected the turbine towers and disassemble the whole structure in about the same time it took to install it.  Cover over the concrete foundation supports and its as if it was never there.  HarryZilber (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * " wind turbines, unlike strip-mined coal fields..." -- how do you think we mine the iron, copper, limestone (concrete), and other resources used to build the windmills? Wind is  admittedly less of an impact than coal, but still worse than other sources like nuclear.  Further, the real problem with wind power is its non-dispatchable, which prevents it from ever supplying more than 10-20% of our power needs.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming: the prior statement added to the lede "for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those of sources. http://www.citris-uc.org/CRE-Oct11-2006 < /ref >" referred to 1990s wind turbines and was retracted due to its age. The 5.2 month payback now quoted in the 2001 study is obviously more current and accurate than that one.

Additionally, your statement above: "...we only need to do this 1,800 times to match the capacity of that nuke plant you visited" is inaccurate, since conventional and nuclear power plants connected to a grid also have de facto capacity factors to cover them when the undergo scheduled or unscheduled shutdowns for maintenance and repairs, as was pointed out in a recent science article. Thus a 1.5 GW nuclear plant may have a capacity rating significantly lower when you add in its back-up power plants, keeping in mind that overhauls and major repairs of such plants are measured in years, not weeks or months. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The cool thing is, when the company building the multi-billion-dollar nuke plant goes broke, it leaves a big hole in generating capacity. Whereas, it would take a dozen wind-power developers getting into trouble at the same time to cause an equally big economic loss. Wind power financing is a lot less brittle - it's easier to run a dozen $100 million projects than one $2 billion project. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this isn't the case. The CF was factored into my calculation above -- most plants average 85-90% CFs.  In fact, one nuclear plant has averaged a capacity factor of slightly over 100%, by virtue of it generating more than its nameplate capacity for much of the period.  Further, you redacted a claim based on comparing ten-year old windmill technology to 40 year old reactor technology, claiming "modern windmills are better".  The same is true of modern reactors, which produce more power at less cost than the old designs used for comparison in these studies.


 * The fact remains there is an enormous amount of debate in this area, and we cannot whitewash out facts simply because we don't like them. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 22:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Come again? 'modern reactors.... produce more power at less cost than the old designs'. We're not discussing the cost of electrical power in this article, but energy payback time -please don't confuse the two since your perception of nuclear power likely doesn't include externalities such as the storage of nuclear wastes for hundreds of years, or insurance costs for nuclear power plants which by regulation in many countries are almost completely uninsured, or the cost of remediating large land areas contaminated by nuclear pollution which would, if it were even possible, likely bankrupt any major western country. Returning to the issue at hand, a reliable source has been cited for the study which showed the mean energy payback time of just over five months for wind turbines built eight years ago (and which would now be less for the more efficient turbines now being installed).  Citing unpublished material (a video presentation) referring to wind turbines from the 1990s when wind turbine installations were much smaller and less effecient is neither recent or reliable. Unless you have recent and reliable references providing accurate figures, your claim that turbines currently use resources 'many times those needed for nuclear plants' is unsupported and should be removed as per Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For a nuclear power plant, energy payback and cost are very closely related. Fuel costs for a reactor are only a few percent; the vast majority of costs are simply capital expenditures. A reactor that produces more power per unit resource is going to have 'both a lower operating cost and a quicker payback time. There is no consensus for you to delete this material, nor is your argument that the figures are "dated" relevant. If you have a reliable source that claims the study is invalid for this reason -- cite it. In the meantime, the fact remains that there is substantial dispute over the comparative payback times of these sources, and proclaiming wind "the winner" while whitewashing out dissenting opinions is POV-pushing. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your contention that: 'while others argue that, for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those needed for nuclear plants' http://www.citris-uc.org/CRE-Oct11-2006< /ref > makes no reference to the wind turbines being of 1990s vintage, and by inference leads readers to believe that the energy payback is currently many times that of nuclear power plants, which is clearly false and misleading; your argument of dated data being irrelevant I find to be spurious and silly.  As stated earlier, provide accurate reliable sources to back up your statement; since your CITRIS souce was unpublished and non-peer reviewed, its not reliable -if the presentation were submitted to a journal in the present day it would be kicked out for using dated materials.  And please don't imply that others are required to disprove bogus statements, since Wikipedia does not condone reverse onus –you and you alone are responsible for establishing the veracity, accuracy and reliability of any statements you insert into an article; no one is required to prove they're false. HarryZilber (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * " makes no reference to the wind turbines being of 1990s vintage" -- it also makes no reference to the nuke plants being of 1970s vintage.  You call that comparison "dated", yet you think its fair to compare a 1975 plant to a 2010 turbine?   How would you react if we compared a new Gen3 reactor to a turbine built when Nixon was president?


 * But that's not the most serious problem here. You are arguing that current turbines use much less materials than ones built in 1995.  If you wish to assert that -- find a reliable source that makes the claim.  Arguing without a source is pointless, as you well know.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Serious Wikipedians aren't here to argue but to write good articles based on reliable cites -Wikiwarring isn't going to get that done today or next year. My suggestion is that if feel that wind turbines use many times the materials and have higher energy paybacks than nuclear powerplants, that you find the reliable and accurate references to prove that. Once you do that I'll have no objection to their inclusion.  HarryZilber (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Serious Wikipedians realize claims need sources. We have a peer-reviewed study by a Berkeley Professor  .... and we have you disputing that study.  You cannot bury a fact simply because you don't like the fact.  If you have a source that disputes the results, present them.  Your argument that "newer windmills are better" is not only unsourced, but irrelevant.  Pederson compared 10-year old windmills to 30 year old reactors.  That comparison already favors windmills.  Your only complaint seems to be it didn't favor them even more than it does.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 17:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While the Berkeley professor has undoubtedly published many peer reviewed studies, his video presentation doesn't fall into that category. Your arguments appear to me as fuzzy logic which won't win you points or let you claim that nuclear power plants use less materials per unit power, and thus have shorter energy paybacks than wind turbines –you're going around in circles without accomplishing anything.

The lede right now is citing a 2001 study that quotes an energy payback of 5.2 months for 1 MW wind turbines, something you have not shown to be false. What you've done to violate editorial standards is to make the statement '....the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those needed for nuclear plants', without providing direct reliable cites to establish that nuclear plants have energy paybacks less than 5.2 months.

The article also isn't named 'Environment effects of wind power in the 1990s', so, again, your quasi-unpublished reference referring to 1990s wind turbines creates false and misleading content. When you find direct citable evidence that nuclear plants in the present day have paybacks less than 5.2 months, feel free to include it. Otherwise you haven't established anything that should be included in that sentence. HarryZilber (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

CO2 produced during operation
Every lifecycle study I've seen accounts for normalized CO2/GHG production during operation of wind turbines, primarily (I assume) from maintenance expenditures. I linked to one such study in the article, here is another reference:
 * http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/News/Socioeconomictalks/FusionsPerspectives2.ppt

I have therefore marked the claim dubious to open discussion on it. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement that "operation does not produce carbon dioxide" is not really a lifecycle issue. Whether the operation produces it depends on whether we are referring to a single turbine during its operation or the system and its overhead.  A slight rewording might avoid the confusion.  Might something like "A wind turbine produces no CO2 in its operation" fix this?     Buck  ets  ofg  13:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Misc. Changes
I fixed some typos and started identifying POV's until I got tired. Many of the references don't qualify as NPOV. Some editors are trying to promote wind energy, others are focused only on its limitations. It reads like a dorm-room debate, with people interrupting each other. Nuclear energy is mentioned too many times, as though the article is a debate over wind energy vs. nuclear energy. I'll work on it some more later. Don't hesitate to edit my edits.--Cde3 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede revision dispute
Referring to the preceeding section "Dubious Claim", as of April 23, 2010, the article lede currently includes: ":Some studies have concluded the energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is paid back within months, much quicker than the six and a half years mean energy payback period of a nuclear power plant, while others argue that, for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those needed for nuclear plants."


 * Cited references:

Any others having citations supporting FellGleaming's contention that '...for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those needed for nuclear plants', are asked to raise them now in order to help resolve this issue. If no reliable cites can be provided showing nuclear powerplants have energy paybacks less than 5.2 months, I propose to remove the unsupported statement from the lede.

The specific reason FellGleaming's statement is unsupported is the CITRIS citation he provided is a non-peer review video presentation by a professor who employs data referring directly to 1990s era wind turbines, when turbines were much smaller and less efficient than the present day. Currently new wind turbines being installed are in the 2-4 MW range, and are even more efficient than the 1 MB wind turbines cited in reference No. 1 above which have the average energy paybacks of 5.2 months quoted in the lede. For FellGleamings statement to be true, reliable references would have to be provided showing that in the present day nuclear power plants have energy paybacks less than 5.2 months, which has not yet been done. Comments? Other comments on editing or restructuring the lede are also welcome. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion is unsound. The statement is supported-- the claim is that the study showed that nuclear power used substantially less materials than wind for the amount of power generated.  Nothing is said in that particular statement about energy paybacks, so the idea that "if we can't find a source mentioning energy paybacks, the statement is unsupported" is, of course, false.


 * If you wish to assert the study is invalid because "turbines are better today", you need a source to state that. Further, you also need to explain why you believe a comparison of turbine technology from 2010 with reactor technology from 1975 is valid, especially when the original study specifically cites that modern reactors are more material-efficient than those used in the study.    Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FellGleaming: you keep missing the earlier point that's been made several times, that this article refers to wind turbines in the present day. Your citation refers to 1990s era wind turbines, and which states that they used more resources per unit power than nuclear power plants.  However since this is now 2010, the article needs to present contemporary data that is at least relatively current, and nothing in the sentence you altered refers to the wind turbine data being up to two decades old.  Similarly, arguing that horses are always faster than cars, and then presenting data from 1850 to back up your personal view presents an equally distorted view in an article on automobiles in the present era.  If you'd like to present data in a properly identified subsection lower in the article on historical energy paybacks, feel free to do so and then also call up your CITRIS cite; that said, the lede with the sentence you altered currently presents an unacceptable distortion of data misleading to readers.  Also, stop wikilawyering around with semantics -in the current article lede 'resources' refers to energy payback, which was directly used in the sentence prior to the April 16th text you inserted using the word 'resource'.  If you want to say that windmills use more sand or concrete per unit of power than nuclear, then say so directly in another section without apples and oranges obfuscation. HarryZilber (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of the pre- April 16, 2010 lede version
The article's lede introductory paragraph originally stated: "Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of wind power are relatively minor. Energy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation.[2] Garrett Gross, a scientist from UMKC in Kansas City, Missouri states, "The impact made on the environment is very little when compared to what is gained." While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible, with only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure made unavailable for use."

...which was changed to now read: "Energy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. Some studies have concluded the energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is paid back within months, much quicker than the six and a half years mean energy payback period of a nuclear power plant, [2][3] while others argue that, for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those needed for nuclear plants.[4][dubious – discuss] While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible, with only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure made unavailable for use.[5]"

Summary of your FellGleaming's recent changes:
 * Revision as of 14:57, April 16, 2010: tagged lede sentence {dubious}:
 * 1) "The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation.{dubious}''.


 * Revision as of 17:05, April 17, 2010:
 * 2) deleted: "Energy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources;
 * 3) revised the second sentence to also include: "...while others argue that, for the amount of power generated, the resources used to construct wind turbines are many times those of sources";
 * 4) added details, not generalities, concerning bird deaths at one specific wind farm into the lede's second paragraph contrary to Wikipedia's MOS.


 * Revision as of 17:12, April 17, 2010: in the lede's third paragraph
 * 5) added a reference to local people fighting or blocking construction of wind turbines;
 * 6) deleted a reference to 70% of the UK population in opinion surveys either liking or not minding the visual impact of wind turbines.


 * Revision as of 21:35, April 22, 2010: in the first paragraph
 * 7) deleted an uncited sentence: "Garrett Gross, a scientist from UMKC in Kansas City, Missouri states, "The impact made on the environment is very little when compared to what is gained."

FellGleaming, in summary, made significant editorial changes to the article's lede without first discussing the changes and obtaining consensus on them. The exception was the deletion of Professor Garrett Gross's uncited quote, which was an acceptable change per Wikipedia's editorial standards and citation requirements.

None-the-less, the entire lede, subject to the following exclusions, is being reinstated to its pre- 14:57, April 16, 2010 version:
 * a) less the Garrett Gross quote, which will remain deleted unless a citation can be located; and
 * b) with the wind turbine energy payback citation retaining its current (improved) peer-reviewed Lenzen & Munksgaard reference, instead of the older, presumably non-peer-reviewed Dissent article citation of 2003.

In Wikipedia its unacceptable to introduced editorial changes into an article in order to promote a personal viewpoint, which may be the case of what occurred above. Moving forward, those wishing to change the article's lede or make other major changes to the article should first obtain consensus within this talk page. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Harry, you're now reverting changes from multiple editors, and claiming a "consensus" of just you. The "personal viewpoint" being presented here is your WP:IDONTLIKEIT attempts to hide certain facts, and your original research attempts to refute them based on your own personal theories.    Please abide by Wikipedia policy here and seek consensus for your changes.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FellGleaming: you've failed to respond to the earlier posted criticism:

"::FellGleaming: you keep missing the earlier point that's been made several times, that this article refers to wind turbines in the present day. Your citation refers to 1990s era wind turbines, and which states that they used more resources per unit power than nuclear power plants. However since this is now 2010, the article needs to present contemporary data that is at least relatively current, and nothing in the sentence you altered refers to the wind turbine data being up to two decades old. Similarly, arguing that horses are always faster than cars, and then presenting data from 1850 to back up your personal view presents an equally distorted view in an article on automobiles in the present era. If you'd like to present data in a properly identified subsection lower in the article on historical energy paybacks, feel free to do so and then also call up your CITRIS cite; that said, the lede with the sentence you altered currently presents an unacceptable distortion of data misleading to readers. Also, stop wikilawyering around with semantics -in the current article lede 'resources' refers to energy payback, which was directly used in the sentence prior to the April 16th text you inserted using the word 'resource'. If you want to say that windmills use more sand or concrete per unit of power than nuclear, then say so directly in another section without apples and oranges obfuscation."


 * Please respond at this time. HarryZilber (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Harry, I've replied to this red herring argument twice already. Read above.  To summarize the points yet once again:


 * 1) If you wish to claim windmills have improved substantially on material usage per unit energy generated, you need a source to prove that.
 * 2) Assuming (1), you also need to explain why you feel comparing 2010 windmill tech to 1975 reactor tech is valid, when both technologies are improving.
 * 3) Energy payback is a concept inextricably coupled to construction material usage; it is in fact simply the energy inputs required to produce those materials.  Therefore the comparison is apt.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 06:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP doesn't ask or require that editors determine the truth irrefutably, just state what reliable sources say. The references cited probably all fit WP's requirements for reliable sources. That they reach contradictory conclusions isn't our concern. I haven't read the two pro-wind papers, not wishing to invest the price for reading them, but if they do include the information referenced, then it's appropriate to include both statements. Informing the reader that the issue isn't settled is exactly the right thing to do.

However, I'd like to propose an alternate statement. The article's title is "Environmental effects of wind power," not energy payback times. The lead paragraph should discuss environmental effects, not just the one aspect.

Here's an authoritative source: http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf, a comparison study done by the European Commission. Here's the summary table, using monetarized environmental costs in Eurocents per KWH:

Coal and lignite     	2   -  15 Peat 			2  -   5 Oil 			3  -  11 Natural gas 		1  -   4 Nuclear 		0.2 -  0.7 Biomass 		0  -   3 Hydro 			0.1 -  0.7 Photovoltaic 		0.6 Wind 			0  -   0.25

It shows that wind energy has lower environmental cost than nuclear, but both are many times less than fossil fuels. Indeed, the difference is slight. Since this article is about wind energy, it would be more helpful without comparisons to nuclear energy. If the comparison with nuclear energy is included, then there also must be a considerable discussion of the problem of intermittency. Otherwise, the reader would be misled into believing wind energy could displace nuclear energy.--Cde3 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That source is trying to calculate "externalities" -- externalized costs during operation, not energy payback periods-- very different concepts. And their calculation assumes a very high risk of accidents for nuclear, which isn't going to translate to the US, since we have none of the risky RBMK-type reactors here.   Also, remember that this isn't even calculating total environmental cost from each source, but rather the external cost -- the part which is not reflected directly in the costs to mine and produce the materials needed for construction.


 * Still I think an externalities discussion is certainly worthwhile, but we have to be careful to distinguish what we're talking about here.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, externalities and environmental effects are the same thing, treating safety considerations as environmental. Payback period is just one aspect of environmental cost.--Cde3 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, externalities are just that -- external costs, which are not captured as part of a normal economic costing scheme. For example, the environmental costs of producing the materials needed to build a coal plant are not external, but the health effects of its smoke output are.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 01:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's Encarta.MSN.com's definition: "cost not paid by producer: a negative effect of production or consumption the cost of which is not paid for by the producer but is imposed on others." ExternE's definition is the same: "An external cost, also known as an externality, arises when the social or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and when that impact is not fully accounted, or compensated for, by the first group."  Neither of these distinguish between the environmental effects of producing materials for construction and the effects of operating.  They agree with your definition, "costs which are not captured as part of a normal economic costing scheme."  Who distinguishes between construction effects and operating effects?--Cde3 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another view on the lede
The lede as it stands is seriously flawed in the way it pits wind-vs-nuclear within the first few sentences. Maybe this argument can be fruitfully explored further down in the article, but wikipedia policy (WP:LEDE#Opening_paragraph) requires that the lede should avoid being overly specific. In this case, the lede (in my view) should allude to the relevant issues ('has advantage x, but there are concerns about y'), but leave the specifics of the argument to the body of the text.

Also (putting on my admin hat for a minute), I want to remind editors that wikipedia has a policy of "no original research", which includes original research by WP:SYNTHESIS.

Happy editing,  Buck  ets  ofg  14:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't even need to read more than 2 sentences of the new lead to see that it is enormously POV and immediately focuses on a specific aspect of the environmental effects. Is cost relevant to environmental effects necessarily? Enough to warrant the second sentence in the lead? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to make the lede paragraph more general and to make the first few paragraphs less argumentative. No doubt someone can improve them.--Cde3 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

2 MW Turbine study clear results
There seems to be a lot of debate over the material uses for wind turbines, but really, for modern large sized turbines. Previous studies have shown some rather unfavorable comparisons for material uses for wind turbines, and I originally saw the numbers at thenextbigfuture blog. Obviously this is something you need to go to the source for, but as I understand it the magnitude of the steel&concrete inputs claimed here use an outdated turbine.

I did a scholarly search on the subject, and there's one recent study that hands-down gets the award for relevance. It studies a 2 MW turbine (intended to represent a modern design) and was published in 2007. There have been more since then, but this one is accessible online. Reference information:

Journal Title - The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Article Title - Life-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method Volume - Volume 14 Issue - 1 First Page - 52 Last Page - 63 Issue Cover Date - 2009-01-01 Author - Eduardo Martínez Author - Félix Sanz Author - Stefano Pellegrini Author - Emilio Jiménez Author - Julio Blanco DOI - 10.1007/s11367-008-0033-9 Link - http://www.springerlink.com/content/3m51630210q0q078

There is a bit of a problem with this, however. The goal of the paper was to ascertain the carbon footprint. But lucky for us - they clear give a table with all the steel inputs. I summed them all up. You could take this to be conservative, since there might be steel uses not addressed (because the objective of the paper is to analyze the carbon footprint), but it is difficult to think that it overestimates the steel needed. The output and load factor is also abundantly clear. It is a 2 MW turbine and the yearly generation is clearly stated in the paper as 4 GWh. The total steel use comes out to 179.69 T and concrete is 700 T. You need to convert to m^3 concrete with generic density figures, giving around 304.3 m^3 (sounds reasonable). Divide this by the yearly generation times 24*365 to get average MW to compare to my first link. You get:

Steel: 393.52 MT / MW (average) and Concrete: 666.52 m^3 / MW (average)

Compare to the Per Peterson data that we started out arguing over:

Steel: 460 MT / MW (average) Concrete: 870 m^3 / MW (average)

It would appear that technology did improve (no surprises there), but it's not a game changer. Even with a 5 MW design, it seems tenuous to claim a big difference. And claims made from the comparison of old version wind turbine life cycle analysis are not rendered invalid from technology improvements. Of course, the same can be said for nuclear plants. Logically, this makes sense. The price of wind turbines are not primary from labor, not from fuel, and not from O&M. Did you think that energy was going to just fall out of the sky with less industrial inputs? No. You make up for it somewhere, that's the point. There is no magic bullet. But that's not a problem, we have steel and concrete. This extra pressure on the price of these is acceptable for the benefit of wind turbines and the value of a diversified energy portfolio.

I'm happy to continue the debate - but please don't make a theological point to me. I don't care. Tell me my numbers are to high/low or go home. I backed up my claims. You should back your own up. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why almost nothing on the negative environmental cost of wind turbines?
Surely an article about the 'environmental' effects of wind power should include environmental costs - without them its little more than a puff-piece. Environmental costs (my guess) should include -

(Averages for each turbine)

- Construction costs, eg materials needed and their production, damage to local eco-system through heavy construction, etc.

- Running costs, eg maintenance, oil and other contamination each year.

- Ecological impact, eg wildlife, on migration patterns etc (I know the article does cover this).

- Lifespan, this is critical to how green turbines really are.

- Parts recycling, how complete is this?, what are the environmental costs.

- Synergy costs, what other systems are needed for wind turbine operation, eg external generating systems to cope with variable capacity.

If these costs are not correct then wind could easily be as dirty as any fossil fuel. - For instance the turbine blades are made of carbon fiber and plastic, is this simply put in landfill at the end of use. I have heard the lifespan of turbines can be quite short, around ten years for the blades - this is information we really need. I suspect that its not Wikipedia thats the problem here, I have searched generally and come up with very little of any use anywhere, maybe looking in the wrong place?

The problems with land based turbines must be smaller than those with sea based turbines, but there seems to be even less information with their potential impact - very frightening when they want to put thousands of them out there. In particular with sea based turbines there is the question of oil pollution. One of the big problems with early turbines was the constant leaking of oil but there is next to nothing mentioned today. Lucien86 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All true, Lucien. This article is a work in progress.  A serious handicap is that, even though windmills have been around for over 1000 years, the current models have little performance data.  We're limited here to information sources that point to published data, not speculation, so the article will necessarily leave some holes.  On the other hand, the principal argument for wind energy is that it displaces fossil-fuel use and whatever environmental costs it has will be much lower than the costs of burning fossil fuels; from that viewpoint, the article isn't terribly inaccurate.--Cde3 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Offshore wind farms also create de facto no-take zones to help fish-stocks recover, as no vessels (including fishing boats) are allowed within 100 m. But I don't know of a reference for that either. --Nigelj (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see in the next section here ("Major public debating in Ontario"), the burden of proof is much higher for presenting adverse impacts than it is for claims of benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Major public debating in Ontario
Recently the Ontario liberal government refused to grant a moratorium on the development of wind farms requested by the conservative minority, despite public outrage towards them (in Ontario), and countless sources exclaiming that "The proponents just throw a bunch of meaningless "science" at people, but really no study can definitively say that there are no negative health effects". This has caused quite a stir, culminating in a protest at Toronto's Queen's Park last Wednesday. This deserves mention somewhere on the article (preferably anywhere that cuts the golden beam of light shining on turbines portrayed by this article), probably within the community debate section, which at the moment includes 0 cases of residential backlash. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is suitable for this article. Neither the opinion of some residents nor the claim that "no study can definitively say that there are no negative health effects". What kind of logic is that? What should be added to the article are studies that show environmental effects.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 05:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because the Health effects of wind power redirects here, there needs to be info on the negative health effects, and because these are the residents that live beside the bloody things when they are put up without community input. While a million scientists could take it to their deathbed that not one piece of harm could befall a human under normal operating conditions, the fact is that thousands are protesting, which means much more than any article from Nature or the British Medical Journal. People are fighting these, we need to mention it and their reasoning (which is also logically sound. If no study is conclusive, don't make bloody conclusions). There's no reason to fight the inclusion of this well sourced information, except to prevent a negative light. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sections 13 and 13.1 already cover public opinion. This debate would fit right in to Section 13.1.--Cde3 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. I was not aware that Health effects of wind power redirects here, so okay, this seems to be the right place for health effects, too. I still disagree about the information you intend to add. The newspaper articles you cite are mostly about opposition of windfarms. The bits that talk about health effects are basically anecdotes of individuals opposed to windpower. The "wind turbine syndrome" exists in the media alone. There are many thousands wind turbines all over the world. Take Germany as an example, since I live here. It's one of the most densely populated countries (much denser than US for example) and as of 2009 there were more than 21.164 wind turbines installed . If wind turbines had in fact any serious effects on health, believe me, there would be a number of scientific studies showing that and not just the anecdotes of a few people interviewed by a newspaper. The problem here is with WP:WEIGHT. The opinions of a a few individuals are in no relation to the many thousand people around the world that live close to wind turbines. Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that local opposition against some wind farms exist, neither that a wind turbine close to a home can cause sleep deprivation (much like living next to a highway or a factory). But these are no serious health effects. To include those, we need sound scientific proof as per WP:RS. And to cite from your last source: The conclusion, certainly that we’ve reached, is that there’s no credible study that we’ve uncovered that would suggest that there are health effects to wind turbines. This whole debate reminds me much of the alleged health effects when the railroad was first introduced, as reported in this source from 1884  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It reminds me more of cigarettes. Unfortunately the thousands of "nocebo" complainers is more than enough weight to justify the information being included. If it's just in the media, so be it, it's still voices, and a lot of them. Many people have been forced to vacate their homes because of the (apparent lack?) of side effects of wind turbines. This article completely ignores that, in favour of over a dozen pro-wind turbine reports. That is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I can't find many pro-wind articles in the papers, but I can find dozens of protests. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow Splette's reasoning. The section is about public opinion, not about health science.  It lists numerous examples of public support for wind energy.  But here are established news sources reporting public opposition.  If public opinion is not a suitable subject then the entire section should be deleted.  If instead the section is retained, then it has to include examples of opposition as well as examples of support.--Cde3 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow Splette's reasoning. The section is about public opinion, not about health science.  It lists numerous examples of public support for wind energy.  But here are established news sources reporting public opposition.  If public opinion is not a suitable subject then the entire section should be deleted.  If instead the section is retained, then it has to include examples of opposition as well as examples of support.--Cde3 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New section suggestion: Global Warming Effects
I would like to suggest a section entitled "Global Warming Effects". Wind power removes a small amount of energy from the wind. Wind is generated by temperature and pressure differentials. Therefore, a wind turbine counter-balances the effects of global warming by a small amount. I don't know the extent or magnitude of this effect, but I would like to hear your opinions as to this section before I add it.

~K (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source first. I suspect the effect is impossible to detect because it would be vanishingly small. Annual wind energy extraction is on the order of hundreds of terawatt-hours, annual insolation is on the order of hundreds of millions of terawatt-hours - might as well be just flapping our arms. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This logic is based on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. The net effect from wind turbines (or solar cells or any other device that extracts energy from the environment) is zero.  The energy extracted is eventually used, where it again becomes heat...just as it would had we not first used it to do productive work.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For further clarification on the relevant natural law, see the article: Conservation of energy, which states: "A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another." However the great utility and environmental friendliness of wind turbines can't be understated, since they, along with other sources of renewable energy like solar, etc...,  can be used to completely displace conventional hydrocarbon fueled powerplants.  Unfortunately politicians vested or beholden to those ancient energy industries don't always think that way (remember that George W. Bush got his first big business start in the oil industry). Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely displace? Heh, no that's completely impossible ... and something not even wind's most ardent supporters are suggesting.  Wind power is nondispatchable, which means even if you ignore all the other issues, you can't use it to fill more than a small percentage of total energy needs.  Utilities must supply exactly the amount of power demanded at any given moment (unless you like brownouts and blackouts).  We don't control the wind and we also don't have the ability to store the large amounts of power required to equalize supply with demand.  Even worse, wind power tends to be strongest at night -- when demand for electricity is the lowest.   Even Denmark, the nation on earth with some of the most favorable wind-power locations on the planet, can only supply 20% of its electricity with wind .... and even there, its only able to do so by selling nearly half that wind power to the EU grid at a cut rate, then buying back more expensive dispatchable power during the day.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He said 'they along with other sources of renewable energy '. So don't forget biomass, solar, hydro, geothermal, wave, and tidal. (Not that I agree with the 'completely' part, though.) Technology exists today to adjust the 'demand' side of the equation to the available power. Realize that it is possible to 'make hay while the sun shines', in other words you operate plants and factories when power is available, shut them down when it isn't. Throughout history, farmers have cultivated crops when the fields were dry enough, and done other chores when the fields were too wet. You adjust your schedule according to the weather conditions. Also when planning for wind power penetration, you pretty much have to think on a continental scale, not just an individual country. The output of the wind farms is statistically much less correlated when they are widely dispersed, meaning power output overall is more dependable. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually an interesting debate, here are my thoughs on this.


 * As the First law of thermodynamics states, no energy is created or destroyed. Therefore, on could ask where does wind turbine get their energy?? Simple: from the motion of the wind (wind energy is correlated to the wind speed. So, if we follow the First law of thermodynamics, the energy absorbed by the wind turbine equal to the kinetic energy (energy in motion) of the wind reduced. In other words, the energy absorbed is equal to the energy loss in the speed of wind. Actually, there are small loss in the transmission and others, but thats negligible and this as NOTHING to do the the efficiency factor (1 J of wind motion is turned into, lets says, 0.33 J of wind energy, the other 0.66 J is reconverted into wind motion, that's why we can't convert all wind into energy... anyway)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexH555 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Many people have asked this question, and National Wind Watch (boooh, hissss!) has archived a few papers: Weather response to management of a large wind turbine array; Use of Wind Energy in Power Generation: Some Questions; Can large wind farms affect local meteorology?; Influence of large-scale wind power on global climate; Impact of a large-scale offshore wind farm on meteorology; Climate Impact of Surface Roughness Anomalies. —Kerberos (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bird mortality due to other human factors
According to the article:

"The number of birds killed by wind turbines is also negligible when compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, electric power transmission and high-rise buildings, the introduction of feral and roaming domestic cats, and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources."

This looks like advocacy and original research, but that's not all. According to the article, because cats and high-rises kill lots of birds, it doesn't matter if windfarms kill a smaller number. That's unusual logic. What I gather is that if we're already killing millions of birds a year, we probably should avoid killing more. But according to the article, it makes the additional stress on bird populations "negligible". It ignores the cumulative effect of human-induced mortality on animal populations. The sources show that birdkill by wind is less than fossil and nuclear, but I've yet to find one that says it is "negligible", or in any other way a non-issue. In fact I saw one source that says that in certain species with long life-cycles (eg, raptors) even a small increase in mortality may be significant. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sovacool is a long-time advocate for renewable energy with a reputation for goal-oriented article writing. Even he admits the paper's conclusion is tentative. A second article comes straight from Audubon, clearly an advocacy organization, and only discusses cats, not wind energy. The last sentence in the paragraph looks to be relevant, but needs a source.--Cde3 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the reliability of Benjamin K. Sovacool is to be questionned, unless all wind advocates agree with wind critics on the reliability of the source (which I doubt), it has to be discussed in his article. Therefore I added a link to his page. Furthermore, I rewrited the sentence and cited the study. I feel the study was a little too technical, so I reformuled it. I hope I didn't distorted the original meaning of the statement. Feedback welcome.

PS: Just my 2 cents, I feel the study was pretty reliable. ;P AlexH555 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I appreciate the trouble you're taking to get this article right. There is a section below the introductory paragraph that discusses effects on wildlife more fully. What would you say to moving the Sovacool reference to that section, and making a more general comment like, "Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities affect the siting and operation of wind turbines" in the intro? I would think that such a banal remark in an intro wouldn't require a reference. Also, it's not obvious how fossil-fired power plants can kill so many birds. I don't want to spend $20 to read Sovacool's paper; would you please add a few words explaining the higher bird kills? Thanks.--Cde3 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, actually I'm trying to summarize all the numbers into a chart ->>User:AlexH555, but unfortunately many sources have either their links broken or not that credible to me, I'm looking for "us fish and wildlife" kinda references, NOT from 2000. You can even work on my user page lol. ;P PS: We'll summarize (in the intro), the wildlife thing after the section is reworked. Post scritum no 2: You just have to follow the link, there is a small summary of the paper, I can't open it without paying neither. He states wind power does same amount of damage as nuclear power... I'm kinda surprised that he makes that claim, I though he was anti-nuclear. That's why I believe him (I don't care of the damage done by turbine, as long as it is the same/lower as nuclear). AlexH555 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for replying. I think this WP article should be able to explain how power plants kill birds. If the reason we can't explain it is that no one has read the reference article, then that raises a whole other problem. I'm not sure we can reference an article if we haven't read it.

WP's policy on verifiability says, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;

* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;

* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I think the claim that fossil-fired plants kill many more birds than wind turbines on a KWH basis is a surprising claim and needs a high-quality source. One article from a biased author doesn't measure up. And if no one has read the article, its authenticity is even more in doubt.--Cde3 (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with that, you say the claim is surprising, but do you got any sources to back up yours? I feel that wind advocates (either editors or readers), will find that this is a reliable statement. I think the article is for both sides, everyone should get what they are seeking (hence the neutral pov). If you have another study that show that fossils fuels cause far less damage, you can show it. The only other option is the try to reach a consensus with wind advocates that fossils fuels cause far less damage, unless you can't do that, I don't know what you can do. (I didn't prononcound myself on the subject because I don't have any weapons to go to war, regardless who is right.) AlexH555 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument goes totally against WP policy. WP doesn't say we can include any reference, no matter how unreliable, unless someone can furnish a better reference.  What makes this point surprising is this:  it takes thousands of wind turbines, each with three vanes that turn some of the time, to generate the same electricity as a single power plant.  Are we supposed to believe that birds collide with stationary smoke stacks many thousands of times more often than they collide with wind vanes?  We don't have to reach consensus with any advocacy group.  Nor is our purpose to satisfy the demands of multiple advocacy groups.  We only have to find reliable sources.  Sovacool isn't reliable and the onus isn't on me to prove he's wrong; the rules state that this claim can only be included if it's accepted by mainstream sources.--Cde3 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. AlexH555 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to help, try to find a reliable source, such as United States Fish and Wildlife Service, that states the number of birds and bats deaths per year for wind power. Try to get a recent one, wind power grow really fast...AlexH555 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have looked for data and haven't found any posted by verifiable sources. I think that's a genuine problem, and WP shouldn't be posting information that isn't both verifiable and widely accepted.--Cde3 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Found this and thought it may be useful in better understanding the problem at conventional power stations:


 * "Bird mortality associated with collisions at chimneys, stacks, and cooling towers of power plants is a recently recognized problem that is the subject of at least two intensive studies and is a potential problem considered in numerous environmental impact statements. In Canada, bird losses at the chimneys of the Lennox and Nanticoke generating plants of Ontario Hydro have been monitored since 1970. Through spring 1977, about 28,000 losses had been recorded at these two sites (Broughton 1977). Much of the work at Ontario Hydro has been directed toward developing lighting schemes that minimize the collision potential at the stacks". p. 5

-- Johnfos (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought that this comment also helps to put things in perspective:


 * "The first large-scale commercial wind resource area developed in the world was Altamont Pass in California’s Bay Area in the 1980s. The Altamont Pass development has seen high levels of bird kills, specifically raptors. Although this facility has been problematic, it remains an anomaly relative to other wind energy projects". p. 112

-- Johnfos (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Johnfos, thanks. Still, two examples of chimneys don't prove a general rule.  And the Altamont example doesn't give quantities or tell us about other windfarm sites.--Cde3 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help (ill wrap this up asap), my main concern for coal power plant was Fly ash, (if it kill humans, why not birds ?), and Mountain top removal, for me, it's all about toxicity/environnement destruction (a bird that has lost his home is lost), not really about collisions. AlexH555 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent insight about the study:

http://scitizen.com/future-energies/save-birds-by-promoting-wind-energy_a-14-2731.html

http://nukefree.org/news/Avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity

I just googled Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity. For wind turbines, the risk appears to be greatest to birds striking towers or turbine blades and for bats suffering barotrauma. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on. For nuclear power plants, the risk is almost equally spread across hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures. I'll wrap this up and put a link on sovacool page and/or wildlife impact (this page). AlexH555 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alex. This makes much more sense.  I'm making some slight changes to the text.  Feel free to improve on them.--Cde3 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I've found a really interesting source about bird and bats death, check out for more:

http://www.nationalwind.org/asset.aspx?AssetId=337

AlexH555 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also a literature on avian mortality at communication tower sites, which is difficult to quantify due to rare mass-kill phenonmena such as seen sometimes in low visibility weather conditions. It can't go in the article (WP:synthesis) but it makes me take all mortality estimates with a grain of salt, given the novelty of mass wind generation and the small number of available studies. There are lot more towers around the country than there are turbines and yet the impact to birds remains poorly defined. http://www.towerkill.com/activism/workshop/pdf/intro1.pdf Geogene (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any more comments on birds and cats? The article claims that bird mortality is "negligible" compared to cat predation and other human-driven factors. I think a more reasonable interpretation of the (irrelevant) mention of cat predation is that bird populations are under enough human-induced stress already, and don't need more. Direct comparison between fossil and nuclear is relevant because wind could presumably displace some of that demand and benefit bird populations. Geogene (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is EROEI an environmental impact.
Following the revert by User:Harryzilber of my edit, I'd like it if we could discuss whether EROEI is part of environmental impact or not.

I appreciate that building, operating and decommissioning any power plant takes material and energy, and that those inputs have environmental impacts. Those are the sorts of things that are picked up by, for example, the Vestas LCA sited in the article. I agree that the environmental impact of the energy inputs is important. But is the energy that goes into it, relevant at all? Energy consumption is not, in and of itself, an environmental impact is it?

And Harryzilber (or anyone else), did you have a problem with all of the changes in that revision, or just the EROEI part? Did I make a mistake in doing several different changes in one go? Should I have split them up into several parts? Sorry, new around these parts, still finding my way.

ErnestfaxTalk 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (added from the main page diff summaries) Harryzilber wrote:

Energy payback is a portion of the total ecological impact, thus directly relevant to the article. Additionally, the areas of contamination in the 'Ecological footprint' section are directly relevant and properly cited. )


 * Please could we have the discussion here, rather than in edit summaries? I hope that's wikipedia etiquette - it's certainly easier. I understand that you see energy payback to be a portion of the total ecological impact. What I don't yet understand, is why you see it like that. I'd like to understand, if you could kindly explain to me.  As an example of why I think it's not: if I switch a torch on, and then off again, then it used some energy. But that had no ecological impact at all.  The making of the battery and charging it did, but that's about the ecological impact of the supply chain, not about the energy use in and of itself. Those ecological impacts of the supply chain do therefore come under the heading "environmental effects of switching the torch on", but the energy use itself does not. ErnestfaxTalk 20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons to other energy sources
Even though the assertions it makes are generally well-supported, this article reads like "Why wind power is better than fossil fuels or nuclear plants" and not a Wikipedia article. For the most part, the "unlike fossil fuels" bits can just go. The article is about wind, not fossil fuels. Likewise the laundry list of pollutants wind farms don't produce. And Chernobyl? I'll take that out right now just to get the ball rolling.

Articles like this make Wikipedia look biased and, in the end, do the cause they try to support no good as a result --Dmh (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)