2 of 16

No

Write now Article Tools

Everything I found on this subject basically referred back to Denmark, who at this time is the worlds leader in wind energy production. Although some of the articles led to information from Massachusetts, and some other states here in the US, the wind energy programs were experiments at best, very small scale compared to what Denmark has invested in this project.

The information I found was not very promising, especially to Denmark considering what they must have invested to get where they are with this project. Denmark (pop. 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines.

The articles stated that although the generators produced electricity equal to 19% of what the Denmark used in 2002, no conventional power plant has been shut down. The reason for this is that when electricity is in peak demand the turbines were either shut down because of excessive wind conditions (these turbines are very delicate) or not operational due to the lack of sufficient wind conditions. Conventional power plants must continue to run at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.

The turbines also require being hooked up to the existing power grids, they need to power up and get a "kick start" so to speak from the power grid to become operational after sitting dormant. They also require the power grid to de-ice themselves in cold weather conditions whether or not they are producing any power. One article actually said that while the actual numbers generated look like 19%, there is no record of what these turbines used in that same year from the existing power plants. Suggesting that it may be possible that the turbines used as much energy as they produced.

I also read that the quick ramping up and down of the turbines taxes the power plants increasing their output of carbon dioxide ( the primary "greenhouse" gas) .

So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines the excess energy is a surplus, and Denmark sells this energy at an extremely discounted price to other countries, that doesn't sound to me like it really makes up for their cost expenditures.

In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs." One reporter from a Copenhagen newspaper wrote : that wind only met 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. As far as what these turbines actually produced; another European reporter said," that as a whole Denmark exported 70.3% of it's wind production in 2004."

When I started researching this article I was in favor of this proposal, I just wanted some facts to back up my article. I've always been in favor of alternative energy sources, and I thought ,"what could be cleaner than using wind?" The more I looked however ,the more I changed my mind. Other articles reported countries that had wind energy proposals, and after these, and other studies were reported they have since cancelled the programs entirely. Some of these countries include Japan, Ireland, and Spain. Australia has also drastically reduced funds originally invested for wind power.

Sources include:
A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004
The Wall Street Journal Europe
Copenhagen newspaper
Weekend adviser

I've included a few of the links in opposition of wind power here:
www.aweo
Glebe Mountain Group, Londonderry, Vermont
Kingdom Commons Group, Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
Green Berkshires, western Massachusetts
Citizens for Responsible Windpower, Backbone ridge, West Virginia
Springwater Preservation Committee, New York

Learn more about this author, F.Michael Sigler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Are wind farms good sources for environmentally safe energy? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!