Source:
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/37749f58.721,.htmlAS I SEE IT:
Renewable energy is blowing in the windBy BILL GRIFFITH - Special to The StarDate: 07/23/00 22:00
Wind energy is pollution-free and builds local economies. Wind generation can be distributed all over the grid so towns, schools, small businesses and even homeowners can participate.
In his June 26 "As I see it" essay, "U.S. needs more rational nuclear-power policy," Larry Drbal practically ignored the environmental and social benefits of wind and misrepresented both wind and nuclear.
Wind energy doesn't "take" land. Instead, it adds to the landowners's income. For wind to provide 5 percent of America's energy by 2020, writes Drbal, "we would need to install approximately 40,000 wind turbines, taking 1,460 to 4,400 square miles of land ... "
The word "taking" is a red-flag buzzword that just isn't accurate. No eminent domain is needed. Farmers who lease prime wind locations for turbines increase their per-acre return from 30 percent to 100 percent and keep farming as before. Grazing and row crops are unaffected by the presence of modern, quiet wind turbines.
And while considering land "taken" for energy production, let's not forget the landscapes devastated by mining radioactive fuels.
Nuclear doesn't deserve more subsidies. Drbal calls for "clean-air tax credits for ... nuclear power and other noncarbon energy sources." This, he says, "would demonstrate that nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical and affordable..'
It would "demonstrate" no such thing. Another subsidy would only make nuclear seem cheaper. Wind generation, even without taxpayer subsidies, is less expensive than coal, much less than nuclear and gaining on natural gas. Maybe this is what Drbal means when he says wind energy "is close to demonstrating commercial economies."
Why not subsidize the consumer who puts up a small wind turbine?
Nuclear power pollutes. Drbal again: "Nuclear energy's environmental record in the United States is impressive, particularly in its avoidance of greenhouse emission." True, but what about those other emissions? It's hard to imagine how a catastrophic failure at a wind farm could produce a household term like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. "Frightened Cow Event"? "Twenty Cornstalk Massacre"?
Wind energy means more jobs. An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that over a 30-year period, an 800 megawatt fix of renewables would create about 22,000 more job-years than new natural gas and coal plants would.
A New York state energy office study concluded that wind energy would create 27 percent more jobs than coal and 66 percent more than a natural gas plant.
Yet maintenance of wind equipment is only 1 percent to 3 percent of its installed cost.
The cost of fuel for wind turbines will never go up. Can you make that promise for coal? Natural gas? Nuclear?
Wind energy in America is growing. From 1998 to 1999, the amount of wind generation installed rose 40.8 percent. And now Texas is installing 2,000 megawatts of new renewable sources, primarily wind. From this, plus its new energy-efficiency standard, Texas will save $50 million.
The Kansas Wind Energy 2000 Symposium, being held today in Manhattan, Kan., will offer more information about wind energy's promise for local economies and the environment. Visit http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/ERC/Wind for details.
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions | News