Are There Serious Reservations in the Scientific Community Regarding Wind Energy?
Ask a Scientist - July 2010
K. Hansen from Wrightstown, WI, asks “A large wind power project is being proposed for my area, and a number of local people, including some I would normally consider "green", have concerns about it. Are there serious reservations in the scientific community regarding wind energy?” and is answered by Jeff Deyette, Assistant Director of Energy Research and Analysis.
No energy source is without impact. But the health and environmental costs of wind power are highly likely to be minimal—especially when compared to other sources of energy—and far outweighed by the benefits it provides. The scientific community sees wind and other sustainable energy technologies that don’t produce air, water, or global warming pollution as a critical part of the solution to climate change and other environmental problems.
One of the questions that often surfaces when a community considers a wind power proposal is what effect it will have on birds and other wildlife. Recently, I served on the steering committee for an assessment of the available research on this topic conducted by the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, which, in addition to UCS, includes varied interests such as state and federal agencies; wind developers; utilities; other non-profits, such as the Audubon Society; and more. The review found that while wind turbines can kill birds and bats, the impact is relatively low at the vast majority of locations and does not pose a threat to species populations (see Related Resources for more information). What's more, they found that the impact from the current level of wind development is much lower than other human-based factors, such as collisions with vehicles or buildings; or toxic chemicals. Additional monitoring and research is necessary, however, to more fully understand the interactions and risks, especially with respect to bats.
Over the last several decades, the wind industry has made great strides in reducing and mitigating the impacts on wildlife thanks to better research, technological advances, and lessons learned in siting. Going forward, it’s important for wind developers to follow the latest science and guidelines for siting and maintaining wind farms. After an exhaustive and open process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently came out with just these kinds of recommendations for land-based wind projects. They recommend using the best available science when assessing environmental impacts and include a tiered decision-making framework for developers to follow.
Another concern that people sometimes raise with wind projects are possible adverse health effects, particularly with respect to sound and shadow flicker caused by the turning blades of the turbine. There does not appear to be any substantive evidence supporting a link between wind power facilities and damage to public health, though the current scientific literature in this area is somewhat limited. Therefore it’s important to weigh legitimate public concerns and continue to support appropriate research.
Last year, an independent panel of doctors and audiologists conducted a review and analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on sound and health effects in general, and on sound produced by wind turbines. They found that the sounds from wind turbines have no direct adverse effect on human health. The study did note that the sound and shadow flicker could be seen as “annoyance” factors, but those are things that can be mitigated with appropriate measures like setbacks—how far from the nearest home or dwelling a turbine can be built—or planting evergreens that create shade to mask the shadow flicker.
Again, this is why it’s so critical that wind developers follow guidelines based on the latest research and best practices, and take the responsibility to be “good neighbors” when they seek to build in a new community.
The benefits of generating electricity from well-sited wind power outweigh these potential impacts. Wind power produces no air or water pollution, nor does it release global warming emissions. Compared with fossil fuels like coal, the development of wind energy can provide substantial benefits to wildlife and public health. For example, the National Academy of Sciences has found that air pollutants from coal plants, which generate almost half of U.S. electicity, cause damages of at least $62 billion per year, mainly in the form of premature deaths from heart and lung disease. And that’s not even counting air emissions of mercury and other toxic metals, or the contamination of land and water supplies from coal mining and waste disposal, or the huge potential costs of global warming emissions from burning coal.
Every energy source will impact the environment in some way, but it’s clear that wind is one of the safest and cleanest choices.
As the assistant director of energy research and analysis for the UCS Climate and Energy program, Jeff Deyette conducts analysis on the economic and environmental costs and benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. He has a master's degree from Boston University in Energy Resource and Environmental Management & International Relations.
