Wind Turbine Criticism Churns: Noise, Water Contamination

Jackianne Abbey
0709105

In the article “Wind turbine criticism churns: noise, water contamination” (14 September 2010), found in NEWS telegram.com, Craig S. Semon informs the readers about problems associated with wind turbines. In the article, the opposition to wind turbines is voiced by Robert Anders, a building inspector who worked in Webster. The author extensively quotes Robert to get his insight on the issue. Therefore, most of the arguments are made by Anders and not the author. Andres’ major claim is that “Wind Power is NOT Free” (Semon 2010) because of the consequential costs. Kurt Tramposch, a community and environmental health planner, states in the article that Webster “lacks the right conditions” to farm wind turbines.
Some of Anders’ examples include “each turbine produces more than 800 gallons of hazardous waste, induces lightning strikes, can throw ice several thousand feet, cause nauseating strobe effects with the flickering shadows of its blades, can contaminate groundwater and can fall over or explode” (Semon 2010). The source of Anders’ evidence is very unclear. Without sourcing, how is one to know that this claim has not been fabricated? Anders does not specify what kind of hazardous waste is produced. Is this amount a large amount when compared to other energy sources such as fossil fuels or natural gas? All of today’s energy sources have some sort of consequences. We need to understand which consequences are most/least harmful.
Other consequences that Anders brings up include heightened noise levels and lowered aesthetics. We must ask ourselves whether or not these consequences are worse than greenhouse gas emissions being produced by other energy sources. Another point of consideration is the fact that we could run out of natural resources at any point. One could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs because without green energy, there could be larger problems than noisy turbines.
Where does one draw the line between costs and benefits regarding wind versus conventional energy sources. For example you could say that one thing is the least harmful because it pollutes the least. What if a factory pollutes less in a sensitive area? This could kill a whole ecosystem even though the pollution count is technically low. How do we know that polluting less is in fact less harmful than the product that pollutes a little bit more but doesn’t kill an entire ecosystem?
Anders brings up the example of an exploding turbine in California. He fails to explain the causes of the explosion of this turbine. Did it fall and explode? Did someone shoot a firework at the turbine, causing it to catch fire? If the cause of the explosion was included, this piece of evidence would be much stronger.
Kurt Tramposch states that the proposed building site for turbines “lack the right conditions.” However, Tramposch does not state what the right conditions for a wind turbine may be, and does not state why the Douglas Woods Wind Farm would be so unsuitable for the turbines.
Another consideration is that while the harms of fossil fuels are proven, the theoretical harms of wind turbines are not. The precautionary principle states that one should know all the harmful effects that may be caused before allowing a product to be used. It is not realistic to rely on the precautionary principle for wind turbines. The benefits outweigh the consequences and setting up a test station to find out the harmful effects of the wind turbine would be unnecessary. Instead, the turbines should be set up in a community right from the start. The community will benefit from the electricity that the turbines are producing and if a harmful consequence were to happen, it could be documented and used in later research which may re-evaluate the benefits and risks of wind turbines.
In Anders’ arguments, the main concern for turbines is the serious consequences that come along with them. However, all energy sources have harmful consequences. For example using fossil fuels may lead to a depletion of natural resources, and these fossil fuels are the main contributor to the worlds greenhouse gases (Enzler 2009). The penalties associated with wind turbines seem much less harmful than the penalties that come with fossil fuels.

References
Enzler, S. “Greenhouse Gases”. LENNTECH. 2009. Lenntech Water treatment & purification Holding B.V. 8 Nov. 2010. < http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/greenhouse-gases.htm>.

Semon, C. “Wind turbine criticism churns: Noise, Water contamination”. NEWS telegram.com. 14 Sept. 2010. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. 8 Nov. 2010. .