Talk:Environmental impact of wind power/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ecological footprint

I find this whole section a bit dodgy.

• How much lubricating fluid do we expect to leak how often to what effect? There ought to be statistics from existing installations. If say, a few gallons of lubricant are going to scatter over a few acres of generally arid land, are we really worried? Let's see some numbers.
• Rare earths: How much of this is unique to wind power. Probably not much. As a practical matter, anything using a dynamo needs good permanent magnets. How disruptive is it to mine two tons of neodymium? How much would be needed total?
• Praiseworthy wind farm: As far as I can tell, every broader ecological benefit cited here could have been obtained without building a single windmill.

Finally, once you take out the "windmills do not cause nuclear meltdowns" and other such, how much is left here that's not already said elsewhere in the article? --Dmh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

Hi Dmh, thanks for this. I guess the point of the Black Law wind farm is to illustrate the best-case environmental impacts: that it can be done in a way that's a net positive - that's what gives it notability.

About the phrasing in the lead. Your edit is without doubt an improvement on the previous version. I wonder whether this "X said ..." is more of a reportage style, rather than an encyclopaedic one? Elsewhere in this article and across wikipedia, it seems more common to state "XYZ [reference]", than to state "source W says XYZ [reference]". What do you think? Ernestfax^Talk 07:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot a thing. I agree that the ecological impact section looks small, with the bad stuff removed. Aren't birds and bats actually part of the ecological impact? Wouldn't it make sense to move those into subsections of "ecological impact"? Ernestfax^Talk 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to get the text in line with the references and jump-start some cleanup. The phrasing needed improvement and you have definitely improved it. Thanks! My guess is that the footprint section can be merged into the rest of the article, or possibly some of the rest of the article moved into it. Have at it! --Dmh (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering Dmh's questions higher up: A typical 1.5MW single turbine requires about half a ton of rare earth magnet (currently neodymium, yes, but anticipating that different REs can be used in the future). Given that one coal fired power station with four turbines produces say 2000MW, that would require 1,300 (one thousand three hundred) turbines to replace one power station, ie, 650 tons of RE. That is a LOT.

Also, consider that all of the REs are chemically very similar, which means that it takes a lot of clever chemistry to separate them, and therefore also inevitably produces a lot of pollution. China, currently the world lead exporter of REs, has drastically cut its export of REs for mainly that reason (although my personal POV is that they have done it to up the price, a tactic that is working very well).

Finally, 1,300 wind turbines are going to consume a heck of a lot more real estate than that one coal-fired power station. The maths is very simple: with a typical 250m separation between turbines, if you have 1000 turbines spaced as a grid of 65 X 20 that's a footprint of 16km X 5km (about 10 miles X 3 miles), a LOT more than a power station, its piles of coal, its water supply, everything. So yes, Dmh, at the moment, it is environmentally VERY disruptive to produce electricity from wind turbines on a scale similar to coal. The sad truth at the moment is that "there is no such thing as green electricity, there are merely different shades of dirty brown". Old_Wombat (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Effects of noise

This entire section focuses on a few fringe theories that aren't widely accepted or repeated in scientific literature. Why is it citing a paediatrician as a valid source? This entire bit reads as though it was written by conspiracy nuts and technophobes. I think this falls under WP:Fringe IanBushfield (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be? They are still a licenced physician. Feel free to add some information from the "scientific literature" (like it's some embodiment of the thousands of scientists that agree on a common idea. Rare) to dispell the non-scientific literature of the fringe paediatrician. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Nina Pierpont being a pediatrician is that she's not an acoustician and if you read her stuff she confuses and conflates a number of acoustics terminology. And there is the issue of her research (at least the "Wind Turbine Syndrome" part): it's not really, research, it's a set of case using a self-selected sample of people who claimed to be impacted by wind turbine noise, with no control group, no general surveys, and very little noise data (and what is there is often used improperly). A complete study should look something like the EPA Levels document. Not to mention that a bunch of folks have tried and failed to corroborate Wind Turbine Syndrome. Anechoic Man (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the section could just be deleted. The references themselves are reliable, and the section describes the points as contentions, not established facts. In any case, noise effects, real or imagined, are important to the subject because of public-acceptance issues so some reference is needed for the article to be complete. WP:Fringe says:

Fringe theory in a nutshell: To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Noise effects get so much attention in mainstream media that they ought to be covered.--Cde3 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On second reading, including the supplemental reports, I think it has all it needs to be neutral, but it doesn't read very encyclopaedic to me. I think my issue is that it starts off with (what I consider) fringe views and then lists random studies. It needs to be summarized a bit better and cleaned up. I'm not suggesting deleting the section as this is notable enough that it should be discussed, but it merits a re-write I think. IanBushfield (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The section is reasonably neutrally written, but I agree with Ian that it might be revised to indicate up-front that the idea of adverse human health effects of wind turbines is a speculative hypothesis, and has a long way to go if it is ever to be sound theory. To ignore the issue would be counterproductive, I believe. It would be appropriate to note the unfortunate lack of peer-reviewed literature to cite on the topic. Ruth Douglas Miller, Kansas Wind Applications Center. 129.130.40.209 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty here is not Dr Pierpont's qualifications, that is attacking the source instead of the work itself. Pierpont's study and book about it are scientifically worthless. Uncontrolled, unverified results, too small a sample size and the worst example of selection bias that I have personally ever seen. The anti-wind turbine activists seize upon any opinion they can find to bolster their hypotheses and discredit any work that opposes their belief systems that they hold with religious fervor(the comprehensive report sponsored by AWEA/CANWEA, the Australian government report, the report of the Chatham-Kent Health Unit and the report of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), mostly by attacking the supposed partiality of the authors rather than refuting the findings. This extends even to denial of global warming. If a consensus can be reached about what is a health effect (pathological effect versus annoyance) I think we could get to a reasonable conclusion quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkentine (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the debate about the research is of course the matter of what exactly is the population you are trying to sample. Typically, studies are directed at determining frequencies and outcomes in a large population and use sampling techniques associated with large populations that are assumed to have a normal distribution in the context of the matter being investigated. Here, however, the sample may in fact be the population and if this is the case “small” samples are in fact relevant because they represent the population in its entirety.

Let me illustrate this by commenting on studies of real estate values. The object of the research is to determine whether the presence of wind turbines affects real estate values. One study typical of the ones I have seen looked at real estate transactions within a 5 mile radius of the wind farm. I forget the exact numbers but say there were 100 such transactions and the study found only 5 that were significantly below the mean for the area and perhaps 5 that were significantly above the mean. Conclusion: no impact on values. But what this large sample size and seemingly reasonable methodology masks is the potential fact that a 5 mile radius is in fact rather large and that other factors may play a significant role in valuation. For example, it might be the case that only 15 of those 100 homes have direct line of sight with the turbines and only 5 of those homes are within 750 meters of the turbines. What then is the appropriate population to be sampled.... the full 100 transactions; the 15 with direct line of sight; the 5 that could be expected to be more directly impacted by the presence of the turbines? If the 5 homes within 750 meters were the same 5 that sold significantly below the mean then I think one might draw a different conclusion than that of the larger sample study.

Add to this the apparent restrictions placed on potential members of the “relevant population” (gag orders; good neighbour clauses and the like) and the findings associated with “case studies” become much more relevant. Rphillips51 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)RPhillips

There was a study done in Australia by a university that tackled this issue from a completely different angle. They collected statistics from pharmacies regarding the sale of various prescription drugs sold to combat the supposed effects of turbines, and correlated this with distances from wind turbine farms. They found no - as in zero - correlation. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecological footprint of turbine manufacturing

Something which, surprisingly, is entirely ignored in this article is the ecological footprint left by the process of manufacturing wind turbines - namely, the mining of rare-earth metals. 95% of these come from China, and the environmental impact of these mines is, frankly, appalling.^{(New York Times) (The Times)} While these rare earth metals have other uses, they remain as intrinsic to the function of a wind turbine as uranium is to a nuclear power plant (I notice our article on that subject goes so far as to talk about the carbon dioxide emitted in the transportation of uranium from mines to power plants. No such mention here of the carbon produced shipping enormous windmill components cross-country via semi-trailer, or of shipping rare-earths across the ocean). Shouldn't the article address this in some capacity? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you learn this from? If it's a quality reliable source and the content is relevant, you may add it to he article. It may be worth discussing your source and proposed wording here first. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these issues are already covered to a large extent. The article here certainly says:

Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources.

I wouldn't say that rare earths remain "intrinsic to the function of a wind turbine". In fact researchers are already working to make rare earths redundant in renewable energy applications, see [1]. Johnfos (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither steel, concrete, nor aluminum are rare-earth metals, and I think the blog entry you posted would fall short of WP:RS. Hypothetical future developments aside, the fact remains that current technology relies on rare-earth metals, and there is exactly zero mention of this in our article at present. Answering HiLo48, I provided two sources in my first post above, one from the New York Times, the other from The Times of London. Both articles discuss the environmental impact of Chinese mining practices (China currently has a 95% lock on the rare-earth metal market), and both articles specifically discuss their relation to the production of wind turbines. I think a subsection devoted to this subject would be necessary to fully convey the scope of the issue, discussing exactly how rare-earth metals are used in these turbines, in addition to the environmental impact of mining them with current practices. China's rare-earth industry produces more emissions than the whole of the United States' oil refineries, according to the Bloomberg article presented below. If more reliable sources exist describing current developments which move away from rare-earths, it would be appropriate to make mention of it in this proposed subsection. Possible wording (I can provide more sources if necessary):

The permanent magnets used in wind turbines are constructed with metals which exist on Earth in limited quantities. Up to two tons of rare-earth metals are required in a single three-megawatt turbine.[1] Over 95% of these metals are exported from China, where unsafe work conditions and the environmental impact of rare-earth production, including blighted farmland and poisoning of local water sources, has led to protests against mining operations.[1][2]

[1] Chinese pay toxic price for a green world - Times Online

[2] Earth-Friendly Elements, Mined Destructively - New York Times

Other sources: Daily Mail - PBS - Bloomberg

This is a very condensed summary. The articles go into far more detail, which would have to be incorporated to paint an accurate picture. Rare-earth metals are mined by pumping acid into the earth. The resulting slurry is siphoned to a processing center on the surface, where the desired metals are strained out by workers who lack protective gear. Artificial lakes of toxic sludge are created as a by-product of this process, and leakage has led to the poisoning of local water sources and destruction of farmland. From the Times article:

“We farm rice but cannot harvest anything any more,” said a woman, who was afraid to give her name because her husband is still in prison for protesting. “Fruit trees don’t bear fruit any more. Fish die in the river. We used to wash in the river and lots of fish would come to us, but there are none left. Even the weeds died.”

Some of these mines have officially been shut down, but locals contend that they have remained in operation under armed guard by corrupt government officials and mafia elements. I only first started looking into this yesterday, and the more I read, the more I think that my proposed addition is a gross understatement of the problem. Thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are getting carried away with yourself, and are presenting only one side of the story. I've summarised here some discussion from the Scientific American (2010), which provides some balance:

Rare earths are not rare, and deposits are found in Australia, Canada, Mongolia, Vietnam and Greenland. Research is being done into better ways to mine and cleanly separate rare earths for use. Efforts are also underway to recycle the deposits found in discarded electronic items.

Research is also being done into better ways to use rare earths. Nanocomposite magnets could cut the need for rare earth elements by 80 percent. The University of Delaware is conducting research into a nanostructured version of the neodymium iron boron magnet that eliminates the need for as much neodymium. There is also research into the use of widely available rare earths as substitutes, or whether powerful magnets could be made that don't employ any rare earth elements (such as iron cobalt alloy magnets).

-- Johnfos (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I said above that improvements which are currently under development would be a necessary addition to this subsection, so as to provide balance. That being said, it's important to accurately describe problems with the current state of the industry, as well as the solutions which have been proposed for them. I think it would be best if such a subsection were outlined as follows, perhaps one paragraph each:

1) How rare-earths are used in wind turbines

2) Current production methods, and associated environmental problems

3) Solutions which are currently under development

I remember reading a release from the University of Leeds about parsing rare-earth elements from industrial waste, but I haven't found any more material about whether the process is actually being implemented by anyone. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My original response above was made a good faith one, hoping to elicit some more scientific and rational discussion of the situation. My concern now is about the way the term rare earths is bandied around, very much in the same way as chemicals in the mass media, implying something mystical and possibly evil. I also get the feeling that there is an element of racism and political point scoring, targeting those inscrutable and evil Chinese. It's really time to get some facts into this discussion rather than just emotion. What are rare earths? Is it really true that the evil Chinese have a "a 95% lock on the rare-earth metal market"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a hate journal. There is a reason I used the word quality in my first post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I really was not expecting that kind of reaction. What I posted was an (admittedly very rough) description of the nature of the problem - you asked for more detail. I included five separate sources to back up what I was saying. The 95% figure was cited in two of the sources I provided (PBS, and Times Online - not exactly "hate journals"). Holding that kind of percentage of the market, yes, the Chinese will inevitably be significantly involved in any discussion of the current state of the industry. I can provide more sources detailing their official reactions calling for a cleaner process (linked from the Bloomberg article), and acknowledging criminally-operated mines which they are trying to shut down. The mined metals in question (Neodymium, cerium, etc) and waste products generated in the process (sulfur dioxide, fluorine, thorium, etc) are described in further detail in the sources I've provided, including their role in wind turbines. I'm trying to work in good faith here - I have no racial agenda, and I have to say I resent the accusation. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SOCO, as I said above, I think you have gotten carried away with yourself, and have been quite negative. And when you see an editor heavily pushing one side of an issue, in several posts in a row, it is natural to wonder if they have an agenda. This is particularly the case when most of what we are talking about here now does not relate directly to wind turbines, but rare earths more generally. Most of the issues to do with rare earth production and environmental considerations are already covered quite well at Rare earth element. There is no point in repeating them here. All we need in this article is a sentence or two relating specifically to rare earths and wind turbines. Johnfos (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand how someone might have gotten that impression. I should have taken more time to prepare my statement before posting - I was finding additional sources while I was writing the posts, and I was surprised more than once by what I was reading. As I have noted, this only recently came to my attention. If that is the way my presentation came across, I apologize. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. I do, however, think it is worth noting the importance of neodymium in wind turbines as currently designed (two tons for a three-megawatt turbine, per Times Online), and that there are environmental concerns with the production methods used by the primary supplier. A link to the subsection in rare earth elements which you referred to would be appropriate. Given these suggestions, here is my revised wording:

The production of permanent magnets used in wind turbines makes heavy use of Neodymium.12 Primarily exported by China, pollution concerns associated with the extraction of this rare-earth element have prompted government action in recent years.34 Research is underway on turbine designs which reduce the need for Neodymium, or eliminate the use of rare-earth metals altogether.5

Thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be suitable as the last paragraph in the "Carbon dioxide emissions and pollution" section. Johnfos (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is interesting, however it appears to be misplaced as the new revised text noted above should be in the Environmental concerns with electricity generation article. You do realize this subject is a bit of a canard, since all that the rare earths do is make generators more efficient? As far as can be determined, every single energy utility uses generators, be they driven by coal, nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, hydro or solar-thermal. While there's no harm in mentioning in this article that there's presently an issue with the production of rare earths, it should be noted at the start of the text that the issue applies to all sources of electrical generation. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But (as far as I know) other generators aren't made with rare-earth magnets. Probably because their designers aren't concerned about their size and weight, since they're not going to be installed on top of a 100-m unguyed pole.

—WWoods (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And ca. 85% of wind turbines don't use rare earths either. Only 15 % of wind turbines have permanent magnets, the rest have wound copper. The reason rare-earth production is so destructive is that international markets pick the cheapest supplier, and of the many countries with abundant supplies, there is at least one country with some environmental protection, and at least one with very little environmental protection; environmental protection costs money, and without any Pigouvian tax on imported rare earth metals to represent environmental damage, the rare-earth mines in countries with protection closed down, and mines in countries without protection have boomed. On top of these market forces which have nothing directly to do with wind power, wind turbines have a very minor share of the rare-earths market (as well as rare earth turbines having a small share of the turbine market). Ernestfax^Talk 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your 15% figure? It would be a valuable addition to note the percentage of electricity from wind production which depends on turbines making use of rare-earth metals (based on combined megawattage, not number of turbines). Terms like "Most," "Few," "Some" turbines (as currently written in our article) should be avoided if at all possible. The articles I've seen suggest that it's mainly the larger, higher-yield generators which make use of these metals (2 tons of neodymium for a 3-megawatt turbine), but I haven't come across any solid statistics yet. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2 tons of neodymium for a 3 MW turbine figure above is suspect. The Scientific American reference quoted in the article ( ^ Biello, David. "Rare Earths: Elemental Needs of the Clean-Energy Economy". Scientific American. ) calls out 300 kgs of rare earths for a 2 MW generator, and most such system designs are not linear, i.e.: you don't use twice as much rare earths to double the output. Even if usage was linear, a 3 MW generator would be employing 450 kgs of rare earths, which is far away from the 2 tons (4,000 pounds) quoted. The 2 ton figure possibly represents the entire weight of the generator or its armature, but doubtlessly requires a cite to a reliable source. HarryZilber (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The "2 tons" figure comes from both the PBS report and the Sunday Times article cited above. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the DailyMail cite in the article that sheds light on the mismatch of quantities shown above: "A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material."

There's no indication of what size generator was involved with that figure, and currently 5 and 6 MW generators are starting to be deployed, so the figure is a bit sketchy, but it is close to 2 long tons (long tons being used in various industries). "Neodymium-based permanent magnet material" obviously refers to a mixture of Neodymium and other constituents that goes into these super-magnets, so the neodymium is therefore a certain percentage of that 4,400 pounds that makes up the permanent magnets in the generator's armature. My hunch is that the 300 kg figure of Neodymium for a 2 MW generator quoted in Scientific American is correct, while the Daily Mail/PBS figures mistakenly referred to the total weight of the permanent magnets, which is both misleading and incorrect. Can anyone dig out some wind turbine permanent magnet specs to resolve this? HarryZilber (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

a 1kg Neodymium magnet contains a lot less than 1kg of Neodymium. The chemical formula is Nd₂Fe₁₄B. I do have a ref for that 15% - I'll try to dig it out later, unless someone else can find a source for the % of the market that's permanent magnet, first. Ernestfax^Talk 10:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK "International Wind Energy Development – World Market Update 2009; Forecast 2010-2014" as reported at [2] has: "direct drive machines had a market capacity of 14% in 2009" Ernestfax^Talk 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, and I don't think we (or the article) have got to the bottom of it yet. What is the connection between direct drive and rare earths? Do indirect drive (is that via a gearbox?) turbines always use electromagnets? If anyone here understands all this, it would be interesting to find the refs and improve the article. I don't think we need to discuss whether the Daily Mail et'al are reliable sources for the engineering compromises that apply to wind turbine design. --Nigelj (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, to be clear, I'm just looking at industrial scale turbines (500kW+) - as that's almost all the market, by rated capacity and by generated power. Most direct-drive turbines are permanent-magnet, except the Enercon turbines, which are direct-drive with wound-magnets. Whereas most wound-magnet turbines have gearboxes. Almost all permanent-magnet generators are direct-drive: that is, after all, their selling point - permanent magnets get used to remove the maintenance issues of the gearbox. Clipper Windpower and Multibrid have permanent-magnet turbines with gearboxes. See this for more. But broadly speaking a 14% market share for direct-drive is a decent indication of a very similar number for permanent-magnet turbines. Ernestfax^Talk 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

1. Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously. 2. Nuclear also has no emissions. 3. Visual impact of turbines not mentioned. This is a huge environmental effect. 4. "Other man-made structures also kill birds". Unsourced and obvious nonsense, many birds are reliant on man-made structures for nesting sites - don't see many houses or barns shredding raptors. 5. Wind in fact does have emissions in the form of spinning reserve backup.

Reads like a wind industry propoganda piece. Coldnorthwind (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Three of the reactors at Fukushima I overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive material into the air.

Your many assertions are incorrect. For example, after Fukushima, how can you possibly say that nuclear has no emissions? And apart from accidents, many stages of the nuclear fuel chain – mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management – use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.

It is you who are unbalancing the article with WP:POV edits. Johnfos (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My edit didn't mention nuclear so your point is irrelevant. This is an article about wind power. Coldnorthwind (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I too disliked the changes you made, Coldnorthwind. I agree with Johnfos that the previous version was better and more neutral. --John (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also have you seen the impact of neodymium mining [3]. Coldnorthwind (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have and the article quite properly mentions it. The Daily Mail is a terrible source for a scientific article. --John (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is glossed over. Mail is a WP:RS. Coldnorthwind (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a terrible source for a science article, and you just lost a lot of credibility with me for saying the contrary. --John (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wind power: worldwide installed capacity

Coldnorthwind, let me take another one of the silly assertions you have made on this page: that 'Wind is a "traditional" form of power, obviously'. Wind power for electricity generation (which is what this article is about) is a relatively new technology, not a mature one like fossil fuels and nuclear. Look at the graph at the right, and you can see that "take-off" really only started in the 2000s and now there are very large increases in capacity being added each year. Let me put a question to you: if wind power is such a problematic technology why is it so popular? Why are we seeing these very large increases in use?

These large increases are expected to continue into the forseeable future. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power.

Coldnorthwind, you are bringing to this article a lot of old-fashioned ideas, and a pro-nuclear/ anti-wind agenda, which is just not supported by the facts. Please stop. Johnfos (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's just stick to properly cited statements, instead of blanket-removing them because they don't fit your POV. Coldnorthwind (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Did I remove something here? Apologies. There was an edit conflict there which I had to get around. By all means lets stick with the issues and discuss them. Johnfos (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, is hydro a "traditional" form of power? Also has no emissions and very important eg. in Norway. Coldnorthwind (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and...? HiLo48 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is wrong, obviously. This is why wiki has such a bad reputation I'm afraid. Coldnorthwind (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[Post comment:] Wikipedia has a bad reputation? Perhaps in your mind, but not as the New York Times contends, as seen here. It appears you prefer to rate sources favourably if they agree with your opinions. Wikipedia is not concerned with your opinions. HarryZilber (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please explain what suggestion you are making towards improving the article. --John (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Compared to fossil fuel power sources, the environmental impact of wind power is relatively minor in terms of air pollution, although it has a much larger visual impact." This would be an accurate and balanced opening sentence. Of course wind turbines still need to be covered by fossil fuel backup for those inconvenient occasions when the wind is not blowing. Coldnorthwind (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me, some very old-fashioned ideas here... As we say in the article: Newer wind farms have larger, more widely spaced turbines, and have a less cluttered appearance than older installations. Wind farms are often built on land that has already been impacted by land clearing and they coexist easily with other land uses (eg grazing, crops). They have a smaller footprint than other forms of energy generation such as coal and gas plants. Aesthetic issues are subjective and some people find wind farms pleasant and optimistic, or symbols of energy independence and local prosperity.

It is the intermittency of nuclear power plants that is a big problem in that they will sometimes fail unexpectedly, often for long periods of time, as happened in Japan recently. To cope with such intermittence by nuclear (and centralized fossil-fuelled) power plants, utilities install a “reserve margin” of roughly 15% extra capacity spinning ready for instant use. So no extra backup is needed for wind power intermittency, as there is already enough spinning reserve in the system. Johnfos (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Larger turbines = greater visual impact, obviously. I assure you this is of great concern here in the overcrowded UK, where we are very fond of our countryside. No doubt this is less of a problem in Australia with its vast open spaces, maybe even solar is viable there. Not really interested in your anti-nuclear crusade, it is irrelevant to this article. You should stop trying to score political points over a natural disaster, it is rather distasteful. No one died from radiation poisoning, thousands died from earthquake/tsunami. It is a fact that here in the UK, due to imminent closure of old nuclear and coal plants, massive expansion of CCGT will be required to cover for useless wind turbines. Coldnorthwind (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if you think wind turbines are "useless", why exactly are you trying to edit this article? --John (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

They are useless at generating reliable electricity. They are very effective at ruining landscapes, killing birds and bats, degrading peatland habitats, polluting vast areas affected by rare earth metal mining, killing whales and other marine creatures, devaluing property etc. These are the issues relevant to this article. Do you just want "cheerleaders" editing articles? Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Please read our core policy WP:NPOV before editing further. --John (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read it thanks. This article does not conform to it. Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Are you here to crusade for the truth? You might do better to read up on what the reliable sources (ie not the Daily Mail) say on the subject. --John (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am here to bring balance to the farce :) [[4]] says Daily Mail is good, I have yet to add it to an article though. Coldnorthwind (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that list merely indicates that the Daily Mail is a news source, not that it's a reliable one. The Daily Mail has been discussed several times on the WP:RSN with the consensus that it is only semi-reliable and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; higher-quality sources may be preferable, especially in medical and scientific areas. See [5], [6], [7], etc. Rostz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an excellent source for football scores. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing and bare URLs

User:Coldnorthwind is continuing his POV-pushing involving the aggressive presentation of anti-wind power agenda. Please stop and adhere to WP:NPOV policy.

Also, please avoid bare URLs in citations by using as many of the parameters in WP:Citation templates as possible to record the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source. Johnfos (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cease and desist with your personal attacks, WP:NPA is a fundamental tenet of wikipedia. All my edits to this article have added to its value and are properly sourced. Respected conservationists such as David Bellamy also have nothing positive to say about wind power. Bare URLs is a trivial complaint and no excuse for removing citations. Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your use of the word "also" tells us that you clearly ARE pushing a POV here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then so is Johnfos, as he clearly has an opinion on this, and on nuclear power also. Coldnorthwind (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have opinions on the issues too, but don't want them to influence this article. This is also not the place to debate the merits or otherwise of various energy sources. There are plenty of blogs and forums for that. Openly saying, as you seem to be by your description of and alignment with David Bellamy's position, that you "have nothing positive to say about wind power", is a pretty extreme position, and makes it very unlikely that you can contribute objectively to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

By saying my position is extreme you are pushing your own POV. Is your Subaru wind powered? Coldnorthwind (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

By simple definition, having "nothing positive to say about wind power" is extreme. You must acknowledge that there would be others who take a more centre of the road position, and perhaps some at the other extreme of seeing nothing negative about wind power. Again, my opinion is irrelevant. I am not declaring it, because this is not a debate. To that end, you would do better to keep your opinion away from your editing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try to settle down and realise that some gentle guidance is being offered to you here. If you do not accept it, or at least discuss it properly, then you can expect more of your contributions to be removed.

If the community feeling against wind power is as strong as you suggest then we should have articles about notable anti-wind groups here on WP, in the same way that we have articles about many anti-nuclear power groups (see List of anti-nuclear power groups). But I just can't find these articles, and so invite you to point them out, or start articles on notable anti-wind groups, if there are any.

With regards to bare URLs in references, they are non-encyclopedic, and also lead to WP:link rot. Johnfos (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of opposition to wind power here in Britain. John Muir Trust and Renewable Energy Foundation have articles. Also see the blogs of Christopher Booker [8] and James Delingpole[9] in the Telegraph. Coldnorthwind (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let us take the UK. I certainly accept that there are a few prominent individuals and a few notable organisations in the UK which have developed anti-wind interests, and that this should be mentioned in their respective WP articles. But the British Wind Energy Association, now known as RenewableUK, have reviewed wind farm public opinion surveys in the UK and found that [10]:

"With over 15 years’ experience and more than 60 separate surveys, the results can be taken as conclusive, showing as they do a consistently high level of support for the development of wind farms, on average 70-80%, both in principle, as a good thing, and also in practice, among residents living near wind farms".

"What is evident in the UK is that it is the minority 10% or so who do not like wind energy who too often lead the debate over wind’s future. This has given rise to the misconception that wind energy is unpopular and unwelcome". [11]

So it is this bigger picture that you seem to be missing Coldnorthwind, and you are repeatedly inserting negative snippets which often fuel misconceptions, are out of context, and are misleading to the reader. And you are pushing these contributions into the lead section wherever possible. It is this that amounts to serious POV-pushing. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Some material relevant to community attitudes is located in the Renewable energy debate article. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BWEA is a wind industry lobby group, whose sole concern is maximising subsidies and hence profits for their members. Public opinion is more likely to be informed by soaring energy prices [12]. Coldnorthwind (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you don't bother trying to use that source in the article. A simple comparison of its headline with the start of the second last paragraph shows a major problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a quote from Chris Huhne, currently being investigated for (allegedly) perverting the course of justice. The fact remains wind is still 3-4x more costly than fossil fuels, and that is before taking into account its environmental impact. Coldnorthwind (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Coldnorthwind: your cherry-picked high costs for wind power further reflect your negative point of view bias. Older and smaller wind turbines have lower efficiency, and thus higher costs for wind energy. You've ignored the selling price of wind power from newer more efficient wind farms which use the more advanced technologies (see article quote below).

You've also ignored the fact that carbon fuel prices will rise, and keep rising, as energy demands increase and as their supplies are depleted. The Earth has long ago stopped producing sources such as coal and petroleum. That's simple economics 101. You are likely aware that renewable energy pricing has fallen and will continue to fall as the technology matures and continues to become more efficient. Your anti-wind edits make no mention of those directly relevant issues, thus confirming your bias as an editor. HarryZilber (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WIND POWER INSTALLATON SLOWED IN 2010, OUTLOOK FOR 2011 STRONGER: AWEA Houston (Platts)--24Jan2011/344 pm EST/2044 GMT http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6773195

“"Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, with power purchase agreements being signed in the range of 5 to 6 cents/kWh recently," Salerno said. "With uncertainty around natural gas and power prices as the economy recovers, wind's long-term price stability is even more valued."”

[Note: in North America, 5-6 cents/kWh roughly reflects parity with carbon energy prices] HarryZilber (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011(UTC)

I don't think the American wind industry lobby can be regarded as any more reliable as a source than its British equivalent. The fact remains >half of onshore wind revenue in the UK is from subsidies. For offshore it is >two thirds. This establishes a 2-3x cost premium for wind, before accounting for backup. Backup requirement is 90% - if there is a blocking high over the British Isles during winter, wind output is effectively zero and temperatures plunge resulting in peak energy demand. This happened in December 2010 when temperatures plummeted to -20C. This has to be met by backup gas-fired stations, 17 more of which will be required by 2020. These stations will be operating well below optimum levels resulting in highly inefficient operation. But they will still require the same ROI as any other capital investment, hence real world cost for wind is 3-4x conventional sources. Increasing fossil fuel prices will merely increase capital costs of wind: concrete, steel, jack-up ships etc. Alternatively, investment in fracking could actually reduce gas prices as in the US where WTI is trading well below Brent for precisely this reason. Coldnorthwind (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fracking, eh? Show me a source better than the Daily Mail for this material and I may begin to take you more seriously. For the moment you come across as an ill-informed POV-pusher, who hasn't even chosen a bland username as some cleverer ones sometimes do. Yours makes your agenda clear, and you have admitted as much here. Until then, --John (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Whereas you've watched Gasland and you're now an expert. LOL. Explain to me why WTI is trading $20 below Brent and I'll begin to take you seriously. Coldnorthwind (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that movie and I am not an expert. On the other hand I don't have an obvious POV to push and I know a good source from a hole in the ground. I definitely don't need you to take me seriously. --John (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to stop the debate. Wikipedia is not a forum HiLo48 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I was saying, bring decent sources to the debate, or there isn't any point in talking about your opinions here. --John (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

From the wind industry themselves [13]. I think if you were genuinely interested in NPOV you would welcome an openly contrarian voice in this debate. At the moment the article is edited entirely by wind industry cheerleaders and clearly reflects that bias. It is bizarre to think that contrary voices are not welcome, and even attacked by an admin in contravention of WP:NPA - "ill-informed POV-pusher". Would this approach be acceptable on the astrology or creationism articles - only supporters welcome? I think not. It would result in ludicrously biased articles. Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even regard that article as a very helpful source. It's speculation, something else we frown on in Wikipedia. There's now way you would get that kind of content into any article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment and would also point out (again) that I am not acting as an admin on this article as I am WP:INVOLVED by having edited it and participated in these discussions. I apologize if I have offended you by my blunt speech; I guess one man's contrarian is another man's POV-pusher. As I said, if you can stick to finding decent sources for some of these claims you wish to put in the article, that will be best all round.--John (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) I dispute Coldnorthwind's characterization of David Bellamy as "respected" in the comment of 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC) above. Bellamy's switch to climate change denial in the early 2000s has moved him outside the mainstream of respect, at least among people who accept the Scientific opinion on climate change. (Are AIDS denialists "respected"? Not among people who accept mainstream medicine. The main functional difference between AIDS denial and climate change denial is the lack of rich industry support for the former.) He may have earned respect among devotees of the Heartland Institute and Christopher Monckton. Exaggerated alarmism about wind turbines is common among climate change deniers (for example Christopher Booker and James Delingpole), and so are the cherry-picked arguments and the lack of evidence-based thinking. Coldnorthwind is reading from the playbook of people who reject the scientific method and claim or imply that the international scientific consensus on climate change is all a vast eco-communist conspiracy of some sort. Even so, everyone has biases and these need not preclude anyone from editing neutrally on Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Coldnorthwind's comments of 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) about the brief wind lull across parts of the UK should be balanced with anecdotes about other generating technologies experiencing outages of their own. For example, since the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011, only 17 of Japan's 56 nuclear plants are working as of late July nearly five months later, whereas the disaster did not interrupt any of Japan's wind farms. Even the near-shore Kamisu Wind Farm which took a direct hit from the tsunami kept working. This clear demonstration of wind power's reliability, at least in quake-prone Japan, has led the Japanese government to consider a larger role for wind in Japan's energy mix. The simple fact is that all generating plant is subject to scheduled and unscheduled shutdowns, and natural gas while common is not the only backup generating option. Demand management using smart grids is another option for scheduling some of demand to track supply. Linking geographically distant grids together with High voltage direct current transmission lines (e.g. Desertec) would enlarge the fraction of renewable generating plant capacity available as reliable baseload power. Improving the thermal performance of buildings (e.g., zero energy buildings) slows their rate of heat loss and would allow smart controllers to wait several days if necessary before topping up the building heat while seeking the lowest spot price of electricity (such as when the wind is blowing). For example a passive house in Minnesota lost heat for 10 days during a bitterly cold winter yet maintained its internal temperature no lower than 51°F/10.6°C - chilly, but survivable. --Teratornis (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your use of the "denial" terminology is very revealing. Bellamy is a genuine conservationist, as opposed to the watermelons who promote the CAGW faith. That is why he is opposed to the environmentally destructive wind farm scam. With even the likes of Kevin Trenberth admitting that climate models' lack of predicitive power is a "travesty" the game is up. See recent Roy Spencer (scientist) paper for real evidence-based science. (Richard Lindzen can also school you on the nature of climate feedbacks). For "smart grid" read rationing. For a 21st century developed economy, "survivable" is an admission of failure. Many survived subsistence agriculture, it wasn't much fun though. Coldnorthwind (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Little things mean a lot. At the end of the lead section I read "Peer-reviewed research has generally not supported these statements.[6][7]" Fine, except that the references quoted are just a report commissioned by the wind energy industry and a newspaper article about the same report. I've now thought better of editing it because it's quite revealing to any serious reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Yelland (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Its an independent assessment report, commissioned by, but not created by, the wind industry. One of the assessment reports focus' was to examine the peer-reviewed literature, and that is where the conclusion comes from - read the report. If you want to cast aspersions that the report wasn't neutral or some other thing in that regard, then i suggest that you find reliable sources that tell us this.. Otherwise i'm sorry to say that you are exposing your POV, and not the reports. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll expose my POV. Sorry, but I'm generally in favour of wind energy. Here in the UK there is a politically and financially inspired rush to onshore wind, and the consequent imposition of wind farms within a few hundred of metres of dwellings, within kms of AONBs, etc is deservedly giving the industry a bad name. Offshore wind turbines are wonderful, no CO2, no radiation leaks, no unrenewable energy source - and unfortunately no electricity when there is no wind. So backup is needed...A very serious drawback, but I accept outside the ambit of your title. This is a well written and fairly complete article, but it is not objective, and I am not alone in saying that. I am qualified to judge (Oxford PhD, FIEE, C Eng CPhys and 40 yrs experience). How about a paragraph on the ETSU-R-97 controversy for example?John Yelland (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested links for inclusion somehow

These articles were sent in via OTRS email (2011071310000861):

• [14]
• [15]

I have not read them, and make no warranties as to the appropriateness for use in this article. I am simply passing them along to those editors working on the article in the hopes they can be used. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the 2nd is already in the article, though could be expanded. 1st is a very good summary of wind power, the abandoned turbines definitely need a mention. Coldnorthwind (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame you again showed your colours by describing such a narrowly focussed article as being a "very good summary". Different perspectives can exist. Abandoned wind farms could be just a case of bad planning followed by lack of government controls over disused assets. And bad mining practices exist for many minerals. Not explicitly a problem for wind power. So, separate issues. And I again have real doubts about the quality of those sources. Very one-sided, IMHO. Finally, we should still not be debating the issue here. Find QUALITY sources that discuss wind power, not just sources that support your POV. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You will note that I found a different source, an environmentalist website, to reference the same issue. And MIT no less for a further reference. STILL the wind-lobbyists complain. Coldnorthwind (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what site you're referring to, and I suggest you stop giving simplistic labels, presumably intended to be derogatory, to those you disagree with. What we're here for is to agree on good content for the article. not to discuss the merits or otherwise of wind power. Do you understand that yet? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wedge-tailed Eagle

The Tasmanian sub-species of this bird is being driven to the brink of extinction by wind turbines. I invite Aussie editors here to demonstrate their NPOV by rectifying this glaring omission from Wikipedia. Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a starting reference [16]. Coldnorthwind (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. That's not a bad source. Do note that the source itself doesn't say what you say in your first sentence. The person being interviewed does. But that's fine, so long as it's properly attributed. For example... "One Australian bird expert claims that....", and link to the source. Now, everyone can edit Wikipedia, so rather than asking somebody else to do it, how about you come up with some proposed words for the article? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CNW: when can we expect to see your unbiased edits in articles on buildings, cats, cars and acid rain that are responsible for approximately 2 billion bird deaths per year in the United States alone? Since the United States represents only a minor percentage of the world's land surfaces, then extrapolated to the rest of the land masses there are likely multiple billions of bird deaths per year for those four reasons alone. When can we expect to see reams of critical text from you on bird deaths in those articles?? It appears you're pretty much a one-trick pony with an agenda to throw as much muck on the wall to see if any will stick, like many coal and nuclear people trolling around. Doubtlessly you'll keep going you're merry way trashing up Global warming and Wind power articles with the biased viewpoints you're pushing. Tell us when you intend to edit the other articles related to bird-killings. Oh!! you have no schedule for them?

I did, however, find it pleasing to pick apart the cite you provided on this article yesterday, where you misstated or lied about the environmental damage due to abandoned wind farms —and then pulled out the reclamation work done by a Scottish wind farm developer reworking abandoned oil rigs, from the very same article. Good going! HarryZilber (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recognise your figures on bird deaths. The principle effect of buildings on birds is to provide nesting sites, even for raptors such as peregrine falcons. Acid rain as a problem has largely been dealt with in Europe due to cleaner-burning power stations, SO2 pollution has been greatly reduced. As for cats and cars, are you familiar with the principle of cost-benefit analysis? People buy and look after these things because they bring benefits to their lives. The only reason people invest in wind turbines is to get government subsidies. Furthermore, cats and cars, based on the bird species they kill, are not a conservation problem at least in the UK. My edit about abandoned wind farms was entirely accurate, you are not being clever with your pedantry. Coldnorthwind (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The abandoned wind farms were an example of poor resource management and poor government regulation. Neither a negative nor positive for wind power. So it adds nothing to the article. Apart from that, much of the past two posts is a debate. Drop it now. HiLo48 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict Of Interest for ABCConservancy external link

HU12: on this recent edit you reverted the insertion of an External link to a bird conservancy group that had a policy page related to to the protection of birds from turbine rotor strikes (among several other policy pages). The contributor of the link has a solid record of edits on bird articles, but that in itself doesn't create a conflict of interest, just as a physicist is not in conflict of interest for editing general physics-related articles.

The website itself for American Bird Conservancy is environmentally related to birds, and is a non-profit group which would meet WP's standards for inclusion under WP:External link. Would you elaborate on your deletion rational? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Understand Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Also, it doesn't matter--being a not for profit/noncommercial (etc.), it doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true (see;SPAM and External link spamming). Additionally Amyatabc (talk · contribs) and related sock accounts listed here are in direct violation of the following Wikipedia guidelines; Advertising and conflicts of interest, Conflict of interest, Editors who have a conflict of interest,Accounts used for promotion, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, Persistent spamming. Clearly this and the other accounts clearly exist, based on their edit history, for the sole or primary purpose of promoting "abcbirds.org " in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wind farm in North Sea has positive net impact on fauna

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-farm-north-sea-positive-net.html

"New species establish themselves, and communities of animals arise on the wind turbine piles and the rocks piled around the columns, leading to a local increase in biodiversity. The fish fauna turns out to be very variable, and some minor positive effects have been observed so far. For example, the wind farm seems to provide shelter to cod. Porpoises were also heard more often inside the wind farm than outside it. A striking feature is that various bird species, including the gannet, avoid the wind farm, whereas others, such as seagulls, do not seem to be bothered by the wind turbines. Cormorants were even observed in greater numbers."

"The number of birds that collided with the turbines was not determined but was estimated to be quite low on the basis of observations and model calculations." --Nigelj (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

“Acoustic ecology” link

At 04:51, 14 August 2011, I added the following external link.

• ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY | Special Report: Wind Energy Noise Impacts

The linked page has a large amount of useful, relevant information, and many links to other web pages (external to that website) with much additional information that is both useful and relevant.
At 18:54, 30 August 2011, it was removed.
I have two questions about the addition of that external link.

• Which guideline(s) did it fail to meet?
• Which Wikipedia article(s) is/are appropriate place(s) for that link?
  

—Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

With ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY in capitals like that, it looks like a spam link for the Acoustic Ecology Institute. Please avoid caps if you don't want the item to be thought of as spam or shouting. In any case, the site does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (See WP:ELNO 1). I can't think of any article where this link would be appropriate. Please try to concentrate more on expanding the main text of articles rather than adding See also or EL links. That would be much more constructive. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Those words are in block capitals because I copied the text from the title bar on the external page. I might be able to expand the article with information from that external page or from one or more of the linked pages external to that website, but I have not learned how to use reference tags, so I might use an external link beside the added information, and someone else can convert it to a reference tag.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wavelength, you have been on WP for a long time now, and really should learn to use reference tags, etc. And you really should avoid block capitals, even if they are used on other sites. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to make a contribution, but can’t believe that you are now citing someone’s Powerpoint slide presentation. This is not a reliable source. As Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says... Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals and widely recognised standard textbooks. Johnfos (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated citations for page

This citation is dead:

 | url= http://media.cleantech.com/node/509
 | title= Wind energy scores major legal victory in U.S.
 | author= Dana Childs

I could not find the original article, so I have removed the citation, and I will be sweeping the citations in the coming days to update links. Anything removed will be posted here as a reference for future editors. Emb1995 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide emissions and pollution

"Wind power consumes no fuel and no water[8] for continuing operation"

Wind turbines that are connected to the power grid use a transformer to step the turbine's power up to line voltages. These transformers consume electricity even when the turbine is not producing power. Thus it is incorrect to state that "wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation."

"Every wind turbine has a GSU [Generator Step-Up] transformer stepping up the generator-output voltage from 690 to 34,500 volts...However, no-load losses are constant, no matter what the collector current. They are impacted only by the collector voltage. No-load losses come from magnetizing the iron core, which happens when voltage is applied to the transformer." Improving a Project’s Rate of Return, Windpower Engineering, July 21, 2011, retrieved January 7, 2012{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"When turbines are idling generation is not zero, it is negative. This is because there is a transformer connected to each turbine to step up the voltage to the wind farm's substation level, and that transformer must be kept powered. Since a transformer is always powered from the higher voltage side, it will draw from the substation and ultimately the system grid." Berman, Robert (September 15, 2011), Optimised Transformers Boost Wind Turbine Profits, Berman Economics, retrieved January 7, 2012{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Aradams (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have interpreted the sentence incorrectly, since it plainly states "...for continuing operation", meaning that a wind turbine is operating. When operating, the wind turbine's transformer does not draw power from the grid. Your interpretation surmises that the statement refers to all operations, including when the transformer draws from the grid during periods of the turbine's non-operation. Its interesting thought that the transformer designers haven't incorporated relays to take them off-line when there's no wind; are the cores not self-excited for resumption of service? HarryZilber (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "continuing operation" is undefined and needs clarification. You have misinterpreted the phrase to mean "only when the turbine is producing power." The phrase can also mean the operation of the turbine at all times, which is actually what "continuing" means. But in any case, the statement is still incorrect. My source states "These transformers consume electricity even when the turbine is not producing power." (Emphasis mine) "...that transformer must be kept powered." No-load losses from wind turbines are significant—with average capacity factors for wind turbines in the US at 35%, that means the average turbine is idle (no-load) 65% of the time, and thus, consuming energy from the grid. § Aradams (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Capacity factor cannot be turned into idle the way you do here. A turbine can have a capacity factor of 30%, and still operate 100% of the time. It just means that the wind at the location where the turbine is, never (or almost never) reaches optimal conditions. (eg. a 30MW turbine generating 10MW constantly would be such a case). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense to me, why doesn't the transformer stay offline until sufficient voltage is produced by the turbine, activating the transformer to start drawing power from the grid? 137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lede paragraph with unsupported reference

Curious to understand more, I read the reference given for the first paragraph lede of the article. It was written by a college professor who is not NPOV. I could not find anything but opinion in his paper to support the statements here. The paragraph talks about "large" and "small" but the paper has no figures, nor do its references lead to quantitative reports. I have read and followed the links for much of this article and this is a repeating pattern. Much opinion, few quantitative studies. I do not wish to engage in an edit war - I notice this is a contentious topic. I placed one tag to point out that I was unable to find qualitative or scientific studies in that citation to back up the paragraph. I have an M.S. in Geology, taught for ten semesters at university level before retirement. I have driven through Altamont and Palm Springs, as well as through Indiana wind mill arrays. Other than that, I have no connection to the wind turbine industry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't even have refs, it should ONLY be repeating what is in the article and already referenced. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone with more experience in Wiki could fix it? I have had other pages where people have asked for references even in the lede paragraph, so I'm confused and probably not the best person to fix it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource

found on Talk:Wind power in the United States ...

Wildlife Slows Wind Power; New U.S. Rules to Protect Bats and Birds Create Uncertainty in Growing Industry by Ryan Tracy, excerpt ...

New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape. The death of an endangered bat in September at a wind farm in Pennsylvania was the latest in a series of incidents that have caught the attention of regulators and conservation-minded scientists, who worry that large numbers of bats, bald eagles and other birds are being killed by wind turbines' spinning blades. In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to publish new guidelines telling wind-farm operators how ...

99.35.12.74 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Effect on crops

Here's a possible source for the article:

• "Wind turbines beneficial to crops". United States Department of Energy, Ames National Laboratory. 2011-01-10. Archived from the original on 2012-01-31.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-peer reviewed references deleted

Re edit deletion of Mar 10, Perhaps editor Johnfos ought to consider the point that IF a Civitas article cannot be cited because it is not regarded as a reliable, peer-reviewed information source, then cites referencing manufacturer product information as proof of windturbine advantages must surely fall into this category too. Perhaps as many as 50% of the cites in the article fall into the category of manufacturers' or proponents' advertising copy. They are clearly not peer-reviewed material, and are from a source with a vestased financial interest. (awful pun in there, sorry) --Anteaus (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

e cigs gimme duh goods so I can take it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.186.118 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe second hand (also not reviewed) opinion papers such as Simon Chapman's should not be quoted in place of the original - reviewed - paper (British Acoustic Bulletin) - although it is more difficult to obtain and read than a newspaper one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.82.96 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NOISE POV Push

The section on noise is a disgrace. The first few paragraphs is an obvious attempt by someone to justify wind energy: Modern wind turbines produce significantly less noise than older designs. Turbine designers work to minimise noise, as noise reflects lost energy and output. Noise levels at nearby residences may be managed through the siting of turbines, the approvals process for wind farms, and operational management of the wind farm. There is absolutely no reason EXCEPT PROPAGANDA to start by saying "noise is less than it was". What is the point of this, if e.g. it was absolutely terrible in the past? At the very least this section should start with a simple over-view of how much noise is produced from wind and what parts of that noise are either harmful and/or contentious. A good place to start would be a paper like Bowdler (2010) [17] The phrase "turbine designers work to minimise noise" is about as pointless as it gets. Is anyone suggesting they work to increase noise? By how much do they try to reduce noise ... NOT GIVEN. In other words this is propaganda. Noise levels may be managed. And they also may not. Why not just write: "wind companies are very nice people". In other words, I don't believe a word of this and I will look elsewhere to see if anyone gives an impartial review of the evidence and not just some stupid POV push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us be honest this is exactly the kind of article where Wikipedia falls down - precisely because there are insufficient adequately impartial or adequately reliable sources. Add to this that because there is a lot of money involved there are many parities who have strong vested interests in keeping negative research or facts from view - and stopping impartial investigations full stop. And also add to this that a certain part of the green movement that specialises in intensive lobbying, protest, and propaganda is strongly wedded to wind farms and strongly against certain other alternatives like (say) nuclear power..

One of the major issues that is very hard to get a real grip on is blade lifespan -especially for sea based turbines, along with how blades are disposed of at end of life. An apocryphal account is that average lifespan may be as little as ten years and that and then at end of life these 10 to 20 ton pieces of plastic and fibreglass are to be incinerated or put in landfill. And we are potentially talking about tens of thousands of turbines just for the UK alone. - Given the high stresses and low weight limits (per unit size) needed for efficient turbine blades 10 years doesn't actually sound like a bad lifespan - however it is not good environmentally and worse for the turbine builders it would wreak their profit and efficiency model.
Lucien86 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For two posts purportedly concerned about POV, they each show considerable POV themselves and read somewhat like forum style posts. Lucien86 is right about one thing. This is exactly the kind of article where Wikipedia falls down. Best we try to find some words that say the jury is still out. Give a source or two from both sides of the debate, and move on. HiLo48 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

High raw materials necessary for the power produced

Thank you for your show of support!

Which reference in particular do you have an issue with?

http://www.awea.org/issues/supply_chain/upload/supplier-handbook.pdf page 17 to 27

http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf Wind Energy in the United States and Materials Required for the Land-Based Wind Turbine Industry From 2010 Through 2030. Page 11 and table on pg 12

All of which support that Wind power from 1990 to 2030 will continue to use more Concrete and steel than a comparable source of low carbon power. Even if you don't correct for capacity factor/how often the device is actually producing power.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

An noted above this section, another editor pointed out that "The source you've given along with the OR is not sufficient". Please review the section in the MOS on original research before making the claims that you are. Additionally, your sources also need to be current. You have not also not provided better sources which refute the "Life-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method" study that was described earlier", as the nuclear report you cited for the basis of your projections (which are OR) are based on a fifteen year old 1998 report by S.W. White and G.L. Kulcinski, as shown in the reports bibliography. Turbine efficiency has increased in leaps and bounds during that time period meaning an analysis that old is irrelevant to the wind turbines being installed in the present day.

More importantly the nuclear study you cited above conveniently omits any life cycle analysis for the mining, transportation, the extensive processing and enrichment and the subsequent disposal processes involved for nuclear fuels, without which nuclear power plants can't generate a single watt of electricity. What you've done is to present a non-argument that nuclear power is superior to green energy using an apples-and-oranges scenario. Sorry, your contributions to this article are still biased. HarryZilber (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Energy pay back period and materials intensity per MW are two wholly separate issues friend, two issues I think you are confusing. All the edit will have is: it'll state the USGS data in metric tons of Concrete and Steel per MW necessary to make present day wind turbines.* Then it'll state more than what is necessary per MW for alternative technology's -and here I will include the Berkeley reference that has that nice graph that wind power uses more concrete and steel than natural gas, Coal and Nuclear power.**

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf see page 11 and 12.

• • http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf page 4 or 5 IIRC

That's all the edit will have. However to belay your strange suspicions, you claim the Berkeley doc is cooking results and pro-nuclear. They're clearly not, as the data in supports gas and coal, (two non nuclear sources friend) which have the lowest concrete and steel materials usage per MW(which is obvious if you think about it) they're both less capital intensive than nuclear and wind.

Moreover, you claim apples and oranges, but you're not applying your own argument onto wind power. See, I could use your own funky arguments on wind power in the question of total materials usage, with minor tweaks, and write that the USGS conveniently omits any life cycle analysis for the Styrene and Fibre glass used in the manufacture of wind turbine blades, and the mining, transportation and construction[of wind towers and blades], the extensive[pylon cable connections to connect wind to the grid] and the subsequent disposal and decommissioning processes involved for [wind turbines].' See? So shall we keep the fields level then and just state what the document does? Wind uses more concrete and steel per MW than gas, coal and nuclear per MW.

We're not doing life cycle assessments on total material usage. Just Concrete and steel/MW. Is that not straight forward?

The USGS have the present day tons/MW data for wind power. So if you find some document comparing all the energy sources by this metric, like the Berkeley doc does, but that you claim is outdated, let me know! and we can change the info!

Certainly not OR.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

LCA environmental impacts, including radioactive AKA nuclear waste, data from wind turbines, provided by Vestas

See Figure 1.11 Contribution of Environmental Impacts by Life Cycle Stages. Vestas 2.0 MW. http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/lca-in-wind-energy.html

So as I have been saying, although small, you can't say wind turbines don't generate nuclear waste in construction, as that is misleading. This article really doesn't reflect reality at all. It's chock full of Greenwashing, especially considering that others were trying to argue with me, when Vestas themselves acknowledge the point I was making.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with my edit?

This article makes a lot of wild claims, and lacks hard science. Yes it is true that wind power has a low impact on the environment according to the the most rigorous and impartial ExternE study on the matter. Wind is placed right between Nuclear Power and- determined to be the lowest impact- Alpine Hydropower.

While I'm here, I want to know why isn't this EU studies findings not given prime position?

• http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/exterpols.html ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the

operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11

• http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/externen.pdf

A major EU funded research study known as ExternE, or externality of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account.

It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included. http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/externen.pdf The study also found that the cost to the environment and to human health from Nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was lower than that caused by biomass and Photovoltaic solar panels, but was marginally higher than the external costs associated with Wind power and alpine Hydropower. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/exterpols.html ExternE-Pol, External costs of current and advanced electricity systems, associated with emissions from the operation of power plants and with the rest of the energy chain, final technical report. See figure 9, 9b and figure 11

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell about the science and sourcing behind your edit at this short notice, but two obvious problems with your edit was the massive change it made to the POV of the article, without any discussion here, and the absence of helpful Edit summaries. I find your comments above a little hard to take in. I'll admit that I'm not close to the industry (which perhaps you are), but I do have a strong interest in the topic. You do seem to be placing a big emphasis on EU sourcing. Does it help us retain a global perspective? Most importantly, can you please just be patient and let some other editors express their thoughts on this. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem man, take your time. To answer your questions- The ExternE study also includes data from non EU countries at times so it is very representative of the world, if memory serves me, one of the above links is entirely focused on EU data, whereas the other includes world data. The reason why it is so good is the fact it puts a value on how much environmental damage each power source does in units of $/MWh, and it goes through how it arrived at those figures.

Also important for this page is Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Winds ~10-50 g CO2/kWh GHG emissions also needs to be in a serious page on winds environmental impact.

As I've said, it found alpine hydropower to have the least impact on the environment. Boundarylayer (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

One crucial aspect: Most wind turbines do not use rare earth materials, even though their share is increasing slightly. Lots of manufacturer don't use neodymium because these concepts are more expensive than generator designs based on copper. Be careful not to overestimate the influence of rare earth materials, which I think you do. There is no need for rare earth materials, if you want to build a wind turbine. To make it short, I'm skeptical if your edit is a improvement. Sorry. Andol (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Two flaws with Boundarylayer's edit are quickly discernable, for example where the edit points out that: "....notably however wind turbine manufacture data from the 1990's showed that each wind turbine requires almost ten times more steel and concrete per Megawatt of power produced than that required for a nuclear power plant...."

Boundarylayer is introducing data from the 1990s which is up to 20 years old and relevant only to much smaller and less efficient wind turbines than those being installed today. Turbines of 1.5 MW capacity and up have been utilized for several years now, and the data for them are significantly different. Quoting from a study published in 2009:

Eduardo Martínez et al. "Life-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method", The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2009-01-01, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 52-63, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-008-0033-9:

(p. 61) "Table 10 showed the CED value of the wind turbine. From this basis and with an average annual production of wind turbine of up to 4,000 MWh (Troen and Petersem 1991), an energy payback time of 0.58 years and an energy yield ratio of 34.36 are obtained."

(p. 62) "....although there are components with a significant environmental impact within the turbine, it has also been verified that these impacts are much smaller than those generated by conventional power plants in operation, with reductions in the impact ranging from 89% to 99%, depending on the category. In addition, the energy payback time (time regarding the energy required to produce and implement a turbine) is less that 1 year, much smaller than the useful lifetime of the system, which is at least 20 years".

A second flaw which skews the article into bias is the cherrypicking of data from a report to support a particular point of view, such as: "Moreover the consumption of fossil fuels and water during construction and decommissioning of wind turbines can be significant and transportation of oversized prefabricated equipment, such as turbine blades/rotors, can be expensive and hazardous". That material was taken from the column, headed as "Disadvantage", on page 6, Table 2, "Principal advantages and disadvantages of wind power" of a U.S. government USGS document on wind energy. The left hand column of the same page was headed as "Advantage", and both columns were meant to provide commentary on the pros and cons of wind energy production. Leaving out the counterpoint item directly opposite of what Boundarylayer added to his edit provides a POVish view of the issues. The counterpoint left out from the government document reads: "Once constructed, the overall “footprint” for wind- generated electricity is relatively small. It does not pose mining or security issues. The construction phase accounts for about 80 percent of emissions. The consumption of fossil fuels and water during the production phase is low compared with other power sources. Greenhouse gas emissions are low in comparison with most other sources of power".

So sorry, Boundarylayer, I find your edit was skewed to bias, especially considering that after a single nuclear accident such as that at Fukushima, orders of magnitude more radionuclides were released into the environment than have been produced by the production of materials for wind turbines, which you have neglected to mention. HarryZilber (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1990 data is still consistent with 2013 and indeed 2030 data-

I initially added the following Berkeley paper.

• http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf

That compares 1990 Wind and 1970 Nuclear plants on a steel and concrete usage basis, per unit of energy delivered. This was ridiculed as irrelevent, however Wind power(including modern/ next generation 2030 turbines) will still use more concrete and steel than Nuclear power per MW. The reference below by the USGS augments and supports the argument of the earlier 1990 Wind turbine & nuclear plant Berkeley study.

According to the United States Geological Survey modern wind turbine towers - contain large quantities of steel and concrete, with current and next generation, that is Circa -2030- wind turbines not appreciably changing this fact, with 139.9 metric tons of steel and Iron required per MW(of nameplate) wind power installed in 2011 turbines, and 123 metric tons of steel and Iron in next generation, 2030 turbines.

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf Wind Energy in the United States and Materials Required for the Land-Based Wind Turbine Industry From 2010 Through 2030. Page 11 and table on pg 12.

With this 120+ metric tons of steel and Iron per MW being nameplate 2030 wind turbines, and therefore not actual power generation, one must apply the correcting calculation for the low capacity factor of the power source being used, as was corrected for in the prior University of California Berkeley study that cites 460 metric tons/MWe(ave) of steel being required for a 1990 Wind system when corrected for capacity factor.

Use the formula on the page below(as the Berkeley professor used) and you arrive at almost the same figures for even the 2030 wind turbines. If you'd like to double check for your own piece of mind. I did not include that corrected value in the article for the very reason as that would be considered Original research.

• http://pb-ahtr.nuc.berkeley.edu/papers/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf see page 5, note the capacity factor correction value which is absent from the USGS materials required for wind turbine data. Therefore 1990 wind turbines steel per MW usage cannot be perfectly compared with 2030 wind turbines steel per MW usage until Winds capacity factor is corrected for. Which is ~30%

Nevertheless even without correcting for capacity factor, in comparison the quantity of steel for nuclear is 40 metric tons (MT) per MWe(ave) being required for a 1970’s vintage nuclear power plant, and this is to say nothing of modern Generation III reactor and future Generation IV reactor designs which are following a trend of using less concrete and steel than older generation reactors.

This wind agency further backs up the USGS data. A wind turbine with a tower of 50-120 meters in height requires 100-200 metric tons of steel, with the hub and nacelle requiring 7-20 metric tons of Iron, and the drivetrain 15-25 metric tons of steel

• http://www.awea.org/issues/supply_chain/upload/supplier-handbook.pdf page 17 to 27.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see a few words about the raw materials bit in the article, if it can be properly sourced. I find myself saying "who cares" to the rest, however. Can you find a recent source? The source you've given along with the OR is not sufficient, in my opinion. Keep in mind, I'm not knowledgeable enough to even understand it. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, we can get around the fact the Berkeley study only compares 1970 Nuclear plants with 1990 Wind turbines on a nameplate installed capacity(MW) basis. As the USGS and AWEA references have the present and future estimates on how much concrete and steel a Wind turbine requires per MW.

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)