Puff Power Pushers' Spin Explained

An excellent overview of industrial wind claims rebuffed by scientist John Droz was recently posted on the Master Resource blog.  The Coalition for Sensible Siting recommends that legislators and citizens read the entire article if you are interested in understanding how the US, or your State, got into the business of 'Puff Power Pusher'. Citizens battling industrial wind, which is backed by the power of their own government, may also find the article insightful. Here are a few select highlights from - 

Wind Spin: Misdirection and Fluff by a Taxpayer-enabled Industry

by John Droz, Jr.
February 24, 2012

“When a major turbine manufacturer calls a catastrophic failure like a blade falling off ‘component liberation,’ we know we are in for an adventurous ride in a theme park divorced from reality.”

Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on it, it morphs into a different shape and escapes your grasp.

Wind lobbyists' claim that wind will save the planet from Anthropogenic Global Warming

California and Minnesota have the most aggressive Renewable Energy Standard/ Renewable Portfolios in the nation (Effectively mandating industrial wind in the state). These two states also happen to be in the top five states for installed wind generation. Here is what John Droz has to say:

Interestingly, although the stated main goal of these RES/RPS programs was to reduce CO2, not a single state’s RES/RPS requires verification of CO2 reduction from any wind project, either beforehand or after the fact. The politicians simply took the lobbyists’ word that consequential CO2 savings would be realized!

"Energy independence" was industrial wind's sales pitch for a time. Since oil is not a significant source of electrical generation, forcing wind energy onto the grid will not stop oil imports.

The next justification put forward by the wind marketers was energy independence. This cleverly played on the concern most people have about oil and Middle East instability. Many ads were run promoting wind energy as a good way to reduce our “dependence on Middle Eastern oil.”

None of these ads mentioned that only about 1% of our electricity is generated from oil. Or that the US exports more oil than we use for electricity. Or that our main import source for oil is Canada (not the Middle East). Despite the significant omissions and misrepresentations, this claim still resonates with many people, so it continues to be pushed.

"Green Jobs"

This claim is commonly heard at state capitols, Washington D.C. and in rural communities. John Droz parries while also quoting Chris Horner. Learn more at the Coalition for Sensible Siting.

Knowing full well that the assertions used to date were specious, wind proponents manufactured still another claim: green jobs. This was carefully selected to coincide with widespread employment concerns. Unfortunately, when independent qualified parties examined the situation more closely, they found that the claims were wildly exaggerated. Big surprise!

Further, as attorney and energy expert Chris Horner has so eloquently stated:

"There is nothing – no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime – that does not ‘create jobs.’ Tsunamis, computer viruses and shooting convenience store clerks all ‘create jobs.’ So that claim misses the plot. It applies to all, and so is an argument in favor of none. Instead of making a case on the merits, it is an admission that one has no such arguments."

Lobbyists claim that coal fired electric power plants cause human illness and death
The federal EPA's website shows that coal plant emissions dropped dramatically around 1980 and have stayed low. Meanwhile, asthma rates continued to rise. There is no apparent correlation. Here is part of John Droz's take:

When confronted with the reality that wind energy is considerably more expensive than any conventional source, a common rejoinder is to object to that by saying that once the “externalities” of conventional sources are taken into account, wind is less expensive than those conventional sources.

To gullible sheeple, this might make sense. But consider the following two points. First, externality analyses posited by wind zealots never take into account the true environmental consequences of wind energy (rare earth impacts [see below], human health effects, bird and bat deaths, the CO2 generated from a two million pound concrete base, etc.).

John Droz's wrap-up contains a challenge by paraphrasing Dr. Jon Boone:

Let’s see the real world evidence for the lobbyists’ case. I’m weary of these relentless projections, uncontaminated as they are by reality. In a nutshell, what these profiteers are seeking to do, through methodological legerdemain, is to make wind appear to be what it is not. This is a plot lifted out of Cinderella and her step-sisters, or the Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s really a story of class aspirations, but one that is bizarrely twisted: giving wind a makeover to make her seem fetching and comely when in fact she’s really a frog.

The Coalition for Sensible Siting encourages you to read John Droz's entire article and other articles at the Master Resource free-market energy blog.