Thierry Jaccaud – Tuesday, July 6, 2010 Thierry Jaccaud is the editor-in-chief of L’Ecologiste. Who on earth would oppose wind power? Simply misinformed residents? That was my hypothesis: all it would take is providing a few facts, and instead of sparking controversy, the installation of wind turbines would proceed in a spirit of goodwill.
So I went to meet some “wind power opponents”… and I had to admit that I was the one who was misinformed. All I could do was explain the dangers of nuclear power, which are incomparable to those of wind power.
But I’ve learned that the average industrial wind turbine today is 150 meters tall—three times the height of the tallest power transmission tower. I’ve heard people speak about the decline in the value of their homes, the loss of guests at their rural bed-and-breakfasts, noise pollution, and the undeniable visual impact of such a massive structure.
Given these drawbacks, I was unable to describe precisely the benefits that industrial wind power would bring. So I looked for data-backed arguments. Here they are.
How much does it cost the community to prevent one metric ton of CO2 when it subsidizes thermal insulation for buildings? Two euros. How much does it cost the community to prevent one metric ton of CO2 when it subsidizes onshore industrial wind power?
Between 230 and 280 euros. These unequivocal figures are well known and regularly cited in report after report. What share of electricity generation is expected from the remaining 14,000 MW to be built in order to reach the 19,000 MW of onshore wind power by 2020, as stipulated by the Grenelle I Act?
About 5%. It should be noted, however, that the sites with the highest wind speeds are, logically, already developed—with a capacity of about 5,000 MW—leaving, by definition, only the least attractive sites. While not negligible, the contribution that an additional 14,000 MW of onshore industrial wind power could provide is therefore very small.
How many of the approximately 58 nuclear reactors could be shut down thanks to the expansion of industrial onshore wind power? Not 5% of the reactors, because the intermittent energy produced by wind turbines replaces 75% of thermal energy—which can be quickly started up and shut down—and only 25% of nuclear energy, whose output cannot be adjusted quickly.
The math is simple: the electricity generated by the planned 14,000 MW of onshore wind turbines would therefore replace only 0.7 nuclear reactors. Not even one reactor. So let’s summarize: when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, subsidizing industrial onshore wind power is a waste of public money.
As for phasing out nuclear power, its contribution is negligible. The conclusion is clear: the decision to massively expand onshore industrial wind power is a mistake. Yet the leaders of major environmental organizations who participated in the Grenelle Environment Forum continue to voice their support for the wind power industry, with only a few caveats.
Thus, the WWF makes it very clear that it will oppose any wind turbine project near capercaillie nesting sites, as this gallinaceous bird is highly sensitive to disturbance. Might we kindly remind the WWF that the people living near wind turbines are, too, sentient beings?
On a more serious note, while the government and the President of the Republic are stepping up their efforts to expand nuclear power both in France and abroad, these same Grenelle associations remain silent… It’s hard to understand.
Nuclear power is an absolutely major danger for which no compromise is possible. Conversely, as we have just shown, large-scale onshore wind power is a very marginal solution that therefore justifies neither destroying the environment of local residents nor transforming a typical rural landscape into a mundane industrial one.
Let’s not impose on others what we wouldn’t want for ourselves—that’s a wise rule to follow. Are there environmentalists who advocate for industrial wind power and live near such projects themselves? Yes.
For example, Thierry Salomon, president of the excellent Négawatt association—whose priority is to reduce our energy consumption—explains this in an op-ed published last fall. How tall are its wind turbines? 100 meters.
How far away does he live? Three kilometers. That’s a far cry from the far too lenient minimum distance of 500 meters from residential areas adopted by the Grenelle II law.
France does not have vast, windy deserts like those in the United States or China. Let’s not forget that rural France is a populated area! In France, therefore, onshore industrial wind power has reached its counterproductive threshold.
This concept, coined by Ivan Illich, is simple: once a solution exceeds a certain critical size, it becomes a problem. Denmark is a prime example of this. While the country has installed numerous wind turbines, they are, admittedly, small in size.
Apart from the name, there is nothing in common between a 20-meter-tall wind turbine and a 150-meter-tall wind turbine. Today, the Danish public, too, is rejecting giant wind turbines. Over the past ten years, the height, power, and problems caused by industrial wind turbines have grown exponentially.
It’s time to realize this and choose other solutions—ones that are truly effective and on a human scale.