Are you a straight talking, “let’s just get to the facts” sort of person? Would you rather not talk politics? Well, wind energy won’t let you do that, because wind energy, which should be all about the science, is almost always, all about the politics. It’s really frustrating and it all starts with the color green.
In physics, energy is not green
If you study physics, which is what you study if you want to know about energy, you’ll learn all about potential energy and kinetic energy, you might learn about heat energy which becomes the study of thermodynamics, there’s so much you need to know and many of us find it extremely interesting, but look all you want through your physics textbook and you won’t see anything about “green energy.” Why not? Because “green energy” isn’t science, it’s politics. There are no scientific laws that apply, no equations you can solve, it’s just a series of ideas you can “believe in,” and if you do, you can call yourself green.
Wind energy is just energy
Wind energy is part of the “green energy” group, that also includes solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity, but each one is simply an energy source, the same as coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. We can also include another group as an energy source called biomass which is everything from wood to things like various waste products. In every instance, we’re trying to produce energy which we need to survive. If we want to go beyond mere survival and build a more advanced economy, we need more energy.
Where did green energy come from?
The term “green energy” has its foundations in the environmental movement, now committed to reducing CO2 emissions because of claims of global warming caused by man. (Even though the warming seems to have, … um, paused.) They say there is strong scientific evidence to support their views, but they act in a very unscientific manner. They will no longer entertain questions about their conclusions, if you question their evidence or results, you’re labeled a “science denier,” and if you continue to question, especially if your questions are hard to answer, they may say something incredibly silly, “the science is settled.”
Science asks questions, it doesn’t choose sides
Science doesn’t say it’s settled, only people who don’t understand it say that. Science thrives and grows on continual questioning of theories and ever more thorough proof. If questions seem threatening to anyone’s beliefs, they need to reexamine why they believe something in the first place. Wind energy advocates, basing much of their support for wind on this same CO2 and global warming issue, have no better answers than the environmental groups in general, but the problem is now political, because the government has thrown its support, and a whole lot of your tax dollars, behind wind energy.
Even if you accept man made global warming, the belief that wind energy somehow solves the problem is not supported by any facts, especially when you consider it doesn’t replace any conventional power plants and does nothing to reduce CO2, the greenhouse gas accused of being the cause, in any measurable way. Wind energy is a “feel good” solution that costs you a lot and makes our electric grid less stable.
Government chooses sides and doesn’t like questions
The government is picking winners in the energy field, rather than letting competition, engineering and science find the best solutions to whatever problems we’re trying to solve. When you no longer aim for a particular target like inexpensive, clean and reliable energy, but instead choose one specific kind of energy, other methods that may be far better will not be considered or even allowed.
Laws that apply to you don’t apply to wind energy
Once the government favors a particular industry or energy source, they begin enforcing the same laws differently depending on which business you’re in, tax laws and preferences we’ve already discussed, but even environmental laws get selectively enforced.
A Southern California wind farm has been assured by federal authorities that they won’t prosecute if the company’s whirring turbine blades kill any endangered California condors.
That exemption applies for the next thirty years. Or as the Oil and Gas Journal put it:
Oil companies have been prosecuted for federal crimes when migratory birds died in waste pits at drilling sites, but apparently US President Barack Obama’s administration figures eagles whacked out of the air by wind farm turbines simply committed suicide.
… the administration has never prosecuted or fined a wind-energy company for the death of protected birds despite turbines in the US killing more than 573,000 birds/year, including hawks, falcons, and eagles.
The government would prosecute you, too, just like an oil company. Only wind energy gets a free pass because the government thinks it’s special, but it certainly doesn’t sound very green.
Let’s find the best solution, not the “green” solution
You don’t have to be an environmentalist to be concerned about the environment and a particular form of energy doesn’t have to be the government’s favorite or labeled “green” to be the best energy choice, in fact, that may be a good reason to steer clear. If we simply ask straightforward questions about every energy option and let the facts and the science lead us wherever it may, then we can come up with energy solutions that will be good for all of us, not just those few who will benefit financially at great cost to the rest of us. Wind energy must not be measured by a different standard just because someone has labeled it green, it needs to meet our needs and answer the same hard questions as every other energy source. If it can’t, and so far it hasn’t, it should be set aside so we can use something better, it doesn’t matter what color wind claims to be.