Trump’s Deranged Rant on Wind Energy
I’m sure most readers are aware that the President of the United States went on an unhinged rant against the wind energy industry recently which, as could have been predicted, was littered with untruths.
Here’s an essay, Why Trump Hates Wind Energy, written by my colleague Tom Ribe, in which he points out a sad truth: the litany of gross factual inaccuracies does very little to cause many people to disbelieve him. As Tom points out, it’s especially true in this particular case, where Trump was addressing “Turning Point USA,” a conservative youth group. Here you have an auditorium full of young future red hat wearers and Fox News acolytes, swallowing all this whole.
Trump claims, for instance, that wind is expensive and that (presumably the manufacturing process) results in fumes spewing into the air; at one point he used the word “spewing” three times in under 15 seconds. The truth of course, is the precise opposite, i.e., wind is among the least expensive and cleanest energy resources that is available at scale; yes, it has a carbon footprint, but it’s 1/20th that of coal on a per kWh basis and, of course, has no toxic emissions of cadmium, selenium, arsenic, mercury, or radioactive isotopes.
All this comes on the heels of his earlier claims, for which he was also ridiculed, that wind turbines destroy property values and cause cancer from their noise.
So here it is in summary: anyone who knows the first thing about wind understands that what Trump is saying here is no different than what he says on any other subject, i.e., a rat’s nest of lies designed to promote his self interests. But what makes this so terrifying is that many people, especially high school kids, don’t know much about wind, and simply take the words of the U.S. president at face value.
It appears that there is absolutely nothing he could do or say to cause about 40% of the American voter base to turn away from him. I used to say that everyone has a line of morality that leaders mustn’t cross. Now it looks like I was wrong.
Craig,
My goodness, how ironic! President Trump really poked the bear when he criticized Wind Power.
The irony becomes apparent when in a tirade of bizarre rants, wind power advocates rant event more hysterically and with even less accuracy than the comments by the President.
Are Wind Turbines eyesores despoiling landscapes and exceedingly noisy?
Well that’s a very subjective point of view. For people who don’t live near these vast towers, I suppose there’s no problem, while others actually appreciate the aesthetics of the huge machines.
But for many residents towns and rural farmlands, the sight of these huge monsters, with their noise and vibrations drives them to despair and misery at the wreckage of all they held precious in an idyllic rural vista for generations.
But it’s not just the aesthetics that is at issue. The economics and environmental impact of the technology is causing increasing concern.
With the exception of certain locations the Wind industry only survives by receiving massive subsidies and regulatory skewed accounting creating false statistics backed by a powerful lobby consisting of giant corporations and billionaire ‘carpet baggers’.
No proper debate has taken place about the merits of this technology. Certainly no analysis of the manufacturing processes or the dismantling and disposal of these units when they become obsolete.
Vast numbers of these behemoths are now lying idle. The companies that erected them have long since disappeared (along with taxpayer money)leaving these machines to deteriorate with no means of dismantling safely the highly toxic turbines and huge 100 ton reinforced concrete bases or massive power line infrastructure.
That is the legacy to which the President is referring! Sound bizarre? Sound crazy?
Maybe is you are an ardent Wind Power fan, or lobbyist, but why then is the industry so scared of rational debate?
C’mon Craig, take the challenge, grow a pair, take part in a real debate on the merits of Wind Power.
It’s easy to say “no toxic emissions of cadmium, selenium, arsenic, mercury, or radioactive isotopes”. But you know that’s not true.
Just list the environmental hazards of manufacturing the technology, especially the cobalt mines in the Congo or rare earth mining in China, to the disposal of the units when made redundant.
American economist Sen. Phil Gramm detailed the $124 billion dollars given the US Wind power industry to 2017. In 2015, he called for an EPA audit of the US wind industry that despite being a legal requirement, has never taken place.
The current audit has begun by the US government and is already terrifying the Wind industry who have spent hundreds of millions to try stopping, or making ineffective a comprehensive independent audit.
Disturbing analysis by Scientists, is quickly dismissed by Wind advocates who only a short time earlier were lauding the same scientists.
Researchers at Princeton University found :
“At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. The result changes the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, the resulting change in the atmosphere’s energy would cause some regions of the world to experience temperature changes of more than 1ºC.”
For this relatively harmless study activists and Wind Power lobbyists demanded the resignation of Carnegie Mellon scholar Professor David Keith and his teams, labeling them “climate deniers”.
So what did the President really say in his off the cuff speech to a rally,
” “They make noise, they’re intermittent, they kill your birds, they break down all the time, you have to replace them every 10 years because they wear out, they cost a fortune, and they need subsidy. Other than that they’re quite good.”
“You don’t want one of those windmills within vision,” he continued. “You hear them. They’re noisy. They have a lot of problems.”
He also added, “and some people say they can cause cancer and property values will decrease by up to 75%”.
So, what in the President’s speech is so unbelievable?
1. Cancer? As usual, the President is deliberately misquoted. The President did not say, “wind turbines cause cancer”, he said some people claim wind turbines cause cancer”
Fact: University studies show an early worrying link to increased cancer rates in areas where high concentrations of turbines. The studies are incomplete, but there are no less than 17 court cases currently being fought over the issue.
Personally, I don’t place much credence on Wind turbines causing cancer, but nor would I dismiss the suggestion without undertaking the appropriate studies.
2 )lowering property values? I don’t see exactly how a huge wind farm next door would enhance your property values!
3) Kill birds? Is there anyone who doesn’t believe the turbines don’t kill birds?
4) Break down all the time and last only ten years ?
Fact: Definitely and exaggeration. Modern turbines are far more reliable and studies have shown newer models to last on average at between 17 and 21 years. (still much shorter thant the claimed 25-30 years.
however, that does leave a huge number of old, obsolete turbines rusting away with deteriorating infrastructure.
4) Noisy ? Anyone who has every been within ear shot of a Wind Turbine will tell you how noisy these machines really are!
5) “They cost a fortune, and need subsidies”.
Fact: No even the Wind industry would deny the technology can only exist with heavy subsidies. But, hey if that’s no true, then just hand back the hundreds of billions and prove the president wrong!
So, what in his speech was so very radical or deserving of ridicule?
Alright, he exaggerated a little, but politicians do that in rallies.
On the other hand, what makes the Wind industry and advocates like yourself so scared you refuse to properly debate the issues?