Why do some people disapprove of wind turbines?

Answer 1

There are many reasons why some people disapprove of wind turbines.

• Some people believe they are an 'eyesore' and therefore don't want them in fields etc., as they believe they ruin the aesthetics of the picturesque countryside. Aesthetics can't be argued, but aesthetic appreciation is often out-weighed by financial benefit and many others consider wind turbines beautiful. Many areas promote them as a tourist attraction.
• Some people find wind turbine noise annoying. Wind turbines generate noise. Noise diminishes rapidly, and a big wind turbine will be about as noisy as a quiet room from 550 meters. Environmental noise such as wind, traffic or air condition will often mask this noise. That all said, a subset of people living near wind turbines find the noise annoying, especially if they can directly see the wind turbine or if they are not receiving any economic benefit from the wind turbine, per studies in Holland.
• On a related point, some people think that wind turbines make people sick, something referred to as 'wind turbine syndrome', which has a host of symptoms.

  This is false. 17 major studies and thousands of minor studies, independent, peer-reviewed and robust, have cleared wind turbines of health impacts on those living near them. The only harm is that subset annoyed by the noise; some of them get stressed, and some of them lose sleep. Standard environmental noise management such as white-noise generators, ear-plugs, closing windows and noise-baffling blinds are effective.

• Some people believe that the land around wind farms cannot be used for other purposes.

  This is false. As a wind turbine takes up about 20 square meters at its base and perhaps another 100 square meters for access roads, and as they are installed 6-10 rotor diameters apart for maximum efficiency, wind farms actually have very sparse ground usage. This ground is perfectly safe to use for raising crops, livestock, hunting, fishing, hiking; the vast majority of uses the land was suitable for prior to putting in a wind turbine are still suitable afterward. The only real restriction is that most jurisdictions require a setback of a few hundred meters to houses where people sleep to allow the noise to diminish with distance.

• Some people believe that wind turbines do not generate electricity sufficient to cover their manufacturing and installation.

  This is false. Wind turbines pay for themselves rapidly in the vast majority of instances. Total lifecycle energy balances are better for wind turbines than for the majority of other forms of energy generation. Total lifecycle energy for construction and installation is returned by generation in 146 days for a 2 MW onshore wind turbine, based on an independent analysis.

• Some people believe that wind turbines do not offset any carbon due to the need for backup and the cost of manufacturing and installing wind turbines.

  This is false. Wind energy has contributed to carbon emissions reductions in every jurisdiction it exists in any significant quantities. In Ontario, wind has assisted in a 70% reduction in carbon emissions from energy in the past eight years. In Texas, governmental documents make clear that wind has helped them significantly reduce carbon emissions. The primary creators of these arguments are fossil fuel lobbyists, tellingly, especially the natural gas industry analyst organization Bentek, whose President is head of a petroleum industry lobbying organization. Wind turbines offset CO2 generated in manufacturing and installation in 94 days of generation for a 2 MW onshore wind turbine.

• Some people believe that wind turbines are bad for aquifers and ground water.

  This is false. Wind turbines are a strong net benefit for clean water, especially compared to coal generation, and in some jurisdictions, excess energy from wind when it exists is used to pump water into aquifers.

• Some people believe that wind turbines kill too many birds and bats.

  This is not true from a species perspective; wind turbines do not threaten bird or bat species at all, and are a net positive over fossil fuel generation for bird and bat habitat and health. Wind turbines do kill individual birds and bats, but these deaths are massively outnumbered, in the case of birds by lighted window strikes, cats, power line collisions, car collisions and pesticides. In the case of bats, pesticides and white-nose syndrome are much greater killers and threats to bat populations.

• Some people just don't want anything to change in the rural environment they currently live or vacation in. These people will usually be using many of the other arguments on this list, rather than admitting this.
• Some people have their lives or livelihoods invested in other forms of generation of energy. Supporters of astroturfing campaigns against wind turbines include coal unions and miners, natural gas firms and lobbyists, nuclear companies and other traditional energy organizations. This is far from true of all firms and individuals in these areas, but many of the most vocal and most financially supportive of anti-wind efforts are from these areas. As an interesting recent case, Donald Trump has been very actively attacking wind energy since plans were unveiled to put an offshore wind farm within sight of his proposed Scottish golf resort.
• Some people believe that only nuclear power is the answer to global warming.

  This is false. Nuclear power is carbon-neutral and a good candidate for base-load generation where regulations and social conditions support its development. However, the solution would require a new nuclear plant going into production every week for the next 25 years at a cost of $6-10B USD per plant. And post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima, there are very few jurisdictions where the political will exists to build new nuclear; quite the reverse, as nuclear is being phased out in many places. In fact, wind energy is on track to have the same world-wide generating capacity as nuclear by 2015 or 2016.