Dear EarthTalk: I heard that some wind farms use fossil fuels to power their generators when the wind won’t. Doesn’t that defeat their whole renewable energy purpose? Why not let the wind power it or not? Also, I’ve heard that the low-frequency sounds generated by these turbines can harm people and animals. Is this true? – Ryan Lewis, Plainwell, MI

Indeed, one of the major drawbacks to wind power is the fact that, even in windy locations, the wind doesn’t always blow. So the ability of turbines to generate power is intermittent at best. Many turbines can generate power only about 30 percent of the time, thanks to the inconsistency of their feedstock.

In order to overcome this Achilles’ heel of intermittent production, some wind companies have developed back-up systems that can spin turbines even when the wind isn’t blowing, thus optimizing and keeping consistent the power output. For example, Colorado-based Hybrid Turbines Inc. is selling wind farms systems that marry a natural gas-based generator to a wind turbine. "Even if natural gas is used, the electricity produced…is twice as environmentally clean as burning coal," reports the company. Better yet, if a user can power them with plant-derived biofuels, they can remain 100 percent renewable energy-based.

While some wind energy companies may want to invest in such technologies to wring the most production out of their big investments, utilities aren’t likely to suffer much from the intermittent output if they don’t. Even the utilities that are most bullish on wind power still generate most of their electricity from other more traditional sources at the present time. So, when wind energy output decreases, utilities simply draw more power from other sources—such as solar arrays, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors and coal-fired power plants—to maintain consistent electrical service. As such, reports the American Wind Energy Association, utilities act as "system operators" drawing power from where it’s available and dispatching it to where it is needed in tune with rising and falling power needs.

But just because generating wind power all day long isn’t imperative doesn’t mean that suppliers aren’t doing all they can to maximize output. To wit, turbine manufacturers are beginning to incorporate so-called Active Flow Control (AFC) technology, which delays the occurrence of partial or complete stalls when the wind dies down, and also enables start-up and power generation at lower wind speeds than conventional turbines. The non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists lauds AFC for these capabilities, which in turn can help system operators create a more reliable electric grid less dependent on fossil fuels.

As to whether or not noise from wind farms can harm people and wildlife, the jury is still out. New York-based pediatrician Nina Pierpont argues in her book, Wind Turbine Syndrome, that turbines may produce sounds that can affect the mood of people nearby or cause physiological problems like insomnia, vertigo, headaches and nausea. On the flip side, Renewable UK, a British wind energy trade group, says that the noise measured 1,000 feet away from a wind farm is less than that of normal road traffic. Here in the U.S., a Texas jury denied a 2006 noise pollution suit against FPL Energy after FPL showed that noise readings from its wind farm maxed out at 44 decibels, roughly the same generated by a 10 mile-per-hour wind.

CONTACTS: Hybrid Turbines, Inc., www.hybridturbines.com; American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org; Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org; Nina Pierpont’s Wind Turbine Syndrome, www.windturbinesyndrome.com.

Dear EarthTalk: My neighbor told me to pour bleach down my drains every week to keep them clear. Is this safe to do? – Trish Osterling, via e-mail

Bleach is a useful cleaner and disinfectant, but pouring it down the drain will not do anything to help keep the drains clear. In addition, you could cause a dangerous chemical reaction if it comes into contact with other household products you might be using.

Common household bleach, also known as chlorine bleach, is a liquid compound of sodium hypochlorite, which is a combination of sodium chloride (a salt) with water and chlorine. It’s often used to whiten laundry or to disinfect kitchen surfaces. Bleach is also an ingredient in other household cleaners, like those used for bath and toilet cleaning. (A different sort of bleach, known as oxygen bleach, is used for laundry stain removal and does not have the same disinfecting/cleaning properties as chlorine bleach.)

According to the Household Products Database at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), chlorine bleach is corrosive to the eyes; injures skin and mucous membranes on contact; and is harmful if swallowed. Bleach is "a lung and eye irritant," warns the Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC), a Seattle non-profit that advocates for green friendly household products. Even used alone, fumes from chlorine bleach can irritate the lungs, so it should not be used by people with asthma or lung or heart problems, says the group. It is also "reactive" with ammonia and acids, forming more harmful fumes.

"One of the most common home accidents is the mixing of products containing chlorine bleach with those containing ammonia," says WTC. The combination creates chloramine gas, which is highly irritating to the lungs. Since many cleaning products contain ammonia, the inadvertent mixing must be avoided. Mixing bleach and acids results in the release of chlorine gas, according to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, exposure to which can cause coughing and breathing problems, burning eyes and, at high levels, vomiting, pneumonia and even death. Products containing acids include vinegar, some glass and window cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, drain cleaners and rust removers. An "incompatibility chart" listing many chemicals that will react with bleach is available at the Chlorine Institute’s cl2.com website.

Bleach alone is not necessarily hard on the environment. When use as directed, it will break down mostly into salt water in wastewater treatment or septic systems, says WTC. A dilution of bleach in water is effective as a disinfectant, and can be scrubbed onto non-porous food-contact surfaces like plastic cutting boards or refrigerator shelves and left to air dry. The Clorox Company recommends a solution of one tablespoon bleach per gallon of water for sanitizing.

So, what are the better ways to keep drains clear? Home drains in the kitchen and bath generally get clogged by grease, food waste and hair, none of which will be effectively dispersed by bleach. WTC recommends carefully pouring a kettleful of boiling water down the drain to free up a slow drain, or using mechanical methods such as a plumber’s snake, plunger or hose-end bladder to clean a clogged drain.

CONTACTS: DHHS Household Products Database, http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov ; Washington Toxics Coalition, www.washingtontoxics.org; New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, www.state.nj.us/health; Chlorine Institute, www.cl2.com.

This article was reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford and Pasquale Augustine. It was written by McCombs.

LA JOLLA, Calif. — Power Behind Closed Doors recently interviewed Dana Stewart, an expert in the field of alternative energy and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation.

Why do we seem to be feed only two choices in the energy industry: the economically sound or the ecologically devastating? According to Stewart, we can and should make our own energy, and we should clean it up ourselves.

Wind turbines like this one in Hull might not be the answer (Media credit/dsearls via Flickr)

Take for example, two diametrically opposed energy sources. Stewart says that a recent brouhaha that has erupted over the merits of Wind Farms versus Mountaintop Coal mining. She believes that neither energy sources are real answers to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Instead, these industries spend enormous sums of money to market and convince the general public of the "greenness" of their individual products and processes. She believes that both of these concepts are severely damaging to the overall environment.

Stewart said that destruction of the environment by coal mining of any type is well-known, and sites the history of coal slurry disasters, some of the biggest disasters in the nation’s history. To her, “Clean Coal” doesn’t exist and wind’s not the solution either.

Wind farms, an industry that until recently was viewed as the epitome of ecologically responsible green technology, have efects on the environment in terms of their equipment manufacturing process, field installation and the actual operating experience.

"Take California for example,” said Stewart, "where 4,000 windmills produce less than 1 percent of the energy used — an inefficient manner, causing additional polluting, and of course (it) results in higher energy costs. An overview would indicate that these are the wrong design in the wrong places at the wrong time".

Stewart said it is possible to solve over 95 percent of America’s pollution and energy problems without toxic chemicals. “One of the keys to success is the concept of Point-of-Purchase Power,” she said, “which means building–integrated energy systems, and producing what is needed as closely as possible to where it will be used. I believe that this is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to achieve the U.S. national security objective of energy independence which can be stated as."

Of course, only public opinion can change public policy.

Says Stewart: We need “a 12-step program to prevent the worst hangover from our addiction to fossil fuels that has ever been imagined."

1. Endless Energy Technology has been available for decades, and even centuries and more. It is therefore believed that it is possible to be energy independent from fossil fuels – yesterday.
2. There are two “golden bullets” for Perpetual Power — solar and biomass fuels from wastes.
3. Pay yourself for your power with Point-of-Purchase systems. These power systems can be adapted anywhere, to virtually any home or business. These are home-based, farm-based, business-based energy systems. They include small and safe, viable and sustainable, clean energy generation. This, of course, reduces demand for energy from utilities, and will alleviate grid crashes and brown-outs. It will also significantly reduce the need for more power towers.
4. Individual energy independence is being incentivized. Funding needs to be continued for more to participate. The billions of dollars spent for oil exploration and extraction can be redirected.
5. Biomass fuels were used on farms throughout World War II. They were made from wood and farm wastes. Crop waste disposal is a major expense for farms which can be turned into a profit center. Green and wood wastes from forest fires and hurricane debris can be pelletized for clean electric power fuel in non-polluting facilities.
6. Food is medicine. As of now it takes 9 tons of petroleum to make 1 ton of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Think of the savings if we use bio-compost! That alone could make us energy independent. Buy organic foods, or compost and grow your own, for safety and for health. Fish and livestock can be raised organically. Vote with your wallets.
7. All water and soil restoration can be accomplished through biological and mechanical means.
8. Stronger fuel standards can be mandated. All energy generation facilities can be made non-polluting. This can happen at wartime speed. And it must.
9. Chemicals have no place in our food and water. The costs of “upstream” manufacturing pollutants, and “downstream” contaminations, must be factored in to perceive, and achieve, the real savings of an energy system. This is where wind farms and nuclear power facilities fail.
10. Environmental technologies can offer millions of more jobs at all skill levels. Renewable resources can provide all of the green building materials we need.
11. Everyone in the world is going to need to do everything they can to make the world healthy.
12. Stay positive.

Stewart said that it is time for a united effort to truly “go green to make green” and to restore the Earth. Power Behind Closed Doors applauds her dedication.

But with all the responsibilities on the shoulders of Americans already, with work and family demands, how can we move ahead?

We need to, as a country, find a feasible way to end our dependence on foreign resources and end the energy crisis. Everyone can agree that we don’t want to pillage the planet. Are any global environmental pacts, including the current Copenhagen Deal, the way to go? Binding agreements set off waves of alarm bells to those against a one-world, one government approach. Giving up sovereignty for the greater good has benefits and costs. Can we ever set a global standard that reflect true progress? Then will we be able to use the most efficient, most economical technologies to peruse this goal?

It is possible, and is being done at the University of California San Diego, the leading college in the country for sustainability. UCSD has also received one of the largest chunks of the solar stimulus plan, because of its proven ability to create change and a profit. Now how does the rest of the country and business turn a goal into a profitable market?

Dana L. Stewart is chairwoman and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation and A Development Alternatives Network and Alliance. She is also the marketing director for Golden State Solar Electric and a board adviser for the Universities Media Alliance. She can be reached at adanacompany@yahoo.com.

Whether it’s a wind farm, a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear reactor or even just a big box store, there are always going to be locals opposed to it, declaring "not in my back yard!" (NIMBY).

As to the attractiveness of wind farms, people do seem to come down on one side or the other rather vehemently. Those in favor of wind development have been known to extol the visual virtues of a horizon full of windmills not only for the turbines’ graceful sculptural lines but also for the fact that their very presence advertises the coming of a modern, almost futuristic age of clean, renewable energy.

Writing in the online magazine Contemporary Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito waxes eloquent about the visual appeal of wind farms when created thoughtfully. "[I]t is possible to create an aesthetically pleasing effect by choosing the color, shape and height of the turbines appropriate…to the particular landscape, making them uniform in their appearance and movement, and…arranging them in proportion to the landscape," he says. "One writer admires the windmills in Sweden as ‘graceful objects’ because ‘the slender airfoils seem both delicate and powerful…while their gentle motion imparts a living kinetic nature’."

On the flip side, detractors begrudge wind turbines for destroying their views—a classic NIMBY stance. According to Saito, opposition to wind farms stems from their being sited on previously "open, unhindered lands" and as such "are viewed as machines intruding in a garden." He adds: "[T]hey are almost invariably decried as ‘marring’, ‘spoiling’, ‘ruining’, and ‘intruding on’ the otherwise relatively natural landscape, such as desert, open field, mountainside, and…ocean, and for creating an ‘eyesore’."

Respondents to a survey by the British magazine Country Life listed wind turbines as the most egregious type of architectural blemish across England. They disliked wind farms even more than other "eyesores"—such as highway service areas, conventional power stations and ugly office buildings—because of the size of the turbines, some of which are 300 feet tall, and their intrusion on the landscape.

Opponents of a proposed wind farm in the waters of Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound cite similar gripes. The builder, Cape Wind Associates, has campaigned for seven years for approval of the development, to be located 16 miles off the shore of Nantucket Island. Homeowners, politicians and some evidently conflicted environmentalists have mounted stiff opposition to the facility, which would appear from shore as distant white smears on the horizon. The decision rests with the U.S. Interior Department which, despite stated desires to expand offshore wind energy, is taking its time on the highly contentious matter.

But with wind now the hottest renewable energy source going, those opposed to seeing windmills better get used to it. In 2008 wind power provided 1.5 percent of global electricity—having doubled its output every year now for five years in a row—and should account for as much as eight percent by 2018.

Image courtesy John Foxx, Getty.

Using the wind to produce electricity has, for many decades, been little more than a footnote to energy production in the U.S. But, says the January/February 2009 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at: www.emagazine.com), that’s all beginning to change.

In 2007, 35% of all the new electricity generation installed in the U.S. -‚­ over 5,200 megawatts (MW) ‚­- was wind. Its growth is second only to natural gas. Then in September 2008, the U.S. surpassed Germany to lead the world in wind energy production. With rising oil costs, improvements in turbine technology and a more stable public energy policy, U.S. wind energy production has doubled in just two years.

Today’s turbines provide more than 20,000 MW of generating capacity, enough to serve 5.3 million homes or to power one million plug-in hybrid vehicles. By the time 2008 tallies are completed, the industry will likely have added 7,000 to 7,500 more MW. And now that industry incentives have been extended with the recent passage of a new energy bill, wind power is on track to reach the 30,000-MW milestone sometime in 2009.

Big Possibilities

There are many reasons why wind power should be promoted as a major energy supplier. It has a huge environmental advantage over dirty fossil fuels. Estimates by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) show that wind currently generates as much electricity as nearly 30 million tons of coal or 90 million barrels of oil. In 2008, wind displaced about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 5.8 million vehicles off the road. In 20 years, if we reach the industry goal of supplying 20% of our national energy from wind, it will be the equivalent of taking 140 million vehicles off the road.

And wind resources in the United States are huge. “There’s something like 600 gigawatts of wind that can be developed in the U.S.,” says Jim Walker of Enxco, a company that develops wind farms in North America. That’s about 60% of our current electricity consumption, according to The Energy Information Administration. The cost, too, is already competitive with gas. Says Walker, “Wind energy can be developed for under 10 cents per kilowatt hour, about the same as gas.” This assumes the continuation of production tax credits that contribute about two cents for each kilowatt-hour produced.

Then there are the job possibilities. The U.S. Department of Energy says that achieving the goal of drawing 20% of our national energy needs from wind by 2030 will create about 500,000 jobs in the U.S. and contribute more than $1.5 billion to local communities annually.

Finding New Wind

Beyond the large-scale wind farms, there’s a lot of quality wind to be tapped over the water. Although the U.S. has no offshore wind installations yet, they are in the works. BluewaterWind, for example, is working with four states in the Northeast to build offshore wind parks. Its Delaware project is expected to provide electricity for 100,000 homes. The turbines will be 11 miles offshore and difficult to see from shore even on a clear day. Wind energy experts expect offshore wind to contribute about 50 of the 300 GWs of capacity the industry aims to install by 2030.

Community, or mid-sized wind, also has a role to play. This is wind power for smaller investors, such as farmers, ranchers, consumer-owned utilities, school districts and colleges. The beauty of community wind, in addition to being able to take advantage of smaller sites, is that it contributes to a less centralized‚­and a more secure‚­model for our energy needs.

And small wind, too, will be an important part of a new energy picture. Defined as wind produced by turbines that are rated at 100 kilowatts or less, most are owned by individual homeowners, farmers and business owners. Small wind currently contributes 55 to 60 MW of capacity in the U.S. Although that’s a small fraction of what’s coming online from utility-scale projects, small wind is an attractive option for anyone who wants to fix their energy costs. “Think of it as prepaying for your electrical costs for 25 or 30 years,” says Ron Stimmel, AWEA’s small-wind advocate.

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 60,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,700 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s January/February 2009 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 50032, Boulder, CO 80322. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

Dear EarthTalk: How is wind power faring in the U.S. now? Is more of it coming on line and becoming a larger percent of the grid? And what about some of the highly publicized efforts to build wind farms, such as in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Has that been approved? – Paul Howe, San Francisco, CA

Clean and green wind energy iscon the new darling of alternative energy developers, and the U.S. industry has been surging the past three years, especially as developers take advantage of government incentives-in the form of the so-called Production Tax Credit (PTC)-for erecting turbines and connecting them to the grid.

The non-profit American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that, in 2007 alone, total U.S. wind power capacity grew by a new record of 45 percent, injecting some $9 billion into the economy. These new installations provide enough electricity to power 1.5 million typical American homes while strengthening the nation’s energy supply with clean, homegrown electricity.

According to AWEA, utility-grade wind power installations are now in operation across 34 U.S. states, generating more than 16,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity cumulatively-enough to power upwards of 4.5 million homes and to generate 45,000 new domestic jobs. But even with this growth, wind energy still accounts for just one percent of U.S. electricity supply. Continued growth apace with that of recent years, though, should make it a major player in the American energy scene within a decade. President Bush himself recently suggested that wind has the potential to supply up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Of course, the volatility of oil prices has helped wind energy gain its foothold. Once a wind farm is built, the fuel cost is essentially zero (as long as the wind blows), whereas fluctuating fossil fuel prices have made traditional power sources more costly and risky. Upping our reliance on wind power has also allowed us to lower our overall carbon footprint. If coal or natural gas were to be substituted to generate the electricity we now get from wind, it would put 28 million additional tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Wind power also saves water by not requiring the billions of gallons of water used to cool coal-fired power plants, an increasingly contentious issue in arid areas with limited access to fresh water.

As for the contentious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts, the federal agency in charge, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, is sifting through tens of thousands of public comments and expects to make a final decision on the project by next winter. But even if they give it the green light, extensive permitting demands and legal challenges will likely hold up construction for years.

AWEA thinks that 2008 can be as much of a growth year as 2007 if Congress extends the PTC program. The Senate has already approved extending the PTC for at least one more year, but the House has yet to bring it up for a vote. Meanwhile, wind energy proponents are pacing the halls of Congress trying to persuade their Representatives that what’s good for the wind industry is good for America.

CONTACTS: American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org; Cape Wind, www.capewind.org; U.S. Minerals Management Service, www.mms.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: I am getting married this summer and was wondering if you have any tips on how to make the festivities greener? — Tara McCarthy, Los Angeles, CA

You know environmental consciousness has really taken hold when couples start to worry about whether their weddings will be green enough. But more and more people who care deeply about the planet view getting married as a chance to show off their values; so green nuptials make all the sense in the world.

To help remove the guesswork, many couples turn to wedding planners well versed in environmental issues. According to Idaho-based Angel Wedding Planners, every element of the wedding planning process can provide an opportunity to make choices that minimize waste and environmental impact. One of the easiest places to do right by the environment is in choosing invitations. Angel suggests going with tree-free or recycled paper, and also points out that a one piece folded design can save paper and envelopes.

In regard to feeding your hungry and thirsty guests, Angel recommends sourcing food and drink from local organic producers, if possible. Some caterers specialize in preparing and serving such items. Organic flowers (from local vendors or online via Organic Bouquet) are another way to make a green statement.

Another way to help ensure that your wedding is as green as can be is by avoiding disposable products wherever possible. Caterers should use real dishes, linens, cutlery and glassware, or rent them if necessary. Other areas where “green” decisions can make a difference include: wedding attire (consider a dress rental or buying a used one and then re-selling it); transportation (carpooling works for weddings, too, at least from the wedding to the reception); photography (those disposable cameras at every table are fun but they can be very wasteful); and wedding registries (there are numerous to be found through a Google search, or support a local green store).

Speaking of the Internet, many websites have sprung up in recent years to make the process of planning a green wedding easier. Valerie Edmunds, founder of Green Elegance Weddings, hopes her company can make an important environmental contribution by directing some of the $25,000 people typically spend on a wedding toward greener products and services. Her advertising-supported website provides page after page of free useful information about eco-friendly wedding apparel, invitations, gifts, flowers, food and beverages, even the honeymoon. The site’s Resource Directory contains links to a wealth of online information and to businesses and organizations that provide related earth-friendly products and services.

Those looking for even more virtual handholding might want to visit the website, OurWeddingDay.com, which provides dozens of free online tools (including an “RSVP Manager,” Save-the-Date E-cards, a Gift Registry and an Event Manager) to help couples create the “ultimate green wedding from start to finish.” The site also posts hundreds of articles from leading bridal magazines so brides can save paper by not having to go out and purchase any of the 135 or so foot-thick bridal magazines clogging the newsstands.

CONTACTS: Angel Wedding Planners, www.angelweddingplanners.com; Organic Bouquet, www.organicbouquet.com; Green Elegance Weddings, www.greeneleganceweddings.com; OurWeddingDay.com, www.ourweddingday.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.