As others have mentioned, the construction and installation of wind-turbines does contribute to global warming due to the emissions from the manufacturing processes, extraction and processing of the raw materials etc. There are also emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the transmission and distribution of the power generated by the turbines.
When all things are considered the amount of global warming caused by wind turbines is much smaller than most other forms of power generation, only hydroelectric and tidal power generation has a smaller footprint.
For each one kilowatt hour of electricity produced from wind-turbines there is between 2 and 81 grammes of CO2 produced, the average is 12g. By comparison, coal powered fire stations produce between 675g and 1689g per kilowatt hour with the average being 1001g. Gas fired power stations have average CO2 emissions of 469g per kWh and oil fired ones are 840g per kWh.
In short, a gas fired power station will cause 40 times as much warming as wind power when generating the same amount of electricity, oil fired is 70 times greater and coal fired is 80 times greater.
There’s more figures on page 982 of this document: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRR...
Sort of.
The actual Wind Turbine turning generating electricity Does NOT contribute to Global Warming, as it produces no gases.
However the building and placement of the Turbine does, as making and fusing the materials does create the gases that contributes to Global Warming.
YES.
But how much so is the issue, and do the positives outweigh the gains...
Here's why:
Somebody manufactured the turbine, its motor, the plastic propeller, the metal base...
Plastic is made from oil, which means you now have to consider oil collection (since it's already existing, it isn't "produced" as such).
And transport of materials to said factories. This is where having a national train system, based on electricity (wires, solar, whatever) is going to be more efficient than burning gobs of coal or oil, though one has to be mindful of how any form of electricity is generated.
If a factory is creating turbines as cheaply and dirty as possible, meaning they are not using technology and other means to limit the amount of pollution during the manufacturing process...
Now, combine that with how much cleaner wind is as opposed to the manufacturing process. If the net sum is a positive, especially for the goal of cleaner energy production so we don't all breathe toxic air, you win.
If the net result is a loss, who cares - people still happily champion ethanol, disadvantages (lower MPG, dirtier for standard engines, corrodes PLASTIC gas tanks), etc...
If anyone wants to see how climate change is a myth, do some research as to which countries have the worst pollution rates, if the people there have to wear gas masks for any length of time, and go live there for a while. The high cost of a cheap economy and I don't entirely mean "cheap" in terms of money...
Using gas-fired power stations on constant standby, ramping up and down to fill the unpredictable gaps in wind-powered supply is an inefficient way to use gas. Some scientists say that less CO2 would be released if the wind farms were shut down and modern nuclear or gas-fired power stations were allowed to run at a sensible steady rate.
Also, as more wind farms are built, more power lines are required to connect them all up. And as coal fired power stations are closed, new gas stations have to be built just to provide the backup power.
It's not clear if, overall, wind turbines increase or decrease CO2 emissions. But they are certainly a waste of money and resources and an expensive distraction.
Yes, however the life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is used during the manufacturing phase. "This, they say, means the turbine model earns its own worth more than 35 times during its energy production lifetime."
Not to the extent that coal or natural gas do. But greenhouse gases are produced in the process of manufacturing and installing and maintaining them. If fossil fuels are used as a backup, that also adds greenhouse gases.
Even the wind power industry will have to switch to zero emission energy sources. It may store energy, perhaps by making hydrogen, as a backup.
Humans total contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect" is less than 1%. What percentage is feasible to you? Climate scientists know this. Humans effect the atmosphere in a very small amount.
CO2 is used to create O2 (oxygen) by plants whether they are on the land or in the ocean.
Humans breath oxygen. Oxygen is used to help people live. All humans die. Does that mean oxygen kills people and that we should stop emitting CO2?
This issue is over-blown by people wanting to regulate atmospheric CO2. It's another money-making scam off of the backs of people. Al Gore promotes the idea of carbon credits. Banks stand to make billions of dollars from the sale of carbon credits and so does he. Al Gore is a capitalist punk!
The building of Windmills is subsidized by Government. The Government subsidies pay rent to farmers and help in the Labor Union's building of these windmills. The balance in energy produced vs coal or natural gas powered plants is negligible.
Yes electro magentism
They add to carbon emissions, if that's what you mean.
Fossil fuel power is used during the mining of raw materials, refining, manufacture, transportation to site and erection.
As the wind doesn't blow consistently, fossil fuel powered generating stations have to be kept in "rolling reserve" ie the generators are spinning under power all the time to make up for when the wind dies away or is too strong.
They are polluting monsters.
PS: Forgot to mention all the fossil fuel required transporting all the dead birds killed by these horrible things.
PPS: What Trevor says is correct, but this is when the things are working, all the time we rely on them we have to have conventional power stations rolling, that is the deadly flaw in most green energy, sad I know but true.
For this reason Denmark gets most of its "rolling reserve" energy from Germany, powered by brown coal. Where's the green logic in that?
To my knowledge--only to the extent that fossil fuels are used in either creation of the turbine or its parts, or transportation of same to wherever they are to be used. So we're talking, essentially, orders of magnitude less than any fossil fuel-based power source.
If yes, how do they?
they do because they change the natural flow of the air and cause disturbings also birds get in distress and change their shidding habbit,.. causing gras to get destroyed by the amoniak in their shid... also that will have a butterfly effect on cows and ironically onbutterflies too.....
yes its not that easy with making natura uglier with wind turbins, in the long haul the risk of atom is way better, i mean i rather die in a nuclear holocaust then having to see those ugly windmilss.. its such a crime such beautiful green gets ruined by that disgusting pieces of brainshid
Hardly, if the alternative is the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
no. think about how large the planet is.
lol nevermind i guess
