Wind of cynicism
There is a new lobby in France. They are protesting against a source of energy that apparently is dangerous, too expensive for taxpayers, with a deceitful official presentation and destroys the quaint rural French landscapes. No, they're not talking about nuclear - they're talking about wind. Political cynicism has just reached an entirely new level.
They're represented by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was President of France from 1974 to 1981, and who led the first French nuclear "renaissance". Not so surprisingly, there is a host of pro-nuclear personalities following him, not the least being a former President of EDF. I'm not surprised to see them campaigning against wind-energy. It's kind of what you expect from people who have dedicated their lives to misleading the public.
What annoys me is that in all the news report I have read that mention wind turbines as ugly or dangerous, or that complain about the ever-so-powerful wind lobby, almost no one has pointed out that by replacing the word "wind" by "nuclear", everything would be a million times more true. Costing more to the taxpayer than previously announced? Check. Dangerous? Check. Ugly? Check (beauty is subjective, but I can safely say more people find wind turbine pretty than nuclear power stations). Powerful lobby muddling the waters? Check.
I am astonished that the anti-wind lobby isn't being publicly ridiculed as just astroturfing on behalf of the nuclear industry. They need to be exposed now.
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
Juliette - at least here in the US, the pro-wind lobby is, paradoxically, led by GE, one of the few remaining nuclear reactor designers and vendors.
Its wind turbine division sold more than $3 billion worth of turbines and parts last year, all of which received healthy subsidies from the federal government and benefited from mandated use in the form of Renewable Portfolio Standards established by local and state governments.
Neither the subsidies nor the mandates happened by accident; they were the result of focused lobbying and alliances with fellow travelers who seem to like power systems that cannot do the complete job because of the vagaries of the wind.
In GE's case, I fully comprehend the business decision - after all, another division of the company produces the natural gas fired turbines that must cycle to fill in the power gaps left when the wind stops. The more those turbines cycle, the more money the spare parts division makes.
It is a beautiful thing - for stockholders and corporate managers. Customers, on the other hand, get to pay the ever increasing costs for less and less reliable electricity.
Posted by: Rod Adams | October 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Hi Rob,
I'm not quite sure what you're calling unreliable energy source, but in France, wind is definitively safer. Uranium mining is over - there is nothing left, and the country is now relying 100% on foreign sources, some of which are countries I'd rather not have to associate with. Wind, on the other hand, doesn't need to be imported. There are plenty of ways to deal with power gaps - that's why a well thought of renewable energy pack is necessary.
As far as subsidies go, I don't know enough of the US to give you a sure answer for there - but in France, nuclear gets a lot more than wind, plus a President whose part-time job is to sell nuclear reactors everywhere.
Posted by: Juliette | October 10, 2008 10:14 AM