Critique of “Wind Power Puffery” In his article, “Wind Power Puffery”, H. Sterling Burnett argues that the advantages of wind power are grossly exaggerated and often cause more harm than good. Burnett, an expert in America on environmental issues, has obtained a Ph.D. in philosophy and a B.A. in cultural anthropology. He mainly writes opinion based articles about current environmental and energy topics and wrote this article to express his opinion on wind generated energy. Supporters of using wind energy in place of burning fossil fuels claim that relying on wind power will decrease air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, which Burnett strongly disagrees with. With these strong wind energy advocates in mind, he criticizes the supposed
…show more content…
His argument are well researched and explained in detail. However, the validity of his essay is damaged by the lack of research of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. For example, the amount of birds and bat killed by wind turbine astonished me. As a person who has loved bird watching since she was three, I found this horrific. Birds, including endangered species, were being killed because of the ugly man-made “cuisinarts of the air.” However, upon further research I found that the amount of birds being killed by wind turbine are minute compared to the fatalities from burning fossil …show more content…
Power plants are much more economical than wind farms because they cost less money, take up less space, and generate much more energy. Also, Burnett points out that wind farms can only be located in certain areas, due to their dependence on the wind’s speed, and those spaces usually replace beautiful countrysides. In my opinion, I would much rather look at fields of green grass or lovely wildflowers, than many ugly white wind turbines. Burnett writes that in Europe there are two wind farms that hold 159 turbines, and they take up thousands of acres of land which instead could be beautiful meadows filled grass, trees, and flowers. I also agree that wind generated energy is not a substantial from because of how fickle the wind is. In order for people to rely on wind energy, the wind would need to be constantly blowing. However, his comment about the harm to birds and bats is only partially valid in my opinion, as I mentioned before. There is a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that the means by which fuels are consumed and produced has a greater effect on nature. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority writes, “Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. Based on the
His argument are well researched and explained in detail. However, the validity of his essay is damaged by the lack of research of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. For example, the amount of birds and bat killed by wind turbine astonished me. As a person who has loved bird watching since she was three, I found this horrific. Birds, including endangered species, were being killed because of the ugly man-made “cuisinarts of the air.” However, upon further research I found that the amount of birds being killed by wind turbine are minute compared to the fatalities from burning fossil …show more content…
Power plants are much more economical than wind farms because they cost less money, take up less space, and generate much more energy. Also, Burnett points out that wind farms can only be located in certain areas, due to their dependence on the wind’s speed, and those spaces usually replace beautiful countrysides. In my opinion, I would much rather look at fields of green grass or lovely wildflowers, than many ugly white wind turbines. Burnett writes that in Europe there are two wind farms that hold 159 turbines, and they take up thousands of acres of land which instead could be beautiful meadows filled grass, trees, and flowers. I also agree that wind generated energy is not a substantial from because of how fickle the wind is. In order for people to rely on wind energy, the wind would need to be constantly blowing. However, his comment about the harm to birds and bats is only partially valid in my opinion, as I mentioned before. There is a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that the means by which fuels are consumed and produced has a greater effect on nature. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority writes, “Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. Based on the