There are a number of good websites that question the prevailing dogma on wind farms, but few actually engage in teaching. The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is a gem in this regard. Not only does the site shine with careful reasoning, it actually teaches how to make clear and convincing arguments.
This carefulness in reasoning may be due to the fact that the site’s lead author is a physicist — John Droz. Careful reasoning about complex issues is my specialty, especially in the context of regulation, so I am not easily impressed. I must say that AWED impresses me.
The central theme is that yes there are energy and environmental problems but they must be solved using sound science. As a result this is not a NIMBY anti-wind site by any means. It is all about the science.
The central argument is that wind energy is useless as far as solving our energy and environmental challenges. In fact it is worse than useless in some regards. The key concept here is Net Societal Benefits, which wind simply does not have.
There are a huge number of links in addition to lots of content. This site is a portal as well as a teaching setup.
The teaching begins at the beginning, with these two pages (plus a lot more);
1. New members (membership is free and not required to use the website). Here is a sample:
“Our basic position is that industrial wind energy fails to deliver the goods.
In our view, a focus on siting can be problematic. The key position that citizens should be taking is that:
Being on the public grid is a privilege. Just because an energy source is “renewable” should not mean that the source gets a free pass from scientific scrutiny. In other words, the government should not permit alternative energy sources to be on the public grid, until there is a genuine scientific analysis proving that they will be a net societal benefit. As of today, no such assessment exists…”
2. What not to say:
“Let’s say that you want to object to a proposed wind energy project, and you’re given three minutes to speak to your town board (or county legislators, or a State energy panel, etc.). What is the most effective message to get across?
To best answer that you need to be clear about your objectives.
Consider the following two facts: 1) you have little hope of success unless you get a sizable number of other citizens on your side, and 2) these targeted citizens [e.g. in the audience] are not a fresh slate, as they have already been propagandized by incessant messages as to why green is good, wind is free, etc.
Another way of phrasing it is that this is a Public Relations (PR) issue. You have a four part objective in making your comments:
1 – to get the majority of citizens to be sympathetic and on your side,
2 – to persuade any open-minded media that may be present,
3 – to win over any receptive representatives you are addressing, and
4 – to set the groundwork for a successful lawsuit.”
There is also a global warming section and it too teaches. The focus is on the IPCC and the central fact that the entire climate change scare is based solely on computer modeling. There are lots of links plus a very clear and well reasoned position statement.
The red, white and blue (and sometimes green) motif is a bit garish, but who cares. It is the content that counts. Plus the patriotic aspect is important because America’s future is at stake here.
There is also a tri-weekly newsletter, for keeping up to date on the latest wind debates, plus links to a bunch of other windy news sites..
The site says far too much to summarize. I particularly like that it uses the term industrial wind facility, rather than the pastoral sounding wind farm. As John Droz points out, “wind farm” is a public relations trick, one among many in the subsidy dependent world of wind.