Morgue

e-mail

Faculty/Staff

Student

Resources

WebCT

Faculty/Staff directory

   WASHINGTON -- President Bush's bold call to dramatically reduce U.S. dependence on Mideast oil by boosting funds for alternatives like ethanol made from plant stalks rankled some conservatives who saw it as just another trip to the pork barrel.

   Yet in calling for new and greener energy initiatives in his State of the Union speech, Bush barely mentioned one of the most egregious consumer boondoggles pushed by fervid environmentalists -- wind power.

   Even though it's been tried and found wanting at huge wind farms in Europe, wind power continues to be pushed as a premier alternative energy source by groups like the Sierra Club and blue-state politicians seeking to score well with politically correct voters.

   Unfortunately, wind power at its best is expensive, ineffective, erratic and unsightly. What's more, it kills large numbers of birds, including endangered species like bald eagles.

   Even inveterate enviros like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and retired CBS anchor Walter Cronkite want nothing to do with it when it threatens to intrude on their ocean vistas at such posh summer playgrounds as Cape Cod and Nantucket Island.

   Although the pair back wind power developments in, as Cronkite put it, "areas far less valuable than this," they joined the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound to oppose the construction of 67 giant windmills a few miles offshore from their own beaches.

   The federal government already has provided "wind entrepreneurs" with billions of dollars in subsidies -- including a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per hour and accelerated depreciation allowances that allow wind plant owners to write off their costs in five years rather than the standard 20.

   Still, supporting wind power remains a popular marketing tool for businesses seeking to attract affluent, young customers with burgeoning social consciences.

   Most notable was last month's announcement by Whole Foods Market, the world's leading retail seller of natural and organic foods, that it was purchasing renewable energy credits from wind farms to offset 100 percent of the electricity its facilities use in the U.S. and Canada.

   The gesture drew plaudits from the World Resources Institute, a well-heeled environmental think-tank here, which called the purchase "historic" and the kind of corporate leadership that is "essential to the growth of wind power."

   Despite that praise, an economic and environmental analysis of Whole Food's energy-credit purchase by noted energy expert Glenn R. Schleede found the impact neither ecologically benign nor cost-effective.

   A former Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Schleede found, among other things, that:

• Generating the 458-million kilowatt hours of wind-power purchased by Whole Foods would require 109 32-story-high wind turbines roughly as tall as the Statue of Liberty.
  
• For the money spent buying the wind power energy-credits for 458-million kilowatt hours, Whole Foods could have saved nearly 785-million kilowatt hours of electricity merely by purchasing readily available fluorescent light bulbs for its stores, bakeries and warehouses.

Have a comment? Please e-mail us.