In an article in The Spectator (a British publication, not the American Spectator), zoologist Clive Hambler notes:

“Wind turbines only last for ‘half as long as previously thought’, according to a new study. But even in their short life spans, those turbines can do a lot of damage. Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.”

“Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’”

This danger to birds and bats is not confined to Europe. An article in the Washington Times by Paul Driessen notes:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats.

“New studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, “eco-friendly” wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year.”

In the recent “fiscal cliff” negotiations, it seems crony capitalism triumphed over good sense. Lobbying by the wind industry saved its subsidy, the Production Tax Credit, which was set to expire at the end of 2012. The “cliff” deal now extends that subsidy through 2013 thus costing American taxpayers $12 billion, and encouraging use of a very expensive, very unreliable, and to wildlife, a very lethal form of “green” energy production.

See also:

(human) Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Electricity generated by wind power may raise temperatures and costs

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

Thorium, another alternative energy choice

As a result of that post, I was contacted by a representative of a major national manufacturer of membrane roofing systems, mainly for commercial and industrial applications. That company (Carlisle SynTec) produces both dark and white roofing systems. To my surprise, the company spokesman said that while white roofs may keep a building cooler, they nonetheless have some detrimental unintended consequences when used in cool climates. These unintended consequences include:

Elevated rooftop temperatures:

White roofs may keep the roof surface and building cooler, but, the heat has to go somewhere. Heat reflected from white roofs can cause the ambient air temperature above the roof to be hotter than it ordinarily would. That can effect the performance of air conditioning units in two ways. First, the higher temperature of the ambient air causes the A/C unit to work harder, using more energy.

Second, the electrical conduits feeding A/C units become less efficient when temperature rises, according to an article in IAEI magazine, a trade publication for electrical inspectors.

“The interiors of conduits in sunlight, such as those containing conductors feeding air conditioning units on rooftops, become significantly hotter than the outside air (which is always measured in the shade). Data show that these temperature differentials can easily reach 70°F, even when the conductors are electrically unloaded. Remarkably, the differentials were found to be essentially independent of the outdoor temperature all through the range from 70°F to above 100°F.”

“To determine the need for ampacity* corrections, these temperature differentials need to be added to the outdoor temperatures, which reach 90°F or higher in most areas of the USA during the summer months.”

“As might be expected, the temperature differential decreases the further above the roof the conduit is placed. So, for example, when summer temperatures reach 95°F in Chicago, the interior of a conduit lying directly on a roof might be 165°F, while the temperature in a conduit 12 inches above the roof might be 125°F. Interestingly, because light-colored roofs reflect more heat back onto the conduits than dark roofs, their conduit interiors are hotter at heights more than an inch or so above the roof.“

*Ampacity: the maximum amount of electrical current a conductor or device can carry before sustaining immediate or progressive deterioration. Ambient temperature and the ability to shed heat affect the ampacity rating.

 Effects on neighboring buildings:

A white roof will reflect heat. If the building with a white roof is surrounded by taller buildings, that reflected heat impinges on neighboring buildings causing them to expend extra energy to keep cool.

Increased Energy Costs:

White roofs keep buildings cooler (depending on the insulation). But, if you are in a northern climate that requires heating in winter, the heating bills will be higher. For instance, the graph below from the Department of Energy’s “Cool Roof Calculator” shows the additional heating expense for white-roofed buildings in Detroit:

Moisture buildup inside roof:

Because a white roof itself is cooler than a black roof, the white-roofed building is more prone to condensation build up inside the roof on winter days.

Maintenance costs:

White roofs have to be cleaned to maintain their cooling effect. If the roof is not cleaned it loses the anticipated benefits.

Will white roofs provide a solution to the phantom menace of global warming? Probably not, but the idea may sound good. A 2011Stanford study, published in the Journal of Climate: “‘Effects of Urban Surfaces and White Roofs on Global and Regional Climate,” estimated that “worldwide conversion to white roofs, accounting for their albedo effect only, was calculated to cool population-weighted temperatures by ~0.02°K but to warm the Earth overall by ~0.07° K.” That study was computer modeling. The results depend on the assumptions, and, as the author say, “the range of uncertainty may be larger than the range of results provided here.” The paper concluded that white roofs may have a small impact on the urban heat island effect, but the impact is too small to affect global warming.

The point of this story is that rather than blindly following a politically-correct, one-size-fits-all eco-fad, do your homework to choose a system that is most efficient and cost-effective for your particular application.

See also some other “great” government ideas:

How Many Haz-Mat Suits Do You Need to Change a Lightbulb?

Compact fluorescent bulbs may contribute to skin cancer

Implications of new vehicle fuel efficiency standards

Renewable energy mandates raise electricity costs

Clean Coal: Boon or Boondoggle?

Incandescent light bulbs waste much electricity by producing heat. Many governments have or are about to phase out incandescent light bulbs under the belief that other, more energy efficient lighting technology will reduce energy use.

Currently, artificial lighting uses 6.5% of the world’s primary energy, which translates into about 16% of world electrical generation, and it consumes about 0.72% of global GDP.

A new study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, takes exception to the assumption that newer technology will mean lower energy consumption.

The study authors note that “Lighting technology is evolving rapidly. Filament-based incandescent lighting is giving way to gas-plasma-based fluorescent and high-intensity discharge technology, and over the next 10- to 20 years, may give way to solid-state technology.”

It has been assumed “that consumption of light is relatively insensitive to the cost of light, and that evolution of lighting technology resulting in an increase in efficiency and a decrease in cost

leads to a decrease in the consumption of energy rather than an increase in the consumption of light.” The authors of the new study, however, reject that assumption and instead assume “a sensitivity consistent with simple extrapolations of past behavior into the future.” They also analyze the interplay between lighting, human productivity, and energy consumption.

The paper concludes: “A principal conclusion is that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light. A secondary conclusion is that this increased consumption of light has the potential to increase both human productivity and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.”

If this analysis is correct, then government policy to phase out incandescent light bulbs will have the unintended consequence of increasing energy use, just the opposite of what was intended.

Citation: J. Y. Tsao et al, 2010, Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 354001; doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/43/35/354001

The paper is highly mathematical in justifying its conclusions, but if you are game, you can read the paper here.