“Fowl” Play: Some Major Problems with Wind Power

falcon stock photo

Energy is necessary for day-to-day life. Whether it’s heating your home, keeping the lights on or transportation, energy is a major foundation of living in modern society. There’s been a lot of debate over the environmental impacts of different energy sources, and while competition between different types of energy is a good thing, it seems that some tend to get a free pass without much scrutiny.

Let’s take wind energy as an example. It’s often held up as an example of consequence-free, clean, green energy, but it’s a little more complicated than that. Green energy activists will point out that wind energy doesn’t produce carbon emissions. While there’s a debate to be had over that (think about emissions during production, transport, etc.), emissions aren’t the end-all-be-all of environmental impact.

At this time of year, I’m always excited to watch a huge variety of birds fly by overhead, as they head south for the fall migration. It’s a major hobby of mine to take in the wildlife and hear the screech of an eagle, see the grace of a pelican hunting for fish, or study the beautiful colours of a songbird. But sadly, thousands of those beautiful animals won’t make it to warmer climates this year: they’ll be killed by wind turbines, instead.

A 2018 study from the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database found that each turbine kills around five birds and 12 bats every year. That doesn’t sound like much at first, but the federal government’s wind turbine database shows that, as of 2021, there were almost 6,700 turbines across the country. That’s around 33,500 birds and over 80,000 bats killed every year. Those numbers don’t count the animals affected by the loss of habitat taken up by wind farms.

Speaking of habitat, another problem caused by wind power is the huge amount of trash created by wind turbines when they’re past their prime. Check out this photo from Bloomberg.

 

Most components of a wind turbine can be recycled, but that’s not the case for their massive blades. A report from the Institute for Energy Research in the US calls disposing the blades ‘a growing problem.’ They’re hard to break apart and move, and very few landfills exist that will take them. Some companies are working on solutions to break down the blades or find other uses for them, but, according to the report, ‘these options do not begin to deal with the massive disposal problem ahead.’

There’s also the question of wind power’s efficiency. If, like me, you’re from Saskatchewan, it might seem like we never get a break from windy days. However, the wind is anything but consistent. Reuters reports that German wind energy production fell around 16 per cent in 2021 compared to the previous year, simply because the wind didn’t blow as strongly on average.

I don’t point out these problems to completely discredit wind power on the whole. Instead, it’s important to point out that no energy source is perfect. Whether it’s nuclear, fossil fuels or renewables like wind and solar, there will be environmental impacts and potential problems with efficiency.

However, it’s very disingenuous to sell renewables as the end-all-be-all solution, as many environmental groups and activists tend to do. To stay informed about energy, it’s important to consider the ups and downs of every source. Blindly supporting wind power is pretty bird-brained, so let’s keep our feathered friends in mind.

Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director for SecondStreet.org

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.