The AWEA Blog: Into the Wind


Fact check: “Windfall” Film Offers Greatest Hits of Misinformation

Windfall takes aim at clean, renewable wind energy with misinformation.

As one movie critic said: "The documentary isn’t big on hard data; instead, [Director Laura] Israel allows the majority of her interviewees to deliver anecdotes, speculation, anti-corporate conspiracy theories, and just a few statistics…the movie’s case relies more on emotional appeals and frightening images of giant machines than on real, objective number-crunching…the unbridled scare tactics cast too big a shadow over the agit-prop doc Israel ended up making." (Noel Murray, AV Club, Feb. 2, 2012)

The following facts set the record straight on the issues that Windfall raises:

Health:  An independent expert panel established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health gave wind a clean bill of health in January 2012, based on analyzing all available scientific studies. The agencies reported, “There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a 'Wind Turbine Syndrome'…we conclude the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.”

Sound: Typically, two people can carry on a conversation at normal voice levels even while standing directly below a turbine. Often the loudest sound heard is the whooshing sound of the wind hitting the blades—similar to the sound of a flag in the wind. Guidelines for locating wind farms as well as local agreements keep turbines at safe distances from homes and businesses.

Shadows:  Shadows from moving wind blades typically lasts just a few minutes near sunrise and sunset in bright sun conditions, and can be addressed through the location of turbines and plantings. German researchers found that flicker would affect residents for 100 minutes per year under the worst conditions and 20 minutes per year under normal circumstances. The rate at which wind turbine shadows flicker is far below the frequency that, according to the Epilepsy Foundation, normally is associated with seizures. A 2007 report by an expert panel for the National Academy of Sciences found it to be "harmless to humans."

Popularity: In a poll conducted in the same state where Windfall is set, residents of Lewis, County, N.Y., said by a 4 to 1 margin that the development of a local wind farm had a “positive effect” on the county, and 77% supported its expansion. Surveys routinely find that over 80% of Americans support wind power. And many local communities welcome it because of the homegrown jobs the industry creates.

Developers and communities: Wind farms sites are typically chosen with public input, and it’s in developers’ best interest to cultivate public support for their projects. That’s often not difficult to do, given that projects can contribute millions in tax revenue to rural communities that often need it most. Wind farms also provide regular lease payments to many farmers and support small-town economies.

Wind’s contribution: Over 46,000 megawatts of wind power in the U.S. are in place today, enough to power more than 10 million American homes. A new study by Navigant Consulting finds that with stable tax policy, the wind industry can grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs in the next four years – and the Department of Energy projects wind will employ 500,000 Americans by 2030.

Tax Incentives: Wind farms receive government incentives, but so do fossil-fuel industries. Through permanent measures in the tax code, fossil fuels have been subsidized for more than 90 years. American taxpayers have paid well over $500 billion to fossil-fuel industries over the years, and they are still paying. A September 2011 study by industry analysts entitled “What would Jefferson do?” found that fossil fuel received five times the government support during their startup period that renewables are getting today, and nuclear power got 10 times as much. Wind power is affordable despite this lopsided playing field.

Manufacturing: Today 60 percent of a wind turbine's value is produced here in America, compared to 25 percent before 2005. With the support of a stable Production Tax Credit, wind energy recently has powered one of America’s fastest growing manufacturing sectors. Over the past six years, U.S. domestic production of wind turbine components has grown 12-fold, to more than 400 facilities in 43 states. That has shifted manufacturing jobs from overseas back to the U.S.  Navigant Consulting found that wind manufacturing can grow here by a third within four years, to 46,000 American manufacturing jobs.

Decommissioning: Decommissioning responsibilities, like equipment removal, are typically covered in legal documents created when a wind farm first goes up. The value of the parts at resale is typically greater than the cost of removal, so wind farmers have an incentive to responsibly decommission their parts. And with roads, transmission systems, etc. already in place, wind farm sites are likely to get new turbines when old ones reach the end of their lifespan. A single new larger turbine can replace several older, smaller ones. That reduces impacts even further, especially compared with other ways of generating electricity.

Cost: Numerous studies have confirmed that increasing wind power and other renewable energy is already lowering electricity costs, such as by serving as a hedge against fluctuating natural gas prices. Since a wind turbine’s “fuel” (i.e., the wind) is free throughout the 20-plus-year lifespan of a project, wind energy is inflation-proof, protecting public utilities and their electric ratepayers. A recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that land-based wind farms will be "fully competitive" with conventional electricity sources by 2016. Wind diversifies America’s energy supply with clean, safe, affordable, homegrown electricity.


16 responses

  1. Robert March 2, 2012 04:19PM
    I really liked Ms. Israel's documentary. It reminds me of another ground breaking documentary that attempted to reveal a truth that so many people simply want to ignore. A clip of that documentary can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csNhyqxErVw I especially liked the part in Ms. Israel's film where the transplants to Meredith from The City taught the generations-old dairy farmers proper land use. Now, future generations of retirees, accountants, or columnists turned back-to-earthers fleeing NYC have an idyllic retreat complete with poor, struggling dairy farmers. After all, nothing would ruin the authenticity of a quaint small town more than a dairy farmer who has more cash than a film maker.
  2. Mary February 19, 2012 08:27PM
    Mr. Kelly, How much do you get payed to destroy the lives of others? Karma can be a bitch, sir.
  3. February 19, 2012 08:26PM
    Developers and communities: Wind farms sites are typically chosen with public input, and it’s in developers’ best interest to cultivate public support for their projects. That’s often not difficult to do, given that projects can contribute millions in tax revenue to rural communities that often need it most. Wind farms also provide regular lease payments to many farmers and support small-town economies. Right. That's why AWA Goodhue is meeting with such great success as they try to destroy nesting bald eagle habitat, long eared bat habitat, and sustainable organic farming practices in Minnesota. Get a grip, Man.
  4. Mary February 19, 2012 08:23PM
    I have yet to find one citizen who looks into wind energy who does not come to the same conclusion as the posters here: it doesn't work and is unsustainable. I've seen Windfall three times. I brought my state Senators to see it as well because they need to understand how this sWINDle is affecting citizens. There is absolutely nothing green about this energy source, unless you count the $$ flowing from our pockets and into the pockets of this generation of carpet baggers. Id' like to see Mr. Kelly release real production numbers and real cost numbers on wind......If it's SO great then why are these numbers Trade Secret?! I'd also like to see the figures that show how much of our green $$ is flowing to the Wall Street thugs who planned the housing/mortgage crisis and hedge fund scams. Love Laura Israel's suggestion that Mr's Ebert and Kelly stay in Shirley. A week should do it.
  5. Marie McNamara February 14, 2012 04:27PM
    I just commented on another article on this site... And my comment is the same for this article: We have a wind company suing our small township in southeastern Minnesota. What am I supposed to like about that? I saw WINDFALL and I found it to be as well researched, and beautifully and professionally filmed documentary as I have ever seen. Everyone in the U.S. should take an opportunity to see it, since U.S. journalism is absent on this energy issue. But, at least one major news outlet is owned by turbine makers, so this is easy to understand why there is no coverage. WINDFALL is the story of my town, and no doubt hundreds others, too. What is to like about this kind of energy policy?
  6. Kristi February 14, 2012 02:13PM
    Since recent studies in other countries show a loss of 3.7 jobs for every "green renewable" job created, I guess Mr. Kelley's figure of 100,000 jobs created means we can look forward to an overall loss of 370,000 jobs. There's a promo tidbit for you.
  7. Kristi February 14, 2012 02:10PM
    I've seen Windfall 4 times. It is accurate, beautifully filmed and echos the story of SE Minnesota and rural communities around the world. I thank Laura Isreal for telling our story. Mr. Kelly may recall meeting me at the Iowa Straw Poll this summer where AWEA was a major sponsor, brought a turbine blade for the candidates to sign, and in their tent showed a continuous loop of their promo video full of children blowing bubbles and happy families flying kites. Mr. Kelly could not (or perhaps would not) anwer my specific, fact-based questions. He took my contact info 'in order to get back to me with answers', but never did. Well, Mr. Kelly, now you have my contact info again. Please do try to explain to me why wind, which generates electricity that cannot be stored, at times it cannot be used, at very high cost, while it delivers none of the promised environmental benefits is anything more than straight s-WIND-le.
  8. Candace Rupley February 10, 2012 02:50PM
    I take exception to the first paragraph attempting to out line there is NO HEALTH RISK. How can the DEP and the DPH give wind a clean bill of health? Have they taken the time to actually talk to reisidents of areas such as Mars Hill, Lincoln, Vinylhaven? Do these people who have been subjected to the every day living with wind towers inagine their present health conditons. lack of sleep, depression, etc. I wonder where these so called experts get their information? It has been proven wind towers present serious health conditons.
  9. Donna Davidge February 10, 2012 01:58PM
    Wind rocks the lives of those near them as well as the topography- and the end result? Just google wind turbines and toxic waste to see how gren they are in the end and the waste made to create the magnets in them The more you know about them the less you will say wind rocks Health hazards? For sure Google Vinylhaven wind turbines you tube And wind watch Companies say what they want And do what they want
  10. dr pete connelly February 10, 2012 01:36PM
    I purchased energy world wide for a Fortune mfg company. Wind energy was never, repeat never affordable - and will not be as competitive sources continue to be developed. Minimal jobs are created long term - the primary components come from China, or overseas and our Federal deficit grows to support the outsourcing of manufacturing. Shame on the wind companies for their shill product and lies... Lets see the data on real savings and jobs created. The data does not exist! Wind power is bogus. Island Falls Maine
  11. larry sherman February 10, 2012 01:13PM
    Since when is it ok to put up fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines on forested mountain ridges overlooking pristine wilderness lakes and documented as being of poor low wind resource by the Dept of Energy as is being proposed for Oakfield and Island Falls, Maine? Wind energy may be appropriate for the high plains of the Midwest but not when it destroys pristine wilderness areas. AWEA should provide a more balanced approach to wind energy. You would get more support. Why destroy the environment when you say you are trying to protect it?
  12. Lynne Williams February 10, 2012 12:56PM
    Well, AWEA, if you want to counter Ms. Israel's documentary, you can make your own documentary. Oh, wait, it would have to be a mockumentary (fictional documentary), wouldn't it?
  13. Tom Stacy February 6, 2012 01:45PM
    I would just like to suggest to AWEA that since it your JOB to clear the way for wind projects from here to Kingdom Come, very VERY few people will judge Windfall as misinformational. Instead rrban, suburban and rural Americans of all income classes, political parties and ethnicities, including a VERY divided Congress (contrary to the words Denise Bode tries to put in Congresspersons' mouths in her recent press release - yes, we have sent it to members of Congress), will continue to see the AWEA claims as lies, aimed at capitalizing on taxpayer dollars and swaying state laws to your favor. Aren't there laws against that?
  14. Laura Israel February 5, 2012 01:40PM
    Might I suggest that Mr. Ebert and Mr. Kelley travel to the Shirley Wind Project in WI? They can stay for a while, as there are some abandoned houses among the turbines...
  15. slider February 4, 2012 10:27PM
    While one can appreciate that Mr. Kelly's job is to promote US wind power interests, his critique of the documentary film is a bit disingenuous. First, all documentary films are edited to agree with the producer's point of view. Windfall is no different in this regard, as anyone that has ever seen a film by Michael Moore, Spike Lee, or Morgan Spurlock can attest to. Second, the comparison of historic net federal revenues contributed by wind energy versus oil and gas companies is way off the mark. Oil and gas companies have contributed $trillions in net revenues (income taxes, lease payments, etc.) to the federal government over the decades. Wind energy businesses have not. Income tax exemptions are not the same as subsidy payments, and the two should not be confused. Pushing cost-competitive US wind energy is a worthwhile endeavor. But to imply that wind energy in the US can grow fast enough to meet something like 20% of demand by 2020 is silly. The current rate of growth in the US wind sector is barely enough to keep pace with the annual growth in demand. Lastly, I would agree with Mr. Kelly's response to the issues raised of wind turbine impacts on peoples' health or quality of life.
  16. Dot Sulock February 3, 2012 11:35AM
    Thanks for so much helpful information so clearly and concisely provided. Wind power rocks!

Please Enter Comments