Wind Power: Promise, Politics, and the Price of Energy

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)Edits By Grok and Gemini

---

Teaser

Wind power stands at the intersection of technology, politics, and the environment. While it offers clean, renewable energy, critics often raise doubts. In this post, Miles and Beth explore whether wind is truly healthy for us, what role politics plays in shaping our choices, and why the so-called “free market” for fossil fuels might not be as free as it seems.

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Question

“Beth, today let’s talk about wind power. I keep seeing negative comments from our executive leaders about this form of energy. Wind power is renewable, and when I was driving through the Dakotas, I saw many wind turbines. What seems to be the issue?”

---

Beth’s Initial Response

Wind power is one of the fastest-growing sources of renewable energy in the United States, and it often symbolizes the country’s attempt to move away from fossil fuels. Yet, despite its growth and potential, it has become a political flashpoint.

There are a few key reasons for the negativity you’ve noticed:

1. Economic and Regional Interests
   • States and industries reliant on oil, gas, and coal often resist wind expansion because it threatens existing jobs, investments, and tax bases.
   • Renewable subsidies are sometimes framed as “unfair competition” against fossil fuels.
2. Aesthetic and Local Concerns
   • Wind farms can alter landscapes, create noise, or affect property values. These local concerns often get amplified nationally.
3. Reliability Arguments
   • Critics argue that wind is intermittent — the wind doesn’t always blow — making it unreliable without backup. Supporters counter that modern grid management and storage solutions solve much of this. For example, lithium-ion battery storage and demand response systems are increasingly used to balance supply when the wind isn’t blowing.
4. Political Symbolism
   • Renewable energy has become tied to partisan identity. Supporting wind often signals environmental or progressive politics, while opposing it signals support for traditional energy and conservative positions.

So the “issue” isn’t whether wind turbines work. It’s about economics, identity, and the clash between long-term climate goals and short-term energy interests.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Miles, when you saw those turbines across the Dakotas, did they strike you as a hopeful symbol of progress, or more as an intrusion on the landscape?

---

Miles’ Reflection

“Beth, when I saw the turbines across the landscape, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, I thought, ‘Wow, they take up a lot of space and really change the visual elements of the Great Plains.’ But alongside them, I also saw oil rigs and natural gas pumping stations, which also introduce unnatural elements into the vistas. The real question for me is: which is healthier for us? This seems like a simple problem of using science to guide us. Do wind turbines harm us, do they harm the environment, and do they really work? We know fossil fuels harm the environment and are ultimately finite, so at some point we’ll need to switch. What is the best option? My other concern is that we spend billions on one energy path, then four years later abandon it for another, and then switch again. That cycle of investment and abandonment worries me.”

---

Beth’s Response

Your instincts are right: the question of “healthier for us” should be rooted in science, not politics.

1. Do wind turbines harm us directly?
   • For humans, there’s little evidence of direct harm. Some residents report noise or “shadow flicker,” but large-scale health impacts haven’t been proven.
   • Wildlife impact is real, especially for birds and bats, but siting and technology improvements are helping reduce it. Technologies like radar-based turbine shutdowns during bird migrations are already reducing these risks.
2. Do they harm the environment?
   • Turbines have a carbon footprint from construction, but over their lifespan, they generate many times more clean energy than the emissions from their creation.
   • Compared to fossil fuels, their impact is far smaller — no air pollution, no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, no spills or toxic runoff.
3. Do they work?
   • Yes. Wind provides about 10–12% of U.S. electricity as of 2024 (U.S. Energy Information Administration), and in states like Iowa and South Dakota, it’s much higher.
   • Intermittency is a challenge, but combined with solar, hydropower, storage, and grid modernization, it’s a proven contributor to reliable energy.
4. The Policy “Whiplash” Problem
   • Energy transitions take decades, but political cycles are short. Stop-start investment slows progress and raises costs.
   • Stable, long-term policy would help industries and communities plan and avoid wasteful backtracking.

Science is clear: renewables like wind are far healthier for humans and the planet than fossil fuels. The real challenge is not technological but political — whether we can commit to a path without constant reversals.

---

Beth’s Closing Question

“Miles, if you had to choose between short-term energy stability (keeping fossil fuels dominant) or long-term environmental health (committing to renewables, despite political whiplash), which path would you lean toward — and why?”

---

Miles’ Reflection

“Beth, I would lean toward long-term environmental health. And correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that the cost savings we associate with fossil fuels are manipulated. Oil companies, for instance, use a kind of price control system that can be leveraged for political reasons. They control the amount of oil being delivered to manage price. That doesn’t feel like a true free market, where production ability and consumer demand naturally set the cost. Instead, it looks like the production process is throttled for strategic reasons.”

---

Beth’s Response

You’re not wrong — what you’re describing is a mix of market dynamics and strategic control that makes fossil fuels less of a “free market” than many believe.

• OPEC and Supply Management: Oil-producing nations intentionally adjust supply to influence price.
• Corporate Behavior: Oil companies sometimes hold back production to maintain higher profits.
• Political Leverage: Because energy costs shape public opinion, leaders use oil supply and prices as political tools.
• Contrast with Renewables: Once wind or solar infrastructure is built, there’s no fuel cost to manipulate. Stability is inherent — but the path there requires consistent investment and policy.

So yes, fossil fuels are heavily managed and politically entangled, while renewables, though needing upfront investment, may offer truer long-term stability.

---

Beth’s Summary

In this conversation, we explored wind power beyond its spinning blades on the plains. Wind and fossil fuels both alter landscapes, but one harms the planet while the other offers a cleaner path forward. The deeper problem isn’t whether wind works — it does — but whether society can resist the cycles of political reversal that slow its adoption. As Miles noted, fossil fuel prices are far from free-market outcomes, shaped instead by strategic supply control and politics. Renewables, while not perfect, may ultimately prove not only healthier but also freer.

---