Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Dr. Phillip Reitan, Professor Emeritus of Biology, posed some questions about Luther’s wind turbine project in a letter to the editor published in the Nov. 17 edition of Chips.

We are grateful that Professor Reitan has initiated dialogue about the wind turbine project, its role in Luther College sustainability efforts, and its potential as a learning opportunity regarding renewable energy. We agree that sustainability is not a passive or inconsequential commitment; individually and as communities we must investigate issues so that we can make the best choices and compromises to achieve sustainability goals. This letter provides a response to Dr. Reitan’s questions.

Question #1: Is the wind turbine project sustainable, or in other words does it cost more than we can ever get out of it?

The $3.3 million it cost to purchase and install the wind turbine will be paid back in less than ten years. All debt will be repaid and all of Luther’s cash investment will be recovered in this amount of time. In addition, the turbine is projected to save the college an additional $3.7 million in electricity purchases over the 20-year life of the turbine.

Question #2: Is wind energy environmentally friendly, that is, is it green when compared to other forms of energy, coal, natural gas and nuclear?

Wind energy is more environmentally friendly than power generated through the combustion of fossil fuels because no carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, or mercury are released through the operation of a wind turbine. Wind turbines do contain large amounts of steel and copper as well as some rare earth elements, and fossil fuel energy is used to extract the related ores from the ground. A recent life-cycle study published in the journal “Renewable Energy,” found that wind turbines similar in size to the one Luther has installed offset the amount of carbon associated with their production in about three months and generate the amount of energy used to produce all of the components in a wind turbine in just over five months. See Martinez et al., “Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine,” “Renewable Energy” 34: 667-673 (2009).

With regard to nuclear power, the Nuclear Energy Institute reports the following on its website: “Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. For example, a University of Wisconsin study found that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at 14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour, respectively.” See http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissions...

Question #3: Are there global consequences – that is, will it lead to a more peaceful world?

Insofar as renewable energy technologies utilize energy that is available locally, they reduce the need to import energy to meet national demands. Michael T. Klare makes a persuasive case in his book “Blood and Oil,” that access to this non-renewable resource has played a very important role in several wars in the modern era and has shaped U.S. military policy. In part, dependence on natural gas imports from Russia has led Germany and other European nations to make major investments in renewable energy systems. It is reasonable to assume that greater measures of energy independence will reduce strife between nation-states over access to vital energy sources.

Readers interested in learning more about Luther’s wind turbine project can find additional information at: http://www.luther.edu/sustainability/energy/windturbine/

Jim Martin-Schramm

Professor of Religion