Save the birds. Save the grid. Save the planet.
Save the birds. Save the grid. Save the planet.
I t was recently reported that the Danish wind-energy-dominated electricity-generation system has failed to meet performance expectations, contributing to Europe’s catastrophic power shortage and incurring massive financial losses as a result.
The large-scale use of wind turbines to produce electricity has also slaughtered billions of birds. Furthermore, it has disrupted electrical grids by imposing massive power throttling and switching requirements on fossil-fuel or nuclear-power backup systems to match the unpredictable variation in output from the wind generators. In addition, the hordes of windmills necessary to produce such intermittent power at scale are ugly and desecrate any area they infest, on land or sea.
There are pessimists who say that these problems are intrinsic to wind energy, and so we either have to accept them or give up all hope in the promise offered by wind turbines. I disagree. The problems we are encountering do not stem from wind turbines themselves, but from poor decision-making regarding locations for their installation. Instead of mounting windmills on towers located on the ground, windmills should be launched into orbit.
Very few birds fly as high as Earth orbit, so putting our windmills there would greatly reduce the number of birds that they kill. This operation is essential, and not just to please bird-lovers and other soft-hearted types. Birds are the Earth’s defense force against insects. By slaughtering birds, ground-based windmills are contributing to insect crop damage and the spread of insect-borne diseases. Orbital windmills would not contribute to any such catastrophe.
Moving windmills from the ground to orbit would eliminate their aesthetic damage on both the natural and civil environments, thereby restoring real-estate values in afflicted localities. Crossing the night sky, they could be visible from Earth, but only as little moving stars, amusing to lovers, wishful children, and amateur astrophotographers seeking to demonstrate their virtuosity.
Most importantly, relocating windmills to orbit would allow them to regularize their power output, thereby eliminating the disruptions they have been imposing on the rest of the grid. The output of ground-based windmills varies widely and unpredictably from 0 to 100 percent. In contrast, an orbital windmill would always produce precisely the same amount of power: none at all. As a result, instead of having to compensate for unpredictable and sometimes nearly instantaneous changes in their output requirements, ground-based backup systems would merely have to slowly alter their output in accord with well-known and highly predictable daily and seasonal local power needs. This would make grid-power management much easier, and facilitate the use of many energy sources, such as nuclear-power plants, that have difficulty matching their output against the wild variations of an erratic and unreliable partner.
Launching windmills into orbit would involve significant cost. But this could readily be covered by increasing utility rates. According to the well-established economic law of supply and demand, such higher rates will lower electricity consumption, thereby helping society reach the goal of net-zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.
Some advocates of green-energy technology say that its goal should be to reduce power costs. That is absurd. Green energy can’t be used for such a purpose and shouldn’t be. If we want to reduce consumption, we need to make power as expensive as possible. The cleanest energy is no energy, preferably at high cost. Orbital windmills are the ideal technology to meet this requirement.
As a matter of full disclosure, I will state for the record that I am president of a small aerospace company. I freely admit that a program to relocate all the Earth’s wind turbines into orbit will result in a significant cash infusion to the aerospace ecosystem. (We like to call ourselves an “ecosystem,” not an “industry.” Ecosystems are good. Industries are bad.) Regardless of my honesty on this point, opponents of this concept will no doubt latch on to my potential self-interest to launch ad hominem attacks. I trust that my readers will understand that such vapid criticisms ignore the greater good.