Although there are many different types of fossil fuels, we have chosen three that we feel are especially

important: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Because virtually all fossil fuel uses produce energy in pretty much the same way Fossil fuels have been a widely used source of energy every since the Industrial Revolution just before the dawn of the 20th century. Fossil fuels are relatively easy to use to generate energy because they only require a simple direct combustion. However, a problem with fossil fuels is their environmental impact. Not only does their excavation from the ground significantly alter the environment, but their combustion leads to a great deal of air pollution Many of the benefits we derive from our way of life, and our high standard of living, are due to fossil fuel use. Light, heat, food, communication, travel, community -- all are based on our ability to produce and use energy. And most of our energy, about 85%, comes from fossil fuel. (Another 8% comes from nuclear power, and 7 % from all other sources, mostly hydroelectric power and wood.) Here is the view of the great Isaac Asimov on the importance of fire, and fossil fuel: The vast amount of energy placed at the disposal of humanity, through fire, could be, and was, used to revolutionize the nature of our existence. The mere fact that fire was a source of light and heat independent of the sun meant that humans could roam beyond

the tropics that imprison our nearest living relatives, the great apes, and into the damp, cold regions with seasons of snow and long freezing nights. In addition, the heat of the fire brought about changes in food that were the equivalent of partial digestion, and this made ordinarily inedible food palatable and nourishing. Our food supply was thus multiplied greatly. It was fire and fire alone that enabled man to become a creature native to all the world and put mastery into his hand. Nor has the importance of fire diminished with time; rather the reverse. Wood was undoubtedly the first fuel used in building and maintaining a fire. Coal took primacy of place in the 17th century, joined by gas and oil in the 20th. From: "Life and Doubleday, 1962 Energy",

It is beyond the scope of this site to go into detail about the benefits we derive from fossil fuel energy. That would take us into areas such as philosophy, history & archeology (how we used to live), and anthropology (how others live). Here are some suggestive links:

Advantages of fossil fuels:

y

Very large amounts of electricity can be generated in one place using coal, fairly cheaply. Transporting oil and gas to the power stations is easy. Gas-fired power stations are very efficient. A fossil-fuelled power station can be built almost anywhere, so long as you can get large quantities of fuel to it. Didcot power station, in Oxfordshire, has a dedicated rail link to supply the coal. Depending on fuel, good availability Simple combustion process can directly heat or generate electricity Inexpensive Easily distributed

y y y

y y y y y

What is biofuel? Broadly speaking, biofuel refers to any solid, liquid or gas fuel that has been derived from biomass. It can be produced from any carbon source that is easy to replenish such as plants. One of the main challenges when producing biofuel is to develop energy that can be used specifically in liquid fuels for transportation. The most common strategies used to achieve this are:
y

Grow plants Plants that naturally produce oils include oil palm, jatropha, soybean and algae. When heated resistance (viscosity) is reduced they can be burned within a diesel engine or they can be processed to form biodiesel. Grow sugar crops or starch These include sugar cane, sugar beet, corn and maize which are then turned into ethanol through the process of yeast fermentation. Woods By-products from woods can be converted into biofuels including methanol, ethanol and woodgas.

What are the different types of biofuel? There are many different biofuels available in the UK. One of the most common worldwide is E10 fuel, which is actually a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% petroleum. This formula has been improved in recent years with the introduction of E15 fuel (15% ethanol, 85% petroleum); E20 fuel (20% ethanol, 80% petroleum); E85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% petroleum); E95 fuel (95% ethanol, 5% petroleum) and E100 fuel which is ethanol with up to 4% water. In Europe, biodiesel is the most popular form of biofuel it can be used in any diesel engine when mixed with mineral diesel. This is produced from oils and fats and is now readily available at many petrol stations. Like ethanol, biodiesel is available in a number of mixes including B5 (5% biofuel, 95% diesel), B10 (10% biofuel, 90% diesel), B20 (20% biofuel, 80% diesel), B80 (80% biofuel, 20 diesel) and B100 (100% biofuel). In the UK, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) obliges that all road transport fuels-petrol and diesel-sold in the UK, must contain a percentage of biofuel. This amount, currently around 3 per cent, increases

annually until April 2013 when it will reach 5 per cent. Thereafter, it will remain at that level for subsequent years. There are many sources of biofuel including vegetable oil, which is used in many older diesel engines; butanol, which is seen as a replacement for petroleum; and biogas which is produced from biodegradable waste materials. This technology has been expanded with the introduction of second generation biofuels which use biomass to liquid technology. Examples include biohydrogen, biomethanol and mixed alcohols. Third generation biofuels are also known as algae fuels. They have many advantages including have a low input and a high yield level they produce 30 times more energy per acre than land and are also biodegradable. As a result, they are relatively harmless to the environment if spilled. Where are biofuels used? Biodiesel can, in theory, be used in all diesel engines. However, due to the parts attached to the diesel engine, some manufacturers do not approve engines running on higher biofuel blends of biodiesel. Volkswagen, SEAT, Audi and Skoda all approved their cars built from 1996-2004 running on 100% RME biodiesel that is biodiesel made from rapeseed on the condition that it meets specification EN14214. Generally speaking, it is recommended that you use a combination of biodiesel blended with regular diesel. Indeed at the majority of petrol stations, a mix up to 5 per cent biofuel is already included in diesel, thanks to the RTFO. It is also worth bearing in mind that biodiesel made from waste cooking oil can freeze in the winter and so no more than a 50 per cent blend is recommended. Between 2000 and 2005 ethanol production doubled, and biodiesel production quadrupled, so biofuels are clearly on the rise. What are the advantages of biofuels? The aim of all biofuels is to be carbon neutral. They have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional

transport fuels but whether they live up to this depends on the way they are produced and managed. In reality, biofuels are not carbon neutral simply because it requires energy to grow the crops and convert them into fuel. The amount of fuel used during this production (to power machinery, to transport crops, etc) does have a large impact on the overall savings achieved by biofuels. However, biofuels could potentially still prove to be substantially more environmentally friendly than their fossil alternatives. In fact, according to a technique called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) first generation biofuels can save up to 60% of carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels. Second generation biofuels offer carbon emission savings up to 80%. This was backed by a recent UK Government publication which stated biofuels can reduce emissions by 50-60%. Another advantage of biofuels is that they save drivers money. The UK Government in particular has introduced many incentives to drivers of green cars based on emissions with reduced taxation dependent on how environmentally friendly your vehicle is. With petrol prices on the rise, replacing petroleum with a renewable energy source should also offer significant savings at the pump in the long term, particularly when biofuels are more readily available. However, there are arguments though that biofuel production has contributed to the destruction of natural habitats to make room for it. Also in some cases they are reported to have displaced valuable food production and contributed to rising food prices. Developing countries seem particularly vulnerable to the potential negative impacts of the production of first-generation biofuel crops . More on these problems is below. But on a positive note, it is hoped that tightening environmental requirements in Europe, the US and other developed countries coupled with the development of more advanced, non-food source biofuels will help stamp out these problems experienced while importing first-generation biofuels. What are the disadvantages of biofuels? There are several concerns about biofuels and particularly including.
y

Biodiversity A fear among environmentalists is that by adapting more land to produce crops for biofuels, more habitats will be lost for

animals and wild plants. It is feared for example, that some Asian countries will sacrifice their rainforests to build more oil plantations. The food V fuel debate Another concern is that if biofuels become lucrative for farmers, they may grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production. Less food production will increase prices and cause a rise in inflation. It is hoped that this can be countered by second generation biofuels which use waste biomass though again, this will impact the habitat of many organisms. The impact is particularly high in developing countries and it is estimated that around 100million people are at risk due to the food price increases. Carbon emissions Most LCA investigations show that the burning of biofuels substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared to petroleum and diesel. However, in 2007 a study was published by scientists from Britain, the USA, Germany and Austria which reported the burning of rapeseed or corn can contribute as much to nitrous oxide emissions than cooling through fossil fuel savings. Non-sustainable biofuel production Many first generation biofuels are not sustainable. It is necessary to create sustainable biofuel production that does not effect food production, and that doesnt cause environmental problems.

The production of non-sustainable biofuels has been criticised in reports by the UN, the IPCC and many other environmental and social groups. As a result many governments have switched their support towards sustainable biofuels, and alternatives such as hydrogen and compressed air. The controversy Biofuels have been blamed for pushing up food prices, failing to meet environmental standards, increasing demand for water and nitrate fertilizers, and encouraging the destruction of natural habitats including rainforests. Its still an on-going controversy which governments around the world are struggling to contain. In 2010 it was revealed that the many companies supplying biofuel to the UK were failing to fully report on the sustainability of their fuel sources. However from end of 2010, mandatory requirements for companies to report their fuel sources and environmental impacts to the Department for Transport come into force, so that the situation will at least be monitored. The environmental damage associated with the production of some first generation biofuels should not immediately

lead us to label all biofuels as hazardous, this is still a developing arena for fuels and besides, the word biofuel is merely a catchall term and represents many different fuel sources and methods of production. There is the danger that people may confuse the likes of palm oil production in Indonesia, where rainforest has been destroyed to make way for it, with new methods of biofuel production such as using biomass waste or algae oil. As new fuel technologies emerge, the situation may change radically and we may be able to minimise environmental impact down to a fraction of current production

Biofuel emissions six times higher than fossil fuels African biofuels destined for Europe will result in up to six times the carbon emissions of fossil fuels, a new study has revealed. The report, commissioned by the RSPB, ActionAid and Nature Kenya, focuses on the Dakatcha Woodlands in Kenya which the charities say are set to be destroyed to make way for jatropha plantations.

Jatropha is a second generation, non-food source biofuel crop which is purported to have the potential to solve the problems seen using first generation, food crops such as soya bean, which divert land use away from food production, push up food prices and have, in the past, resulted in the

destruction of natural habitat to make more agricultural land. Campaigners say the results of the study make a mockery of claims that biofuels are a green, renewable alternative to fossil fuels or that such new biofuel crops solve the problems associated within biofuels as a whole. Biofuel currently makes up around 3.5 per cent of the petrol and diesel in UK fuel pumps. However, the UK Government wants to increase this to meet EU targets. The Dakatcha Woodlands is one of the last remaining coastal forests in Kenya and is home to thousands of indigenous tribespeople who will be made homeless if the plans go ahead, as well as a range of threatened wildlife. Dr Helen Byron, RSPBs Kenya expert, said: The Dakatcha Woodlands are a haven for wildlife and the threat they face is a direct result of European demand for biofuels. No government has done a proper assessment of biofuels imported from overseas to see if they will, in fact, reduce our carbon emissions so we decided to do it for them. The UK Government recognises the problems that subsidising biofuels is causing across the world and last week announced that it intends to limit such subsidies. But ministers must go further, they must challenge the European targets for biofuels and instead adopt an ambitious programme to reduce emissions from cars through improving efficiency and a massive roll-out of electric vehicles. Taking into account the emissions produced throughout the production process, the study found that jatropha would emit between 2.5 and 6 times more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Much of the biofuel produced in Dakatcha is destined for Europe because of new European Union targets. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) requires 10 per cent of transport to be renewable by 2020 and most member states plan to meet this almost entirely through biofuels which is likely to result in a doubling of biofuel use in Europe by 2020. The Dakatcha Woodlands is home to over 20,000 people and is the ancestral land of the indigenous minority Watha and Giriama tribes. The plantation will not only evict the tribes from their land, but will destroy their livelihoods and sacred burial sites. The area is also a global biodiversity hotspot and home to a number of

globally threatened animal and bird species including the spectacular Fischers turaco, southern banded snake eagle, Sokoke scops owl, and the Sokoke pipit. The Clarkes weaver bird is found in only two places on earth and is threatened with extinction if the plantation goes ahead.

Geothermal energy: Geothermal electricity is electricity generated from geothermal energy. Technologies in use include dry steam power plants, flash steam power plants and binary cycle power plants. Geothermal electricity generation is currently used in 24 countries[1] while geothermal heating is in use in 70 countries Estimates of the electricity generating potential of geothermal energy vary from 35 to 2000 GW.[2] Current worldwide installed capacity is 10,715 megawatts (MW), with the largest capacity in the United States (3,086 MW),[3] Philippines, and Indonesia. Geothermal power is considered to be sustainable because the heat extraction is small compared with the Earth's heat content.[4] The emission intensity of existing geothermal electric plants is on average 122 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity, about one-eighth of a conventional coal-fired plant.[5]

The first geothermal power plant built at The Geysers in northern California dates back to 1921. Back then, it had a generation capacity of 250 kW. In the years preceding 1989, new capacity was added, finally reaching an installed capacity of 2043 MW. Since then electrical generation has declined and then levelled off. The Geysers still generates more electricity than any other geothermal field in the world. Current active generation capacity is close to 1000 MW.

Power station types

Dry steam plant

Flash steam plant Geothermal power stations are not dissimilar to other steam turbine thermal power stations - heat from a fuel source (in geothermal's case, the earth's core) is used to heat water or another working fluid. The working fluid is then used to turn a turbine, which in turn a generator to produce electricity. The fluid is then cooled and returned to the heat source. [edit] Dry steam power plants Dry steam plants are the simplest and oldest design. They directly use geothermal steam of 150C or more to turn turbines.[2]

[edit] Flash steam power plants Flash steam plants pull deep, high-pressure hot water into lower-pressure tanks and use the resulting flashed steam to drive turbines. They require fluid temperatures of at least 180C, usually more. This is the most common type of plant in operation today.[22] [edit] Binary cycle power plants Main article: Binary cycle Binary cycle power plants are the most recent development, and can accept fluid temperatures as low as 57C.[11] The moderately hot geothermal water is passed by a secondary fluid with a much lower boiling point than water. This causes the secondary fluid to flash to vapor, which then drives the turbines. This is the most common type of geothermal electricity plant being built today.[23] Both Organic Rankine and Kalina cycles are used. The thermal efficiency of this type plant is typically about 10-13%. The largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located at The Geysers, a geothermal field in California, United States.[26] As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources.[2] Naknek Electric Association (NEA) is going to make an exploration well near King Salmon, in Southwest Alaska. It could cut the cost of electricity production by 71 percent and the planned power is 25 megawatts.[27] Geothermal electricity is generated in the 24 countries listed in the table below. During 2005, contracts were placed for an additional 500 MW of electrical capacity in the United States, while there were also plants under construction in 11 other countries.[12] Enhanced geothermal systems that are several kilometres in depth are operational in France and Germany and are being developed or evaluated in at least four other countries. Installed geothermal electric capacity percentage Capacity (MW) Capacity (MW) Country of national 2007[6] 2010[28] production USA 2687 3086 0.3%

Philippines 1969.7 Indonesia 992 Mexico 953 Italy 810.5 New Zealand 471.6 Iceland 421.2 Japan 535.2 El Salvador 204.2 Kenya 128.8 Costa Rica 162.5 Turkey 38 Nicaragua 87.4 Russia 79 Papua-New Guinea 56 Guatemala 53 Portugal 23 China 27.8 France 14.7 Ethiopia 7.3 Germany 8.4 Austria 1.1 Australia 0.2 Thailand 0.3 TOTAL 9,731.9 Environmental impact

1904 1197 958 843 628 575 536 204 167 166 94 88 82 56 52 29 24 16 7.3 6.6 1.4 1.1 0.3 10,709.7

27% 3.7% 3% 10% 30% 0.1% 14% 11.2% 14% 0.3% 10%

Krafla Geothermal Station in northeast Iceland

Fluids drawn from the deep earth carry a mixture of gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3). These pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells if released. Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 122 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants.[5] Plants that experience high levels of acids and volatile chemicals are usually equipped with emission-control systems to reduce the exhaust. Geothermal plants could theoretically inject these gases back into the earth, as a form of carbon capture and storage. In addition to dissolved gases, hot water from geothermal sources may hold in solution trace amounts of toxic chemicals, such as mercury, arsenic, boron, antimony, and salt.[29] These chemicals come out of solution as the water cools, and can cause environmental damage if released. The modern practice of injecting geothermal fluids back into the Earth to stimulate production has the side benefit of reducing this environmental risk. Plant construction can adversely affect land stability. Subsidence has occurred in the Wairakei field in New Zealand.[30] Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing. The project in Basel, Switzerland was suspended because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of water injection.[31] Geothermal has minimal land and freshwater requirements. Geothermal plants use 3.5 square kilometres per gigawatt of electrical production (not capacity) versus 32 and 12 square kilometres for coal facilities and wind farms respectively.[30] They use 20 litres of freshwater per MWh versus over 1000 litres per MWh for nuclear, coal, or oil.[30]

WIND ENERGY

WIND POWER: and with modern technology it can be captured efficiently. rbine is built the energy it produces does not cause green house gases or other pollutants. bines can be very tall each takes up only a small plot of land. This means that the land below can st in agricultural areas as farming can still continue. wind farms an interesting feature of the landscape. at are not connected to the electricity power grid can use wind turbines to produce their own supply. ve a role to play in both the developed and third world. e available in a range of sizes which means a vast range of people and businesses can use them. S ages can make good use of range of wind turbines available today. OF WIND POWER: he wind is not constant and it varies from zero to storm force. This means that wind turbines do not p y all the time. There will be times when they produce no electricity at all. that the countryside should be left untouched, without these large structures being built. The landsc everyone to enjoy. e noisy. Each one can generate the same level of noise as a family car travelling at 70 mph. large wind turbines as unsightly structures and not pleasant or interesting to look at. They disfigure gly. es are being manufactured some pollution is produced. Therefore wind power does produce some p are needed to provide entire communities with enough electricity. For example, the largest single tu ide enough electricity for 475 homes, when running at full capacity. How many would be needed for Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy, such as using wind turbines to make electricity, windmills for mechanical power, windpumps for water pumping or drainage, or sails to propel ships. At the end of 2010, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 197 gigawatts (GW).[3] Energy production was 430 TWh, which is about 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage;[3][4] and has doubled in the past three years. Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration, such as 21% of stationary electricity production in Denmark,[3] 18% in Portugal,[3] 16% in Spain,[3] 14% in Ireland[5] and 9% in Germany in 2010.[3] As of May 2009, 80 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[4]

Large-scale wind farms are connected to the electric power transmission network; smaller facilities are used to provide electricity to isolated locations. Utility companies increasingly buy back surplus electricity produced by small domestic turbines. Wind energy, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. The construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed because of their visual impact, but any effects on the environment from wind power are generally less problematic than those of any other power source. The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand, but as the proportion rises, increased costs, a need to upgrade the grid, and a lowered ability to supplant conventional production may occur.[6][7][8] Power management techniques such as exporting and importing power to neighboring areas or reducing demand when wind production is low, can mitigate these problems. The Earth is unevenly heated by the sun, such that the poles receive less energy from the sun than the equator; along with this, dry land heats up (and cools down) more quickly than the seas do. The differential heating drives a global atmospheric convection system reaching from the Earth's surface to the stratosphere which acts as a virtual ceiling. Most of the energy stored in these wind movements can be found at high altitudes where continuous wind speeds of over 160 km/h (99 mph) occur. Eventually, the wind energy is converted through friction into diffuse heat throughout the Earth's surface and the atmosphere. The total amount of economically extractable power available from the wind is considerably more than present human power use from all sources.[11] The most comprehensive study as of 2005[12] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms. The potential takes into account only locations with mean annual wind speeds 6.9 m/s at 80 m. The study assumes six 1.5 megawatt, 77 m diameter turbines per square kilometer on roughly 13% of the total global land area (though that land would also be available for other compatible uses such as farming). The authors acknowledge that many practical barriers would need to be overcome to reach this theoretical capacity.

The practical limit to exploitation of wind power will be set by economic and environmental factors, since the resource available is far larger than any practical means to develop it. Electricity generation

Typical components of a wind turbine (gearbox, rotor shaft and brake assembly) being lifted into position In a wind farm, individual turbines are interconnected with a medium voltage (often 34.5 kV), power collection system and communications network. At a substation, this medium-voltage electric current is increased in voltage with a transformer for connection to the high voltage electric power transmission system. The surplus power produced by domestic microgenerators can, in some jurisdictions, be fed into the network and sold to the utility company, producing a retail credit for the microgenerators' owners to offset their energy costs.[15][16] Worldwide there are now many thousands of wind turbines operating, with a total nameplate capacity of 194,400 MW.[50] Europe accounted for 48% of the total in 2009. World wind generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006, doubling about every three years. In 2010, Spain became Europe's leading producer of wind energy, achieving 42,976 GWh. However, Germany holds the first place in Europe in terms of installed capacity, with a total of 27,215 MW at December 31, 2010.[51] Wind power accounts for approximately 21% of electricity use in Denmark,[3] 18% in Portugal,[3] 16% in Spain,[3][51] 14% in the Republic of Ireland,[3] and 9% in Germany.[3][52]

Top 10 wind power countries (February 2011)[3] Country Windpower capacity (MW) China 44,733 United States 40,180 Germany 27,215 Spain 20,676 India 13,066 Italy 5,797 France 5,660 United Kingdom 5,204 Canada 4,008 Denmark 3,734 Top 10 electricity generation EU countries (March 2011)[51] Country Windpower electricity production (GWh) Spain 42,976 Germany 35,500 United Kingdom 11,440 France 9,600 Portugal 8,852 Denmark 7,808 Netherlands 3,972 Sweden 3,500 Ireland 3,473 Greece 2,200 Austria 2,100 Growth trends

Worldwide installed capacity 19972020 [MW], developments and prognosis. Data source: WWEA

In 2010, more than half of all new wind power was added outside of the traditional markets in Europe and North America. This was largely from new construction in China, which accounted for nearly half the new wind installations (16.5 GW). [53] Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) figures show that 2007 recorded an increase of installed capacity of 20 GW, taking the total installed wind energy capacity to 94 GW, up from 74 GW in 2006. Despite constraints facing supply chains for wind turbines, the annual market for wind continued to increase at an estimated rate of 37%, following 32% growth in 2006. In terms of economic value, the wind energy sector has become one of the important players in the energy markets, with the total value of new generating equipment installed in 2007 reaching 25 billion, or US$36 billion.[54] Although the wind power industry was impacted by the global financial crisis in 2009 and 2010, a BTM Consult five year forecast up to 2013 projects substantial growth. Over the past five years the average growth in new installations has been 27.6 percent each year. In the forecast to 2013 the expected average annual growth rate is 15.7 percent.[55][56] More than 200 GW of new wind power capacity could come on line before the end of 2013. Wind power market penetration is expected to reach 3.35 percent by 2013 and 8 percent by 2018 Wind energy in many jurisdictions receives financial or other support to encourage its development. Wind energy benefits from subsidies in many jurisdictions, either to increase its attractiveness, or to compensate for subsidies received by other forms of production which have significant negative externalities. In the US, wind power receives a tax credit for each kWh produced; at 1.9 cents per kWh in 2006, the credit has a yearly inflationary adjustment. Another tax benefit is accelerated depreciation. Many American states also provide incentives, such as exemption from property tax, mandated purchases, and additional markets for "green credits". Countries such as Canada and Germany also provide incentives for wind turbine construction, such as tax credits or minimum purchase prices for wind generation, with assured grid access (sometimes referred to as feed-in tariffs). These feedin tariffs are typically set well above average electricity prices. The Energy

Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 contains extensions of credits for wind, including microturbines. Secondary market forces also provide incentives for businesses to use wind-generated power, even if there is a premium price for the electricity. For example, socially responsible manufacturers pay utility companies a premium that goes to subsidize and build new wind power infrastructure. Companies use wind-generated power, and in return they can claim that they are making a powerful "green" effort. In the US the organization Green-e monitors business compliance with these renewable energy credits.[75] Full costs and lobbying A House of Lords Select Committee report (2008) on renewable energy in the UK reported a "concern over the prospective role of wind generated and other intermittent sources of electricity in the UK, in the absence of a break-through in electricity storage technology or the integration of the UK grid with that of continental Europe".[76] Commenting on the EU's 2020 renewable energy target, Helm is critical of how the costs of wind power are cited by lobbyists.[77] Helm also says that wind's problem of intermittent supply will probably lead to another dash-forgas or dash-for-coal in Europe, possibly with a negative impact on energy security.[77] In the US, the wind power industry has recently increased its lobbying efforts considerably, spending about $5 million in 2009 after years of relative obscurity in Washington.[78] Environmental effects Main article: Environmental impact of wind power

A passing bus near Canoa Quebrada, Brazil, demonstrates the size of modern wind turbines.

Livestock ignore wind turbines,[79] and continue to graze as they did before wind turbines were installed. Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of wind power are relatively minor. Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation.[80][81] Garrett Gross, a scientist from UMKC in Kansas City, Missouri states, "The impact made on the environment is very little when compared to what is gained." The initial carbon dioxide emission from energy used in the installation is "paid back" within about 2.5 years of operation for offshore turbines.[82] Danger to birds and bats has been a concern in some locations. American Bird Conservancy cites studies that indicate that about 10,000 - 40,000 birds die each year from collisions with wind turbines in the U.S. and say that number may rise substantially as wind capacity increases in the absence of mandatory guidelines.[83] However, studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is very low compared to the number of those that die as a result of certain other ways of generating electricity and especially of the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources. Fossil fuel generation kills around twenty times as many birds per unit of energy produced than wind-farms.[84] Bat species appear to be at risk during key movement periods. Almost nothing is known about current populations of these species and the impact on bat numbers as a result of mortality at windpower locations. Offshore wind sites 10 km or more from shore do not interact with bat populations. While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible, with

only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure made unavailable for use. Aesthetics have also been an issue. In the US, the Massachusetts Cape Wind project was delayed for years mainly because of aesthetic concerns. In the UK, repeated opinion surveys have shown that more than 70% of people either like, or do not mind, the visual impact. According to a town councillor in Ardrossan, Scotland, the overwhelming majority of locals believe that the Ardrossan Wind Farm has enhanced the area, saying that the turbines are impressive looking and bring a calming effect to the town.[85] Noise has also been an issue. In the US, law suits and complaints have been filed in several states, citing noise, vibrations and resulting lost property values in homes and businesses located close to industrial wind turbines.[86] In turn, environmental changes can affect wind power generation; a decline of wind speeds would reduce energy yield.[87] A model reported in the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy suggests that average wind speed over China could decline and cause a 14% loss of energy production by the latter part of the 21st century. Wind speeds may be declining due to climate change, increased forest growth, or the shadowing effect of wind farms themselves.

India is the world's fifth largest wind power producer, with an annual power production of 8,896 MW.[9] Shown here is a wind farm in Kayathar, Tamil Nadu. The worldwide installed capacity of wind power reached 157,899 MW by the end of 2009. USA (35,159 MW), Germany (25,777 MW), Spain (19,149 MW) and China (25,104 MW) are ahead of India in fifth position.[10] The

short gestation periods for installing wind turbines, and the increasing reliability and performance of wind energy machines has made wind power a favored choice for capacity addition in India.[11] Suzlon, as Indian-owned company, emerged on the global scene in the past decade, and by 2006 had captured almost 7.7 percent of market share in global wind turbine sales. Suzlon is currently the leading manufacturer of wind turbines for the Indian market, holding some 52 percent of market share in India. Suzlons success has made India the developing country leader in advanced wind turbine technology.[12] A wind farm is a group of wind turbines in the same location used to produce electric power. A large wind farm may consist of several hundred individual wind turbines, and cover an extended area of hundreds of square miles, but the land between the turbines may be used for agricultural or other purposes. A wind farm may also be located offshore. Many of the largest operational onshore wind farms are located in the USA. As of November 2010, the Roscoe Wind Farm is the largest onshore wind farm in the world, producing 781.5 MW of power, followed by the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center (735.5 MW). As of November 2010, the Thanet Offshore Wind Project in United Kingdom is the largest offshore wind farm in the world at 300 MW, followed by Horns Rev II (209 MW) in Denmark.