Wind as a Source of Clean Energy
Essay Preview: Wind as a Source of Clean Energy
Report this essay
Wind as a source of clean energy
The conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy is called wind power, as using wind turbines to generate electrical power. It is believed that wind energy can be an alternative to fossil fuels being renewable and clean, its effects are less questionable than from other energy sources. Wind is a clean source of energy that does not pollute the air nor the water, its costs are relatively low, it is renewable since it comes from the sun and the potential of wind power is vast however, there is a lot of criticism about the future of wind energy.
In despite of the fact that Nat Geo website seems to be a credible source, it is possible to find some biased information about how important it would be for economically developed countries to explore more the idea of wind energy as a source of power. The web page starts off by explaining what wind power is and how it is generated, then it goes into a little bit of the wind power history, how farmers used windmills to grind grains and pump water, and mariners using wind to sail across the world. After this brief introduction, it is possible to realize some fallacies to make the reader believe them, on the fourth paragraph Nat Geo website uses a statistical innuendo making the reader to assume something “The biggest wind turbines generate enough electricity to supply about 600 U.S. homes”. (Taylor)
There are many statistics about the global capacity of megawatts on several developed countries nonetheless, any of it has a source. On the sixth paragraph the writer explain his point of view about why there is criticism in the topic and ends up using proof surrogates, suggesting that there is evidence or authority of a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority “Some people think wind turbines are ugly and complain about the noise the machines make”.(Taylor) On the same paragraph the writer makes a rhetorical analogy, comparing how wind power may kill birds and bats because of its rotating blades to the rates of death by power lines or cars. “The slowly rotating blades can also kill birds and bats, but not nearly as many as cars, power lines, and high-rise buildings do.” (Taylor)The author concludes with another proof surrogate “Industry experts predict that if this pace of growth continues, by 2050 the answer to one third of the worlds electricity needs will be found blowing in the wind” (Taylor), without regard to explaining or offering an alternative to low wind season.
The arguments used on the AWEA, American Wind Energy Association website, are more credible than those used on Nat Geos. It seems that the author on AWEA used more viable sources in terms of statistics and facts supporting wind energy. In addition, the website has several links to different issues reported under the cause as federal and state policies, health, safety and supply chain. AWEA explains appropriately the costs and benefits of wind energy, how it can help to keep the electrical bills of many people low, the renewable fact once the wind comes from the sun, “Thats one reason wind power has added 35% of all new generating capacity to the U.S. grid since 2007- twice what coal and nuclear added combined.” (AWEA)
One specific link on the website presents the reader with information on how the US could generate 20% of its energy from wind by 2030. Looking for a statistical innuendo, as it would be expected when dealing with statistics from this classification, I could found none, as the author mentioned all the sources for graphs and numbers. There is however, a proof surrogate without any source “According to a groundbreaking 2008 technical report, wind power has a high potential to help meet Americas electricity demand.” (AWEA)
As a result of my research on AWEA webpage, I conclude that their argument is valid, the source is viable and the information is credible without any biased information or many fallacies. AWEA has a professional view of the topic, their website present not only information regarding what is wind energy and how wind farms works, it also assess the possible issues wind energy could create and enough reliable statistic to confirm that wind is an efficient resource to generate power.
Good Energy Together We do This is a British company with wind and solar farms across the UK. Their website provides information about these two sources of energy and news for consumers on how their energy is generated, delivered and priced. It has a more professional approach than Nat Geos where the information was somewhat accurate notwithstanding of the biased report and other fallacies, and more serious than AWEAs that has also a professional stake on the issue, however Good Energy from UK is a company and is main objective is to deliver a service.
Good Energy main idea is to delivery 100% renewable energy in the UK, 57% of its energy is from wind, 30% from solar and the remaining from hydro and biogen. Their statistics are proofed with information from users, home and company owners and the government as well. The website used rhetorical explanations, trying to persuade the reader to believe that their sources of energy and service provided are the greatest between other two companies from the same industry.
Under their wind link, the sentence used to persuade the reader has rhetorical background and uses pathos, bringing the reader to a personal level. “It blows dust into our eyes, sand into our sandwiches, flips our umbrellas inside out and weve certainly got plenty of it.” (Energy)On the same paragraph, it is possible to understand why wind energy would not be a problem in the UK with statistics on how much wind the UK has every year being the windiest country in Europe. There is a statistical innuendo considering that they make the reader believe its premise without actually proofing it. The information provided on Goof Energy website is credible in despite of the very few fallacies encountered, their argument is established with valid objective claims and plausible statistics.
Although evaluating credible sources supporting wind energy was enjoyable and a brain exercise, finding biased information on sources that goes against wind energy was almost hilarious. Most sources were from personal aspects or third parties full of dysphemism, weaslers and downplayers. The first one evaluated was AWEO, a copy of the American Wind Energy Association. The page was wrote by Eric Rosenbloom, and there is no evidence of any second look on the issue, while other sources provide facts about both sides of the topic and conclude either agreeing or disagreeing on the benefits of wind energy, AWEO website provides information only about the cons.