What’s 15 years?

This German anti-wind energy manifesto was presented at a press conference at the Bonn press club on September 1st, 1998 by Prof. Dr. Lothar Hoischen. It has been signed by many.

Now, 15 years to the day, we share this English translation and ask how has this wind energy fiasco been allowed to persist?

The Darmstadt Manifesto on the Exploitation of Wind Energy in Germany

Our country is on the point of losing a precious asset. The expansion of the industrial exploitation of wind energy has developed such a driving force in just a few years that there is now great cause for concern. A type of technology is being promoted before its effectiveness and its consequences have been properly assessed.

The industrial transformation of cultural landscapes which have evolved over centuries and even of whole regions is being allowed. Ecologically and economically useless wind generators, some of which are as high as 120 metres and can be seen from many kilometres away, are not only destroying the characteristic landscape of our most valuable countryside and holiday areas, but are also having an equally radical alienating effect on the historical appearance of our towns and villages which until recently had churches, palaces and castles as their outstanding features to give them character in a densely populated landscape. More and more people are subjected to living unbearably close to machines of oppressive dimensions. Young people are growing up into a world in which natural landscapes are breaking up into tragic remnants.

The oil crisis in the 1970s made everyone very aware of the extent to which industrial societies are dependent on a guaranteed supply of energy. For the first time the general public became aware of the fact that the earth’s fossil fuel resources are limited and could be exhausted in the not too distant future if they continue to be consumed without restraint. In addition arose the recognition of the damage which was caused to the environment by the production and consumption of energy. The loss of trees due to pollution, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, the legacy of constantly accumulating pile of nuclear waste, the risks of a climatic catastrophe as a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions have all established themselves in the public consciousness as examples of the growing potential threat.

The real problem of population growth and above all the resultant phenomenon of escalating land use and consumption of drinking water supplies is however being pushed aside and being considered instead as a marginal phenomenon. With few exceptions it is not subject of any political action. On the contrary, the public interest is becoming even more limited, focusing less on energy consumption as a whole and concentrating its fears and criticisms predominantly on the generation of electricity.

Admittedly, nuclear risks do doubtless exist here. However, electrical energy plays more of a minor role in the balance sheet of energy sources. In Germany three quarters of the energy consumed consist of oil and gas. But it is precisely these energy sources whose resources will be exhausted the soonest. If it were really a matter of concern with regard to future generations, immediate, decisive action to protect supplies of oil and natural gas would be imperative. Instead petrol consumption continues unchanged, and the idea that we are living nothing for our great-grandchildren is dispelled with the vague presumption that there will one day be substitutes for fossil fuels. On the other hand, hard coal and brown coal, which are the main primary sources of electrical energy, are available in such abundance world-wide, and in many cases in deposits which are as yet unexploited, that electricity production is guaranteed, even with growing consumption, for centuries, possibly even for a period of over a thousands years. With regard to the exhaustion of energy sources of fossil fuels the development of electricity production using wind bypasses the problem.

Although Germany has taken the lead in the expansion of wind energy use, it has not been possible to date to replace one single nuclear or coal-fired power station. Even if Germany continues to push ahead with the expansion, it will still not be possible in the future. The electricity produced by wind power is not constant because it is dependent on meteorological conditions, but electricity supplies need to be in line with consumption at all times. For this reason wind energy cannot be used to any significant degree as a substitute for conventional power station capacities.

Insufficient attention is also being paid to pollutant levels. Whereas until a few years ago it was chiefly the coal-fired power stations’ sulphur dioxide emissions due to poor filtering which caused problems, it is now mainly road traffic which is polluting the forests’ ecosystems with nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide. Added to which, the effectiveness of power stations is improving with technological progress and as a result the level of pollutants given off per unit of energy is decreasing. The latter is also true of carbon dioxide emissions, with the result that electricity production in Germany is today responsible for only a fifth of the greenhouse gases emitted.

The energy capacity of wind is comparatively low. Modern wind turbines with rotor surface areas the size of a football field make only tiny fractions of the energy that is produced by conventional power stations. So with more than five thousand wind turbines in Germany less than one per cent of the electricity needed is produced, or only slightly more than one thousandth of the total energy produced. The pollutant figures are similar for the same reason. The contribution made (by the use of) wind energy to avoid greenhouse gases is somewhere between one and two thousandths. Wind energy is therefore of no significance whatever both in the statistics for energy and in those for pollutants and greenhouse gases.

At the same time we must take into account the fact that economic growth always involves, to a greater or lesser extent, an increasing energy requirement – despite all the efforts made by technology towards greater efficiency in the transformation and consumption of energy. This means that because it makes such a small contribution to the statistics, wind energy is running a race which is already lost in an economic order orientated towards growth: At present total energy consumption in Germany is growing about seventy times (!) faster than the production potential of wind energy.

The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. Falling property values reflect the perceived deterioration in quality of life – not just in areas close to the turbines, but even all over Schleswig-Holstein. More and more people describe their lives as unbearable when they are directly exposed to the acoustic and optical effects of wind farms. There are reports of people being signed off sick and unfit for work, there is a growing number of complaints about symptoms such as pulse irregularities and states of anxiety, which are known from the effects of infrasound (sound of frequences below the normal audible limit).

The animal world is also suffering at the hands of this technology. On the North Sea and Baltic coasts birds are being driven away from their breeding, roosting and feeding grounds. These displacement effects are being increasingly observed inland, too.

From the point of view of the national economy the development of wind energy is far from being the “success story” it is often claimed to be.

On the contrary, it puts a strain on the economy as it is still unprofitable with a low energy yield on the one hand and high investment costs on the other. And yet, as a result of the legal framework conditions which have been set, private and public capital is being invested on a large scale – capital which is at least unavailable for important environmental protection measures, but also ties up purchasing power. This in turn leads to job losses in other areas. The only way in which the investors can realise their exceptionally high returns is by means of the level of payment for electricity produced by wind which has been determined by law, and which is several times its actual market value, and by taxation depreciation.

For more than twenty years now German politicians have been under pressure to react to urgent problems concerning the environment and preventative measures, and have been promoting a seriously erroneous evaluation of wind energy. This has allowed the use of wind energy to become established in the view of public opinion as some sort of total solution which supposedly makes a decisive contribution towards a clean environment and a guaranteed supply of energy for the future, and also towards the aversion of a climatic catastrophe and the avoidance of nuclear dangers. This false picture raises hopes and results in a general acceptance of the use of wind energy which is strengthened further by the fact that people are not expected to make any savings.

The negative effects of the wind energy industry in our densely populated country are suppressed, scientific knowledge is ignored and there is a taboo on criticism. Only a few people are willing to break away from these political and social trends. After fighting for decades with great commitment for the preservation of our countryside the majority of the large organisations for the protection of nature now stand idly by watching its destruction.

Together with groups of thoughtless operators, a policy orientated towards short term success was able to clear the way in the following manner: as a result of amendments to planning law and the law on nature conservation, our countryside is almost unprotected against the exploitation of wind energy and is therefore left at the mercy of material exploitation by capital investment. At the same time the people who are directly exposed to this technology which is hostile to man, have to a large extent been deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to a say in the matter of the shaping of the environment in which they live.

As all efforts to influence those with political responsibilities have been without success, the signatories of this manifesto see no other solution but to make their concerns public. In view of the serious harm threatening our countryside, which has evolved through history and which is the foundation of our cultural identity, we appeal for an end to the expansion of wind power technology which is pointless from both an ecological and an economical point of view.

In particular we are demanding the withdrawal of all direct and indirect subsidies to this technology. Instead public funds should be made available on a larger scale for the development of more efficient technology and for the kind of research into basic principles which is likely to provide real solutions to the problems of producing energy in a way which is environmentally friendly and lasting.

We issue an urgent warning against the uncritical promotion of technology which can in the long term have far-reaching adverse effects on the relationship between man and nature. We are particularly concerned about a change of attitude, which is more difficult to perceive as it is evolving slowly and which gives us less and less ability to recognise how important it is for man to live in an environment which is predominantly characterised by nature.


Source: http://wilfriedheck.tripod.com/manif4e.htm

List of Signatories

  1. Prof. Udo ACKERMANN (Design)
  2. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl ALEWELL (Economics)
  3. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Rudolf ALLMANN (Mineralogy)
  4. Prof. Wilhelm ANSER (Electrical Engineering)
  5. Prof. Dr. Clemens ARKENSTETTE (Biology, Agricultural Science, Physiology)
  6. Dr. paed. Joachim ARLT (Science of Art, Landscape Aesthetics)
  7. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Benno ARTMANN (Mathematics)
  8. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Eckhard BARTSCH (Geodesy, Landmanagement)
  9. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Bruno BENTHIEN (Geography)
  10. Dr. jur. Manfred BERNHARDT (District President)
  11. Prof. Dr. jur. h.c. Karl August BETTERMANN (Jurisprudence)
  12. Prof. Dr. agr. Dr. agr. h.c. mult. Eduard von BOGUSLAWSKI (Agronomy)
  13. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Reinhard BRANDT (Physical Chemistry)
  14. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Günter BRAUNSS (Mathematics)
  15. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan BRITZ (Mechanical Engineering)
  16. Prof. Dr. Dr. phil. Harald BROST (Institute of Colour, Light and Space)
  17. Prof. Dr. med. Joachim BRUCH (Industrial Medicine)
  18. Günter de BRUYN (Writer)
  19. Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. h.c. Hans-Günter BUCHHOLZ (Archeology)
  20. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Karl Heinz CLEMENS (Electrical Engineering)
  21. Prof. Dr. phil. Dietrich DENECKE (Geoscience)
  22. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Dietrich von DENFFER (Botany)
  23. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank DÖRRSCHEIDT (Automatic Control, Electrical Engineering)
  24. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang DONSBACH (Science of Communication)
  25. Prof. Thomas DUTTENHOEFER (Design)
  26. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rudolf ENGELHORN (Energy and Thermodynamic Science)
  27. Dr. techn. Hans ERNST (Electrical Engineering, National Economy)
  28. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Horst ETTL (Mechanical Engineering)
  29. Prof. Dr. Hermann FINK (English Philology, American Philology)
  30. Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim FITTING (Physics)
  31. Prof. Dr. med. Marianne FRITSCH (Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation)
  32. Dr. Gertrud FUSSENEGGER (Writer)
  33. Prof. Hans Jürgen GERHARDT (Electrical Engineering)
  34. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard GERLICH (Physics)
  35. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Bernhard von GERSDORFF (Electrical Engineering)
  36. Prof. Ph.D. H. S. Robert GLASER (Biology)
  37. Prof. Dr. Gerhard GÖHLER (Political Science)
  38. Dietmar GRIESER (Writer)
  39. Prof. Dr. theol. Hubertus HALBFAS (Religion)
  40. Prof. Christa-Maria HARTMANN (Academy of Music and Theatre)
  41. Prof. Dr. Erwin HARTMANN (Physics, Medical Optics)
  42. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Jürgen HASSE (Geography)
  43. Dr. rer.nat. Günter HAUNGS (Technique of Precision Measurement)
  44. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Horst HENNERICI (Mechanical Engineering)
  45. Prof. Ulrich HIRT (Mechatronics)
  46. Prof. Wolfgang HOFFMANN (Economical Information)
  47. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Lothar HOISCHEN (Mathematics)
  48. Prof. Dr. med. Dr. rer.nat. Hans HOMPESCH (Hygiene, Micro-Biology, Pathology)
  49. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Rudolf HOPPE (Inorganic Chemistry)
  50. Prof. Dr. Peter KÄFERSTEIN (Thermodynamic Science, Energy Economics)
  51. Prof. Dr. Dipl. Phys. Günther KÄMPF (Physics)
  52. Prof. Dr. phil. Thomas KÖVES-ZULAUF (Archeology)
  53. Dr. Christoph KONRAD (MdEP – Member of European Parliament)
  54. Prof. Erhard Ernst KORKISCH (Area Planning, Landscape Architecture)
  55. Prof. Dr. Dietrich KÜHLKE (Physics)
  56. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Bert KÜPPERS (Electrical Engineering)
  57. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Josef LEITENBAUER (Mining Academy)
  58. Prof. Dr. phil. Otto LENDLE (Archeology)
  59. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Wilfried LEX (Information Science, Logic)
  60. Prof. Dr. Horst LINDE (Architecture)
  61. Prof. Dr. techn. Wladimir LINZER (Thermodynamic Science)
  62. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Jörg LORBERTH (Chemistry)
  63. Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Horst LOTTERMOSER (Mechanical Engineering)
  64. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Manfred LÖWISCH (Industrial Law)
  65. Prof. Uwe MACHENS (Electrical Engineering)
  66. Dr. Heike MARCHAND (Physics)
  67. Prof. Dr. sc.phys. Dr.-Ing. Herbert F. MATARÉ (Physics, Electronics)
  68. Prof. Dr. Krista MERTENS (Science of Rehabilitation)
  69. Prof. Dr.-Ing. MOLLENKAMP (Mechanics of Fluids)
  70. Dr. Dieter MOLZAHN (Physical Chemistry)
  71. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Hans MÜLLER von der HAGEN (Chemical Technology)
  72. Prof. Dr. jur. Reinhard MUßGNUG (Jurisprudence)
  73. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kurt NIXDORFF (Mathematics)
  74. Prof. Werner A. NÖFER (Design)
  75. Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Wolfgang NOLTE (Mathematics)
  76. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Paul PATZELT (Chemistry)
  77. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Siegfried PETER (Technical Chemistry)
  78. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Nicolaus PETERS (Zoology)
  79. Prof. Dr. Dr. Hans PFLUG (Applied Geosciences)
  80. Prof. Dr. Thomas RAMI (Physics)
  81. Prof. Dr. med. Ludwig RAUSCH (Human Medicine, Radio Biology, Radiation Protection)
  82. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Michael von RENTELN (Mathematics)
  83. Dr. phil. Karl Heinrich REXROTH (History)
  84. Prof. Dr. Hans Erich RIEDEL (Physics)
  85. Prof. Wilhelm RUCKDESCHEL (Mechanical Engineering)
  86. Dr. med. Rolf SAMMECK (NeuroAnatomy)
  87. Dr. phil. Monika SAMMECK (Psychology)
  88. Prof. Dr. Hans SCHNEIDER (Jurisprudence)
  89. Prof. Dr. Helmut SCHRÖCKE (Geosciences)
  90. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Herbert SCHULZ (Electrical Engineering)
  91. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kurt STAGUHN (Art Paedagogy)
  92. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus STEINBRÜCK (Mechanical Engineering)
  93. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rudolf STEINER (Technical Chemistry)
  94. Dr. h.c. Horst STERN (Television Journalist, Ecologist)
  95. Botho STRAUß (Writer)
  96. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Günter STRÜBEL (Geosciences)
  97. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Manfred THESENVITZ (Mechanical Engineering)
  98. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Josef WEIGL (Botany)
  99. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Jobst WELLENSIEK (Medicine, Micro-Biology)
  100. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Herbert WILHELMI (Thermodynamic Science)
  101. Prof. Dr. phil. Walter WIMMEL (Archeology)
  102. Gabriele WOHMANN (Writer)
  103. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Jürgen WOLFRUM (Physics)
  104. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Otfried WOLFRUM (Geodesy)
  105. Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Peter ZAHN (Mathematics)
About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Right, Germans mostly hate turbines!

    Unfortunately, green eco-fascism has become much stronger today than in 1998 and this has prevented the majority from speaking out the truth about wind turbines.

    We’re sitting in a trap…
    This month we’re going to elect a new government.
    We hope we will be spared from a Red-Green government as it would aggravate the current, disastrous state.

    Thanks for remembering the anniversary of this important document.

    Jutta from Northern Germany
    http://www.windwahn.de
    http://www.epaw.org

  2. Thank you once again STT for reminding us of highly significant information previously published, yet inexplicably ignored by Government bodies such as the NHMRC and EPAs, ostensibly protecting citizens health via the promulgation and enforcement of health and community safety standards in Australia .

    The 1980s papers of Kelley/NASA were a revelation in regards to a genuine scientific quest by a US government entity to investigate reported adverse human impacts of an industrial wind turbine, with clear evidence demonstrated of dose/response and acoustic cause/adverse health effects.

    This 1998 German statement endorsed by over 100 professors, and including medically credentialed experts, together with the 1980’s NASA research predates the contemporary victim blaming ‘nocebo’ hypothesis. This hypothesis clearly has ignored previously published information and science and is not credible.

    One therefore cannot ignore questions of the probity and integrity of the NHMRC, researchers and politicians who continue to promote wind industry ‘business as usual’ whilst denying the existing peer reviewed science of adverse acoustic health effects. Ignorance, incompetence or corruption? Given that the wind industry is reliably reported as significantly funding the current Australian Greens election campaign, it seems the answer is more likely to be the latter.

  3. Very supportive of all comments. My reflection is to point to the privatisation of many public services within our Government system. Many once independent review activities were undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the service in our public system – this has gone out the window with the privatisation of services. The evolution to business deciding all of what is good for the community, has a much different focus than that of public interest.

  4. Jim Hutson says:

    I think the Pollies are starting to get it, problem is they don’t want to acknowledge that they allowed this to happen, despite all our efforts, they ignored us, still do, and now the reality is starting to sink in. “How do you fix it, it’s an enormous problem?” Biggest problem is it won’t go away, no matter how much they wish it would. It started with money going in and to fix it – the money will have to go out.

  5. Jackie Rovensky says:

    The last sentence of the first paragraph …”A type of technology is being promoted before its effectiveness and its consequences have been properly assessed.” goes to the core of the problem with this industry.
    Governments and proponents of the Wind Energy industry have been negligent in their responsibility to their citizens. Why is it that this industry has been allowed to go ahead without being tested for the use it is going to be put to, not only in the realm of engineering – whether it will stand up and the blades turn, but in respect to the noise these things produce, and the effect that has on human and animals in regions where they are to be installed, let alone their cost and the effectiveness in reducing C02 in the atmosphere the companies claim.
    Not only was no investigations made when the industry began to take off years ago with much smaller turbines, but none has been undertaken to this day.
    The companies saw a money making prospect and they drove forward irrespective of any truth to their claims. Governments were ‘sucked in’ and educated trained people were persuaded to support their claims even though they had done no investigations, simply by accepting what the companies tell them to say.
    Governmental neglect on the scale that has happened is nothing more than criminal, and the continued support of this industry even now when evidence is being provided as to the false claims made by the companies is Governmental fraud committed against their own citizens.

  6. Indeed 15 years later it more than overdue to pull the battle-axe out and hold a Royal Commission. Those who perpetuated this disastrous industry, despite the warnings, deserve NO mercy!

  7. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch.

  8. Only corruption, that is very deep and widespread, could allow this to continue!

  9. Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
    No, people in Germany DON’T love turbines!!

  10. Absolutely unbelievable that this was written in 1998. Beyond absurd!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: