Of all the "green" energy nitwittery, wind power may be proving to be the worst. It's fraught with problems, ranging from the massive amounts of resources it requires to build, not the least of which is the massive concrete foundations which all stand upon. There are reports that each windmill costs more in energy to procure materials, build components, transport them to the site and construct, than the value of the electricity generated.
Not to mention all the eagles and other birds killed by these ugly things every year.
Now, though, we can add another ecological and economic problem to wind power's extensive list: balsa wood, heavily used for turbine blades.
Along with the global slaughter of millions of bats and the decimation of local raptor populations, the looting of the Amazon for balsa is one of the dirty secrets of the ‘green’ power revolution. For obvious political reasons, it cannot be mentioned in Net Zero-supporting mainstream media. Balsa is a tropical hardwood that is both lightweight and strong, and despite chemical foam alternatives, it is the material of choice for large 15 MW offshore turbine blades. According to a recent Mordor Intelligence report, foams can lose rigidity under extreme marine conditions – especially near the blade roots where stresses peak in structures that are almost as high as the Eiffel Tower.
The primary suppliers of balsa are seeing a boom in logging and exports, but there's more to it than the legal, commercial trade: This kind of thing will inevitably draw a black market, as sure as dogs draw fleas. The illegal trade, mind you, has no regard for the environment or the damage it causes to it.
Balsa is a fast-growing wood that reaches the maturity needed for wind turbine use in about seven years. Until the soaring demand from turbines kicked in, it was harvested in sustainable plantations. But since the turn of the decade, this sustainable harvest cannot keep up with demand. In a damning 2024 survey, the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) found that Ecuadorian exports were boosted by up to 50% following illegal logging in virgin rainforest.
The EIA report was damning. Investigators toured many of the illegal logging sites and charged that most, if not all, exporters turned to natural forests as a “convenient and immediate replacement” when plantations were quickly depleted of older trees. The areas under attack were noted to be some of the last intact forest landscapes in the country. They were said to be unique protected areas and emblematic indigenous territories.
Have you heard any complaints from the environmental lobby or the climate scolds about this destruction? No? Nor have I.
One can only imagine the worldwide outcry if oil companies needed the wood for their own operations. But when alleged ‘green’ companies loot the forest, the blind eye turned is positively Nelsonian.
Now, granted, wood is a renewable resource, and balsa trees do seem to grow pretty quickly. But that doesn't mean they are immune to overharvesting, and the kind of people who are doing this illegal logging aren't concerned with the long term. And overlogging in these areas can cause a lot of problems for the native flora and fauna. On a plantation, which as noted was the primary source for balsa, the crop is managed, there are scheduled harvests followed by new plantings, all done on land dedicated to that purpose, not in the wilds. There's a big difference there; it's akin to the difference between raising cattle for beef and the mass commercial harvest of wildlife for meat, which at current consumption levels, well, our deer and elk herds wouldn't last very long.
Read More: Wyoming’s Golden Eagles Now Facing Extinction Risk From Wind Farms
Coal Still Dominates Wind and Solar, and Will for the Foreseeable Future
It's amazing the extent to which the climate scolds and the "green" energy can ignore the unintended consequences of their preferred policies. Sure, we've overharvested resources to near-extinction before; look at the 19th century sandalwood trade, for example, or the fate of bison on the Great Plains in that same century. But aren't we supposed to know better by now? Shouldn't even the most committed climate scolds, who claim to be all about the science, be able to look at these projects as a whole, tallying up all the costs? In the case of windmills, it's not only the balsa for (especially offshore) blades, it's also the huge concrete pads these units have to stand on; it's the steel and aluminum in their structure, it is the rare earth metals and silicon involved in their electronics, it's the materials that go into the generators, it's the eagles, hawks and other large birds that are killed. Add to that the cost of routine maintenance and repairs, and the balance comes well into the red as compared to a natural gas or, better, a nuclear power plant.
And, mind you, this is for a construct that only works on windy days.
We haven't seen the end of this nitwittery yet. We haven't seen an end to the economic stupidity and the ecological harm these things cause. But we're winning. As long as we keep broadcasting the facts in these matters, well, facts remain stubborn things - but they remain facts.
