TOEFL Integrated Writing

📖 Reading Passage

The construction of large-scale wind farms has been widely promoted as a key solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, a closer examination reveals that wind energy may not be as environmentally friendly or economically viable as commonly claimed. Three main concerns undermine its status as a clean energy source. First, wind farms pose a significant threat to bird and bat populations. Studies have shown that turbine blades kill hundreds of thousands of birds annually, including migratory species and raptors. For example, at the Altamont Pass in California, thousands of golden eagles and other birds die each year due to collisions. This biodiversity loss contradicts the goal of environmental protection. Second, wind power is an unreliable and intermittent energy source. Electricity generation depends on wind speed, which varies by time of day and season. When wind dies down, backup power from fossil fuels is often required, negating the carbon savings. In Germany, for instance, despite massive investment in wind, coal plants are still used to fill gaps, leading to high emissions. Third, the economic costs of wind energy are often underestimated. Building and maintaining turbines, along with upgrading grid infrastructure, requires substantial subsidies and government support. In many regions, the cost per megawatt-hour for wind remains higher than that of natural gas or coal, making it an inefficient use of public funds. Thus, wind energy is not a sound investment.

🎧 Listening Lecture

The professor in the lecture challenges each point in the reading, arguing that wind energy is both sustainable and beneficial when properly managed. First, regarding bird and bat deaths, the professor acknowledges the issue but points out that modern turbine designs and siting practices have greatly reduced collisions. For example, offshore wind farms and radar-based shutdown systems can steer turbines away from migrating flocks. Moreover, the reading ignores that fossil fuel extraction and climate change kill far more birds—studies suggest that building collisions and cats cause over a billion bird deaths annually, while wind turbines account for less than 0.01% of that. Second, the professor counters the unreliability argument by emphasizing that no single energy source must work alone. Wind power can be integrated with energy storage, such as advanced batteries or pumped hydro, to provide steady supply. In fact, Denmark and other countries have successfully balanced grids with high wind penetration using smart grids and interconnections. The claim that coal backup is always needed is outdated, as modern renewable systems can pair wind with solar and storage. Third, the professor refutes the cost criticism by noting that the cost of wind energy has fallen dramatically—by over 70% since 2009—and is now cheaper than coal or gas in many markets. Government subsidies are often temporary and comparable to those historically given to fossil fuels. When health and environmental costs of pollution are included, wind energy proves economically superior. Thus, the reading's arguments are based on outdated data and a narrow perspective.