Promoters of industrial wind development in rural and wild areas generally dismiss the defenders of those rural and wild areas as NIMBY, i.e., supporting wind power but "not in my back yard."
But where are the promoters pushing these developments? Not in their back yards! It looks like they're the real NIMBYs.
Most opponents of industrial wind don't support it anywhere. They've looked into it and found it wanting.
And a note about aesthetics
Related to the dishonest NIMBY charge is that we are concerned only with aesthetics. Aesthetics are, of course, an important part of most people's rejection of industrial wind turbines: Anything that big that is lit up and moves and makes noise and dominates the skyline had better be worth it, and it doesn't take long to discover that they are not.
But the industry would rather avoid that debate, so they dismiss their critics as mere aesthetes, concerned only with their precious views, blind to the whole planet sinking into a hellhole. (And don't ask if lining the hills with giant wind turbines can have a significant effect against the pursuit of that quagmire, because that would obviously mean you don't think the problem is so grave that doing anything, even if it doesn't actually do anything, is better than doing nothing. That is, The world is hell-bent for destruction, and you're just being negative!)
So who sponsors an art exhibit to show how "aesthetic" the giant turbines are? Industry lobbyists Andrew Perchlik and the American Wind Energy Association! It looks like they're the ones trying to make it an aesthetic issue. Unfortunately, they have to resort to imagination.
The reality is too obvious. They are giant intrusive machines way out of place in rural and wild areas. There's new roads and transmission infrastructure involved, too.
And their potential energy contribution is puny. Their ability to replace other fuels, particularly base-load providers such as coal and nuclear, is nil.
That's what really makes them ugly.
It's the same old story. A lot of hucksters are getting rich by making other people's lives hell. "The beauty [sic] of power" indeed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism
June 17, 2006
June 16, 2006
Who wants wind power?
To the Editor, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer:
The Reformer asks, in its argument for industrial-scale wind power (editorial, June 13), if Governor Douglas would like to see a nuclear plant in Chittenden County, a coal plant near Montpelier, or a natural gas plant near Rutland. Since most of the wind plants in Vermont are proposed up here in the northeast, one might also ask if advocates would like to see giant wind machines on the Northfield and Worcester ranges around Montpelier or lining the shore of Lake Champlain.
How about replacing the Bennington Battle Monument with a few wind turbines that would be over a hundred feet higher, distract with their movement and flashing lights, and disturb with their noise?
Faced with the prospect of actually having to live with the things, many who currently advocate industrial-scale wind power would, like their fellows in the northeast and everywhere else a project is proposed, start looking more seriously at the technology and more honestly weigh the costs and benefits.
They will discover that it is not a delusional love of the status quo or a lack of creativity that turns them against big wind. It is the obvious fact that the benefits are negligible yet the negative impacts are substantial.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The Reformer asks, in its argument for industrial-scale wind power (editorial, June 13), if Governor Douglas would like to see a nuclear plant in Chittenden County, a coal plant near Montpelier, or a natural gas plant near Rutland. Since most of the wind plants in Vermont are proposed up here in the northeast, one might also ask if advocates would like to see giant wind machines on the Northfield and Worcester ranges around Montpelier or lining the shore of Lake Champlain.
How about replacing the Bennington Battle Monument with a few wind turbines that would be over a hundred feet higher, distract with their movement and flashing lights, and disturb with their noise?
Faced with the prospect of actually having to live with the things, many who currently advocate industrial-scale wind power would, like their fellows in the northeast and everywhere else a project is proposed, start looking more seriously at the technology and more honestly weigh the costs and benefits.
They will discover that it is not a delusional love of the status quo or a lack of creativity that turns them against big wind. It is the obvious fact that the benefits are negligible yet the negative impacts are substantial.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Less incentive needed for wind power boondoggle
To the Editor, New York Times:
Since Goldman Sachs and others are already investing so much in renewable energy projects ("Let Them Go Green," editorial, June 12), one wonders why the Times thinks they need more incentive to do so. For example, the purchase of wind developer Zilkha (now Horizon) Renewable Energy was hardly a risk. According to legal firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, federal subsidies can pay for two-thirds of the value of a wind project. State subsidies may cover another ten percent. The modern wind industry (home of Zilkha/Horizon) was developed in Texas by George Bush and Kenneth Lay, and it shows.
Public investment may help to establish new beneficial technologies, but industrial-scale wind power is not one of them.
Because its generation of electricity depends on the wind speed, it is highly variable and can not significantly reduce our use of other fuels. This has been the experience in Denmark. The benefits are neglible, but the negative environmental and social impacts are substantial. The machines are huge -- now commonly more than 400 feet high -- and necessarily numerous, requiring new roads and transmission infrastructure in typically wild and rural landscapes.
We need less incentive for such a boondoggle, not more.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Since Goldman Sachs and others are already investing so much in renewable energy projects ("Let Them Go Green," editorial, June 12), one wonders why the Times thinks they need more incentive to do so. For example, the purchase of wind developer Zilkha (now Horizon) Renewable Energy was hardly a risk. According to legal firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, federal subsidies can pay for two-thirds of the value of a wind project. State subsidies may cover another ten percent. The modern wind industry (home of Zilkha/Horizon) was developed in Texas by George Bush and Kenneth Lay, and it shows.
Public investment may help to establish new beneficial technologies, but industrial-scale wind power is not one of them.
Because its generation of electricity depends on the wind speed, it is highly variable and can not significantly reduce our use of other fuels. This has been the experience in Denmark. The benefits are neglible, but the negative environmental and social impacts are substantial. The machines are huge -- now commonly more than 400 feet high -- and necessarily numerous, requiring new roads and transmission infrastructure in typically wild and rural landscapes.
We need less incentive for such a boondoggle, not more.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
June 15, 2006
Cape Wind to study birds
Lest anyone has believed the developer's song that the studies have already been done concerning birds in Nantucket Sound, this article from the June 5 Cape Cod Times serves as a reminder that they've barely begun.
... Before Cape Wind can build turbines on the sound, it first must prove to skeptics -- and the state -- that, among other things, the 417-foot-tall towers won't harm birds.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, animal rights, environment, environmentalism
A scientific team hired by the developer is completing a six-week, $400,000 radar study of the sound to characterize just how many birds fly through this offshore location -- and, critically, at what heights.
For the second time, the developer is using sophisticated radar during springtime on Horseshoe Shoal itself. It's a time when winter songbirds arrive from the warmth of South America and hundreds of thousands of ducks also pass through.
... While the [Massachusetts Audubon Society] has offered preliminary support for the project ... Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations for Massachusetts Audubon, says there are still some gaps in bird data on the sound.
In particular, they want to know more about the nighttime patterns of long-tailed ducks on the sound; the trends of endangered terns and threatened plovers; and just how many songbirds are flying through the area and where they are passing.
... Cape Wind has already conducted three radar studies to follow bird patterns.
But critics have complained that results from two of the studies were questionable since they were collected at remote, land-based sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for instance, has urged three years of radar study before a conclusion can be drawn. ...
June 12, 2006
Wind power is foolish choice
To the editor, Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle [published June 14]:
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
No benefits from wind power
To the editor, Village Soup Citizen (Waldo County, Me.):
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Wind power saves nothing
To the editor, Kennebec (Me.) Journal (published June 18):
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)