The Clash over Wind
And some climate activists chided me for making hay out of the Mojave desert/renewable energy controversy. Looks like Romm is taking on Feinstein over this and in doing so, he’s ignited a zesty debate among his loyalists, revealing a green schism that is sure to grow wider and nastier.
Or has it already? Craig Goodrich, a new reader to this blog, decried the scourge of wind turbines in a recent comment:
The plague of industrial wind plants is utterly destroying countryside and wildlife habitat at an incredible “” and genuinely unprecidented “” rate, while producing no useful energy and reducing CO2 emissions nowhere in the world.
This struck me as a bit vague and exaggerated (the pillaging of habitat), so I asked him to provide specifics. He obliged, but all the links sent his response straight to my spam filter. So I’ve pasted his comment below for everyone to have a look-see. A disclaimer: I’ve only given these websites a cursory glance. Thus I have no way of knowing whether any of the groups mentioned below are astroturfers or legitimate grassroots organizations.
If they’re all legit, does this add up to a story the media is missing? Or does it pale in comparison to, say the mountaintop mining madness that has gone on for so long? I’m not sure, since I haven’t yet looked into this issue with any rigor. But given the renewable energy boom underway, plus the biofuels craze, this quote from one policy expert is worth pondering:
If we are to prevent serious, damaging climate change, it will require one of the largest land-use changes in the history of the country.
So without further ado, here’s Goodrich’s descriptive compilation of wind power atrocities across the globe:
OK, you asked for it:
Germany, nearly everywhere. http://wilfriedheck.de/
Denmark, ditto. Analysis at http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/mason-2005-10.rtf
France, threatening the incredibly beautiful and historic Mont Saint-Michel. http://epaw.org/
England, all over — from vandalizing the peaceful Lakes District to offshore installations overstressing mother seals at the Yorkshire breeding grounds. http://www.countryguardian.net/
Wales — the devastation of Cefn Croes will break your heart. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm
Scotland, disfiguring the Highlands — http://www.viewsofscotland.org/
… skipping for the sake of space numerous local atrocities in Eastern and Southern Europe, ignoring the mess in Spain, we cross the Atlantic to
Mars Hill, Maine — check out the video at http://www.wind-watch.org/video-marshill.php for a taste of what is going on around wild mountain ridges all across New England.
Pennsylvania and West Virginia — http://www.shol.com/agita/LookoutMountain/ — several ridges are already disfigured, and the State of Virginia is fighting plans to place a huge phalanx of turbines within a mile of the best-preserved battlefield of the Civil War, Camp Allegheny. http://www.vawind.org/ or a Pennsylvania video at http://www.wind-watch.org/video-meyersdale.php
Ontario’s beautiful Thousand Islands region on the St. Lawrence, and upstate New York across the river, is disfigured by 86 turbines on Wolfe Island — http://www.wolfeislandresidents.ca/ — which has so horrified area residents that local groups on both sides are fighting desperately (with mixed success) against any more such installations, which the lunatic Ontario government wants to see all along the eastern Lake Ontario coast.
Skipping across Michigan ( http://www.knowwind.org/ ) to my native Wisconsin, in Fond du Lac County, where I grew up, an 87-turbine plant has been installed directly adjacent to Horicon Marsh, the largest freshwater marsh in the world and a crucial stopover for migratory waterfowl. Duckburger, anyone? http://www.windcows.com/
And on and on and on. Only a recent decision by the Kansas Supreme Court saved the last remaining unspoiled tallgrass prairie in the Flint Hills from being destroyed by turbine plants. In Wyoming, look for the Big Sky and you see turbine blades. In Nevada (even!), residents are fighting to save Virginia Peak ( http://aplusfirearms.com/saveourvalley.htm ).
New Zealand — http://www.tui-g.co.nz/ . Australia — http://www.spacountryguardians.org.au/truth.php — or video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_CZIfiFPwk&feature=related
And all of this for nothing. Nothing. Even granting for the sake of argument that CO2 emissions should be reduced, industrial wind turbines can’t do it, for all sorts of technical reasons which (again) I will spare you.
Each of these wretched turbine towers — picture the Statue of Liberty with a 747 pinned to her nose — costs about $2 million to erect, and will cost about $1 million to decommission. Typical landowner contracts provide that the contract becomes void if the wind developer sells the plant to another company, which they typically do instantly once the project is completed. These turbines are there forever, disintegrating and dripping industrial lubricants onto our grandchildren’s vandalized landscape.
“Criminal lunacy” is far too kind a term for this.
“If we are to prevent serious, damaging climate change, it will require one of the largest land-use changes in the history of the country.”
Yup. That or nukes.
Probably in the US solar/thermal may win over wind for a couple of reasons: 1) less visibility 2) thermal inertia allows more uniform availability. But the land impact will be far greater than for wind power. Putting huge things up on tall sticks actually protects ecosystems aside from the occasional wandering bird, while vast solar collectors severely alter the local environment.
Canada probably can’t make this work, because the amount of solar energy is relatively quite small there.
I think Wolfe Island, which I know, is a fine place for wind farms. No doubt some people who live there because they want to pretend they live in 1890 will find it disturbing. But they do not live in 1890.
The question of whether properties adjoining a wind energy site *should* have relevant rights is interesting. I am far from convinced their rights should outweigh those of the public at large. What rights they do in fact have is another question about which I know nothing.
It’s ironic. Solar damages the natural environment, wind simply damages the illusion of a natural environment, and nuclear does neither unless there is a catastrophic failure. Yet solar is winning and nuclear is losing.
I agree with the idea that there is “lunacy” involved here. You will not be surprised that I think very poor communication of technical information to the public is largely at fault.
Michael,
Is there much scientific or policy debate on the harmful land impacts of solar relative to wind? If it’s as cut and dry as you say, then I expect ecologists and federal land managers have or will be weighing in.
Remember, conflict is one of our essential ingredients. 🙂
Joe booted this one. Doing so is a hazard of his quick turnaround, but I have hopes he’ll fix the misunderstanding in a follow-up post.
As a real *journalist* (so you keep reminding us), Keith, you lack that excuse, although I have no expectation that you’ll fix it in a follow-up post since doing so would undermine your beloved enviro-enviro conflict narrative.
All you would have needed to do is check Feinstein’s bill for yourself or just read down to the fourth comment to Joe’s post.
Steve,
There was a lot of spirited back-and-forth on that thread, of which you were MIA. Joe Booted on this? Incredible. This must be the only time, right?
Ah, a 100% non-substantive response. How clever of you.
> Typical landowner contracts provide that the
> contract becomes void if the wind developer
> sells the plant to another company, which they
> typically do instantly once the project is
> completed.
Do you have a sample typical contract or a pointer? Do you have an alternative form of contract that would avoid this problem?
[…] are varied forces arrayed against wind and solar, but Todd Woody at Yale Environment 360 nicely sums up the situation in the […]
“I think Wolfe Island, which I know, is a fine place for wind farms. No
doubt some people who live there because they want to pretend they live
in 1890 will find it disturbing. But they do not live in 1890.”Thank you for your comment. Please provide your address so that we can arrange for an enormous noisy machine that does nothing useful to be put in your back yard. You are not, after all, still living in 1890…