Discuss: Hell Yeah, We Want Windmills

Be careful what you ask for.  Industrial wind is not benign on the earth or in the air.  There is a better way (http://www.allianceforresponsibleenergypolicy.com/) known as distributed generation (DG), its simple giving power back to the people (http://www.bayjournalnewsservice.com/Power.html).  We made the same mistake while embroiled in a battle to save our rural alpine valley in Colorado from oil and gas development.  We advocated for solar as a clean alternative until we learned that industrial solar is not what we thought, that it would require complete destruction of tens of thousands of acres of short-grass prairie, wetlands and prime farmlands and miles upon miles of new ($1.5 million/mile) transmission lines running through our schools and neighbors off-grid homesteads.  Industrial renewable energy is being driven by the same folks that brought us global warming.

Hannah,

All I can say is that all “industrial renewable energy” schemes are not the same.

For use in Appalachia, there is one technology that is able to use the “mountain tops” that have already been degraded.  It doesn’t have to be on top of a ridge or a pristine mountain, but can be on a lower, already degraded area.

It uses the earth surface itself as a “solar collector” and doesn’t block it with panels or involve windmill towers and blades making unbearable “whooshing” noises witih blades that also kill bats.

Read about it at http://vortexengine.ca and also link to my article at scitizen via the “Endorsement” tab.

I admire Reece’s work a lot, but he, more than anyone, should be wary of the type of thinking that too easily reduces the wonders of a mountaintop to a certain amount of energy.  Mountaintop turbines are indeed preferable to mountaintop removal coal mining, but they both result in a radically altered Appalachian skyline and (quite likely) a radically altered Appalachian ecology.  They might be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but they’re still on the same one.  I particularly worry that wind companies have been granted a certain moral authority that will allow them to repeat old exploitations of rural America.  I worry they will use buzzwords such as “sustainability” and “energy independence” to open up a river of revenue out of rural areas, while only shooting a comparative trickle back in.  For instance, in Central PA the new wind initiatives are not designed for local power but to provide power for the metropolis.  Companies are not trying to win community solidarity for the projects but to bulldoze them through without even building a consensus among those who must live in the turbines’ shadows.  In the end, I tend to think that wind mills belong on the open plains and on the open waters, not on artificially flattened mountaintops.  But I know that sacrifices must be made in the name of sustainability, and I fully expect rural America to bear the brunt of those sacrifices (as it has for so long).  For once, though, I’d like to see it share in more of the real benefits.  I’d like the energy to be produced for local use.  I’d like community members to have real ownership in the projects, as shareholders, and I would like them to have a continued say in the windfield’s operation and maintenance.  After all, these projects are heavily subsidized by the government.  Isn’t it only right for the taxpayers most directly influenced by such a project to have a real stake in it? I want sustainability AND empowering rural development. For wind companies, just like coal companies, can use their corporate clout and government support to rake in diamonds while handing out dollars.

Steve,

There are great impacts from wind developments on the eco-system of the open plains as well.  See http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2009/features/index.htm

S. Nunn