man & nature # 32 ~ sustainability - there is no free lunch
Friday, August 29, 2008 at 01:35PM 
;)
North country wind farm • click
to embiggenOn the way to yesterday's golf outing, I stopped to picture one of the many wind farms that are springing up just outside of the northern boundary of the Adirondack Park. This area, the St. Lawrence River / Seaway basin/plains, is a natural wind tunnel of sorts. There is also an abundance of open land. From the number of wind farms under construction and projected in the area, it seems that the companies who build these things think that it is a prime location for wind generated power.
I will admit that I have not studied every facet, pro and con, regarding wind farms but I will also admit to having a gut level like for the things. I tend to think that would be the case even if one were to spring up in "backyard".
Obviously, many see these farms as eyesores. I personally consider them to be a lovely vision - to mix a metaphor, they are music to my eyes - because of what they portend - clean, renewable energy. You have to understand that I come from this viewpoint for the simple reason that coal-burning energy plants (although not relevant to wind farms, don't forget auto emissions) in the Midwest are literally destroying the ecosystem here in the Adirondacks. Acid rain and mercury pollution are just a few of the delights that land on Adirondack flora and fauna everyday.
And, even though I take a relatively strong anti-cell tower position for the Adirondacks (they are few and far between and even those are not towers), I wouldn't mind at all if some wind farms dotted the landscape in the Park.
Why is that? Even if you consider wind farms to be visual pollution, I will take that form of pollution any day of the week rather than the invisible, insidious and environmentally destructive air-borne pollution that rains down on the Park everyday. It's that simple.
Reader Comments (12)
There was just an article in the NYTimes noting that the electrical infrastructure in America will not support these windfarms. They can generate power, but getting it from point A to point B is the next challenge.
I read that is it working well, most compalints are the whoosh, whoosh noise and the killing of birds, but I am for it.
Bird deaths, especially when these turbines are placed in migration paths are my only real complaint. I would rather see these big propellers spinning about than billowing coal smoke.
My preference is for geothermal, but that's not the best solution either. Solar, wind, geothermal. We are sitting on an order of magnitude more renewable energy here in the US than all the fossil fuel in the entire world.
I tend to think of them as visual pollution. Why? They aren't really doing any good for the environment, just makin even more energy available so people and businesses can consume even more energy. Now, if we got rid of coal and nuclear energy all together I would wholeheartedly support them. For now, they just keep the production and consumer wheel spinning even faster.
I, too, have no problem with wind turbines. If you travel across country on I-40, you'll see a number of wind farms in western states. As Mark says, it's a far better idea than building more coal powered plants.
I wonder, though, why no one - most notably our politicians - is talking about the real problem affecting so many infrastructure issues, including energy. That problem, of course, is the U.S. population explosion. About 2 years ago, we hit 300 million. The current projection is that we'll hit 400 million in about 30 years, far sooner than earlier projections had predicted. What will power their vehicles? Where will they live? Where will their water come from? Who will feed them?
You can bet your butt that no one will mention this little problem in the current presidential campaign. Certainly not the Republicans (whose newly announced VP candidate has 5 kids). But to be fair, the other side won't bring it up either. That question is way too hot (can you say "Religious Right", or "The Catholic Church", or "Immigration"?).
The energy problems of the U.S. - and of the world in general - are directly tied to uncontrolled population growth. But no one will even mention this, let alone work on it. It would be political suicide.
For once, I've got to agree completely with Paul. What happened to the dire predictions of the 70's about impending world starvation? It more or less passed - if you discount sections of Africa. It appears as if redistribution and technology took care of some of the problem. But the ever increasing population - even if we are able to feed, clothe, and house - will only signal a decrease in the quality of life for non-human populations and the environments they live in, and as a consequence for humans as well.
The Chinese found a "solution" to their population growth problem. But anything that would legislate poulation size in the U.S. would be totally ignored for economic (pro growth=virtue) and religious (contraception=sin) reasons.
Hell in a handbasket...
By the way, Mark, I forgot to mention how much I like the image with this post. The symbolism here is striking. You have the fuel truck (if it is a fuel truck) chugging uphill with the wind turbines in the background, farm buildings in the shadow of the wind turbines, the 3 road signs on what appears to be a fairly steep decline, and the mailbox. One could attach any number of "meanings" to all of those things.
Well done.
Instead of massive wind installations, I'd like to see more smaller installations for individual residences in the country. We're trying to go off grid in the next several years.
I'm currently reviving old batteries that farmers have been ditching from their tractors and hooking them up to the bank of solar cells that I've slowly been adding to. We're able to run the majority of our lighting (LED, not CFL) from this arrangement, along with a fair bit of our home electronics (computers, TV, but not major appliances).
I've been collecting magnets from dead hard drives and copper from old network cable and plan to build myself a wind generator next. :-)
this may seem like a dumb question, sorry for that... but what birds are dying from these things? Some sort of breed that is deaf, has poor vision, and flies in the dead of night at a speed borderline to that of levitation?
I mean seriously? Maybe I just don't know enough about these things or certain birds? but aren't these wind farms noisy, extremely slow spinning and blatantly obvious on the horizon as to not fly into?
nevermind...I couldn't wait for an answer. This article is interesting...
It is estimated that 6,400 birds annually died from wind farms, compared to the 3rd biggest avian killer in the U.S., the glass window and tall building category with a staggering estimate of 100 million deaths annually.
"windplant related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States."
So should we outlaw clean windows and tall buildings (#3), automobiles (#2), and electrical wires (#1 killer) that account for 330 million avian deaths annually? probably not.
full article:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
(this is of course just one source that I found)
There are many "exaggerated" problems that the opponents of wind turbines lean on to further their stance. One of my parents/step-parents live in Stafford, NY (Western NY) where such a project was proposed. In letters to the editor and during town meetings, they lamented the "constant slaughter of birds", the destruction of scenery and subsequent "loss of tourism" (trust me here, the few who do visit Stafford do so accidentally or to visit family), and the constant noise pollution--one guy compared the sound to that of a "gang of motorcycles running constantly". All three points overstated at best.
I read a more sincere and less "politically charged" viewpoint of one skeptic in the last issue of "The Adirondack Explorer" that I wanted to share, but I couldn't find it online. His concerns had to do with the energy/materials needed just to build and maintain the structures, as well as current storage issues. He was also a retired engineer, if I remember corectly, and a strong advocate for protecting the environment and pursuing sustainable energy alternatives. But he was also in favor of more research before changing his mind and supporting wind turbines. He did a much better job fleshing out his points than I am here.
Just as an aside, my father-in-law (recently retired from National Grid) pointed out that I could actually go to their website and choose my power source. Unfortunately, alternative energy options are not the most affordable, so I doubt most people will make the switch. This idea that we as a society will "do the right thing" even if it costs more seems flawed. In most cases, it seems like we make up our minds based on cost, convenience, and the beliefs we have already formed. Is there a better example than the recent increase in gas prices? The documented impact of global warming didn't slow the sale of SUVs, but the price of gas sure did. Until the cost of electricity goes through the roof, the majority of people won't take turbines or any less convenient/affordable alternative seriously.
James
I'm all for responsible development of wind farms. However, we've seen some rush to locate them and even a move to put them inside the Adirondack Park. Like Sean, I'd like to see personal small scale use in sensitive areas, and large scale projects in less sensitive areas (I like the idea of having them at sea, and at the fresh kills landfill and similar locations). I am adamantly opposed to industrializing the tops of Adirondack mountains for power projects - it's just not the right place.
What we really need is serious consideration of conservation of energy along with appropriate development of alternative methods.
That's my two senses.