Mountaintop wind farms not good for the ecology
Mountaintop wind farms not good for the ecology
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines and must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines. One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
August 9, 2010 by Jonathan Carter in Portland Press Herald
Developers oversell the benefits and ignore the liabilities of industrial wind power projects.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers which, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers which, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly, renewable energy, including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops, with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification” is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of this country’s electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of the oil consumption is used for heat… [continue via Web link]
facebook
twitter
On August 14th, 2010 at 10:55 pm THOMAS DAVID CANADA Said:
That’s why the West is the Best!
Fed Lands abound with Envirometally Friendly Sites.
They Balk at this even in the face of our demise as a species
What Kind Of Federal Agenda Treats Citizens as though they were Peasants
Give us Our Land to Develop ALTERNATIVE Resources, Earth,Wind and Fire!
On August 14th, 2010 at 11:39 pm Robert H. Pike Said:
Good argument for exploiting flat lands and water bodies with high wind before trying to sell those “aero” generators in hilly or mountainous terrain. But there’s wise and unwise salesmen and buyers in every line of business. In other words; let the buyer beware. The powers that be need to study regulatory standards before we have a row of wind generators producing “expensive” free power.
On September 12th, 2010 at 9:00 pm jerry dycus Said:
Sorry but in many mountain tops there are no trees. In most cases I’d bet wind there would be fine. Though the most cost effective wind is usually at the home or building lot, that way you don’t have to pay for land, transmission ;lines or utility mark up. Same with solar. This gives both a 301 advantage over wind/solar farms.
On September 12th, 2010 at 10:20 pm Steve Austin Said:
In Maine, mountains are rarely above timberline.
Public lands contain very rich biodiversity.
Flat lands and water bodies also can be rich in biodiversity.
Planning for wind is going to take more if we want to go green and preserve the integrity of our natural landscapes.
On September 12th, 2010 at 10:22 pm Steve Austin Said:
Also, it is easy to say that if a mountain without trees has no life on it. That is pretty easy until you realize that biodiversity is not restricted to the tree. Alpine ecosystems are very fragile.
On September 12th, 2010 at 10:34 pm jerry dycus Said:
But Steve it doesn’t increase carbon now does it, the point of the article. Of course some sites should not be used but the article just wasn’t honest by any stretch of the imagination.
I think wind gens are beautiful as each ones cuts the amount of coal burned which destroys far more wildlife, trees. No?
On September 13th, 2010 at 12:43 am Steve Austin Said:
No, wind energy kills bird, bats and destroys views for miles.
As far as carbon, it really is painful for most people to understand that most of the areas that this energy rush wants to muck up really don’t all have consistant wind energy. The ones that do can actually be too good meaning that when the wind is really kicking, the turbines shut down so they don’t fry the grid.
So your point is valid, but when you look at the inneffieciency of this kind of energy compared to its minimal output and environmental damage, you have to ask how much C02 does it actually offset. Some of the wind projects are massive. They require C02 burning for construstion, maintenence and manufacturing of parts. New transmission can produce different GHG.
If we are actually serious about carbon free energy, this will not do it. the big picture will require fossil fuel to maintain this kind of energy. Utility scale will depend on more fossil fuel than distributed generatuion.