What does it harm?
It squanders our capital on a false promise
We need reliable energy solutions. Wind power is simply a feel-good, phony solution to our energy and environmental problems. Wind turbines currently cost more than $2 million dollars each to install and more than 60% of their cost is recovered from taxpayers and utility ratepayers. For what? To produce a tiny dribble of unreliable electricity while providing tax shelters for foreign mega-corporations. In the process it industrializes agricultural land and fragments large tracts of native Kansas prairie.
Wind turbines produce very little electricity and they do so intermittently, often when it isn't needed, adding nothing to our on-demand generating capacity. The recent power emergency in Texas is a case in point. On the evening of Feb. 26, 2008, wind power abruptly dropped by 1,200 MW just as demand was rising, forcing ERCOT to declare an emergency. Earl Watkins, CEO of Sunflower Electric, reported that during the summer heat wave of 2006 the Montezuma Wind Farm in Gray County, Kansas, produced only 3% of its rated output - just when annual demand was at its peak. This means gas-powered generators must be quickly ramped up to meet the demand. The unpredictable output of wind power complicates power management on the grid and increases costs.
Wind energy has NOT been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines is also growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
Meanwhile, the environmental problems caused by conventional power plants remain unaddressed. The increasing use of wind power does not allow any conventional plants to be closed down and siphons off money that could be used to upgrade our existing coal plants with new scrubbers and filters to remove pollution and capture greenhouse gases. The U.S. has more than 400 years of coal reserves and is the technology for pollution scrubbing and CO2 capture is continuously improving. Nuclear power has more than 60 years of history as a proven, reliable source of power that produces no CO2. New plants could be built using modern, safe technology. Nuclear plants supply 85% of the power in France, are targeted for 40% in Japan, operate at 90% of capacity (vs. a global average o 16% for wind), and, like coal, are significantly more cost-effective. Furthermore, improving the efficiency of air conditioners, lights, and industrial equipment could result in energy savings far in excess of the small contribution wind power is able to make. Promoting conservation to reduce demand has far more potential as an energy solution than wind power. A Japanese telecom company recently realized a 35% reduction in power consumption simply by employing timers to shut off lights and computers automatically during periods of disuse.
It industrializes the landscape
The construction and operation of wind turbines is very damaging to the environment and results in a large scale industrialization of rural areas. Kansas is not alone. These projects are destroying our precious landscape in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia - all through the Appalachians. Projects are also being installed in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and throughout the Midwest. Others are planned along the west coast in Washington and Oregon. Only the southeastern states have so far escaped, largely because of insufficient wind resources.
All across the country, outraged rural residents are forming grass-roots resistance movements in desperate attempts to protect their quality of life and pastoral environments. They must organize quickly to resist wind developers who, like packs of rabid wolves, descend on peaceful, unsuspecting communities with bribes for local governments and promises of 'green' energy, jobs and economic development - all lies to ensure their projects can be built. There are no federal or state regulations governing the responsibilities of wind energy developers and they are experts in preying on local governments. Local officials lack the resources and the expertise to evaluate the impact of such large developments on their communities and are also more vulnerable to bribery and corruption. The American Wind Energy Association regularly holds seminars for its members teaching strategies for 'circumventing regulatory impediments', 'facilitating siting applications', and 'mitigating local resistance'. They seek to put up turbines in the most profitable locations as quickly as possible, harvest their profits, and move on. Neither the sensitivity of local environments nor the fates of local residents concern them in the least.
Unfortunately, rural Kansas residents cannot turn to their present state government for help. In their urgency to appear 'green' to their constituents, our state legislators have not only loosed upon us this pack of corporate wolves, they have provided them with financial incentives to do so. In their desperation to be able to say they are doing something to alter the course of global warming, they are destroying our environment in the name of saving it and sacrificing our rural quality of life on a massive scale. Call or write your state representatives and tell them you won't vote for politicians who insist on promoting the false promises of wind power.
The environmental impacts of industrial turbines are real. They are massive machines that sweep more than an acre of air with their blades, slicing birds and bats out of the air, and driving away all other forms of wildlife. Their operation generates aerodynamic and mechanical noise pollution that can propagate as far as a mile or more, including low frequency vibrations that can penetrate buildings and cause intolerable disturbances in people's homes. Because the blades are almost always moving, they are visually distracting, causing hazards for drivers and 'animating' otherwise pastoral landscapes. They also reflect flashes of light in the sun, and cast flickering shadows thousands of feet long when the sun is behind them. Imagine someone shining a strobe light on your house from a height of 400 feet.
Turbine construction also leaves a massive ecological footprint. Large excavations must be dug for turbine foundations, each of which requires some 2000 tons of concrete. Miles of wide access roads must be built to accommodate super-heavy machinery. Miles of trenches must be dug for underground cables. Developers will say that a turbine sits on only one acre of land, but they fail to mention that more than a football field is disturbed and compacted during its construction. Original soil profiles and native vegetation can never be restored. Water tables and natural drainages can be disrupted. Wind and water erosion during construction can contaminate streams and ground water.
In addition to risks of ice throw, lighting strikes, fire, and stray voltage surges, there are also risks of 'blade throw' or catastrophic failure. On Feb. 21, 2008 the breaks failed on the blades of a 200 ft turbine in Denmark under high wind conditions leading to catastrophic failure of the turbine and debris thrown 1,600 feet. The video can be watched here: http://www.windaction.org/videos/14294
It devalues our property
The wind industry says these projects have no effect on property values. In fact they claim you will benefit from tourists wanting to come and gawk at them. They further claim to have studies to back that up. Common sense, on the other hand, would tell you that 400-foot tall wind turbines on or adjacent to your property are going to discourage real estate buyers. What are the facts? Wind turbines are now mammoth industrial machines, taller than the Statue of Liberty, and taller than a 35-story office building. Imagine 100 Statues of Liberty, with their arms in constant motion, spread out over 5,000 acres. Is this a view you would want to see from your home? Could you sell your property at all if it were adjacent to such an eyesore? What about surrounding landowners who receive no payments from the turbines?
Rural property values reflect alternative use values. These uses include agriculture, recreational hunting, or scenic-and-quiet-retirement. These categories command vastly different prices, and are impacted differently by wind turbines. The impact on low-value agricultural land can be minimal, and this is where the first wind projects were sited in Kansas - places such as Montezuma and Spearville. This land rarely sells, has little-to-no scenic value, and typically very low residential density. In areas of low agricultural productivity, sparse rainfall, and depleted aquifers, a vast majority of residents desperately want wind turbine income, and place no value on the landscape. Property values reflecting only low agricultural productivity would appear to be unaffected by wind turbines if you based a study on this area.
In other areas, large landowners with low-production agricultural land also want the turbines and value the wind turbine income over the landscape. Others, however, with scenic home-site property, place a higher value on the landscape and their quality of life. Many paid a premium price to a large landowner for a small parcel of land precisely for the rural features that will be destroyed by wind turbines - peace, quiet and pastoral vistas. Attractive property adjacent to the wind project, with scenic home-site attributes, will decline in value substantially. Studies conducted by wind developers examine changes in price only for properties that actually sell, or changes in tax evaluations - these typically rise as a consequence of the income generated by turbines. They don't account for the fact that properties most impacted by the development can become difficult or impossible to sell.
In documented cases in Berlin, PA, a scenic area, two landowners driven from their homes by noise and nuisance issues, filed suit against the owner of the Somerset Wind Farm, a small 6-turbine project. In settling the lawsuit, the energy company purchased their homes for the pre-wind-development appraised value and subsequently sold them to others. The first property was purchased for a pre-development value of $101,049, and subsequently sold by the energy company for $20,000, a discount of 80%! The second property was purchased for a pre-development value of $104,447 and subsequently sold by the energy company for $65,000, a discount of 38%! A serious question raised in both these cases is were the properties saleable at all, since they had to be sold to parties with wind energy interests - one to a family that had leased land for the turbines, and the other to an employee of the energy company. The buyers were required by the energy company in the deeds to waive any future complaints about noise, view restrictions, and other nuisances - issues the energy company claims do not exist.
It stifles other forms of development and hurts the local economy
What many landowners forget to consider is that, by signing a lease agreement with a wind energy developer they will forgo all other forms of development possibility on their land. They are also signing away many of their rights to access their own land. They will require permission form the leaseholder for many types of activities they may wish to pursue for the duration of their lease. Over a long term, almost any other land use would do more to benefit the local economy than a wind park. Many are even told they can no longer hunt on their own land because of the risk stray bullets pose to the turbines.
Despite promising local jobs, wind developers typically import contract labor from out of state. After all, the construction of wind turbines requires specially trained personnel and small town construction firms are unlikely to own the massive cranes and oversize equipment needed to transport and erect them. At best, expect to sell some sand and gravel which is too heavy to transport any distance. Once operational, technical staff are also brought from out of state to operate and maintain the turbines, but few people are required monitor a wind plant so few jobs are created. A wind turbine buys nothing in our local economy. It merely displaces alternative land uses for a short-sighted payoff. And what happens when turbines wear out and cease function or become obsolete when the tax subsidies are withdrawn? Who will remove them? How much will it cost? What will remain of the landscape - an industrial wasteland?
It can have serious health effects
Regardless of the relative merits or drawbacks of wind energy, large industrial wind turbines should not be placed in the vicinity of people's homes or any inhabited buildings. A number of serious health issues have been raised by Dr. Nina Pierpont, a respected doctor in Malone, NY (MD from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991; PhD in Population Biology from Princeton, 1985; BA in Biology from Yale, 1977; and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics). Dr. Pierpont testified before the New York State Assembly Energy Committee on March 7, 2006, that there is a recognized cluster of symptoms which occurs in a significant number of people living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. A substantial portion of the population is susceptible, especially those sensitive to low frequency vibration, those with preexisting migraine disorder (12 % of all Americans), and those with inner-ear/ visual/ muscular interactions that make them prone to seasickness or vertigo.
What are the symptoms?
-
•Sleep problems, due to noise or sensations of pulsation or pressure, making it difficult to go to sleep and causing frequent awakening.
-
•Headaches, which are increased in both frequency and duration.
-
•Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
-
•Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
-
•Problems with concentration and learning.
-
•Tinnitus, a ringing in the ears.
Dr. Pierpont also reports that Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD) results from long term exposure to low-frequency noise, below the range of hearing, and is characterized by fibrous thickening in the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, and seizures and cognitive changes in the brain. VAD is recognized as an industrial disease first described in western Europe. A search of the PubMed online database will reveal more than 30 recent peer-reviewed articles addressing the subject of VAD.
Air pressure (sound) waves, resonating inside the chest and skull, set up vibrations to which the body responds by reinforcing its softer tissues with extra collagen, causing thickening of the pericardium (membrane surrounding the heart) and cardiac valves, fibrosis of the lungs, and the proliferation of glial (supporting) cells in the brain. This condition was first studied in pilots, flight attendants, and aviation technicians, but is found in other industrial and community settings. Medical researchers have found that the low-frequency noise intensities in the vicinity of wind turbines are in the range which can cause VAD, particularly with prolonged in-home and overnight exposures. See the VAD discussion beginning on page 12 of Dr. Pierpont’s excellent, comprehensive Review of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement before the New York Independent System Operator.
Dr. Pierpont recently conducted a clinical telephone interview with Daniel and Carolyn d'Entremont, who with their six children have experienced debilitating health effects and been forced from their home in Pubnico Point, Nova Scotia, by a 17-turbine industrial wind project. To listen to this lengthy interview (52 minutes), click on this Pierpont - d'Entremont Link (Windows Media Player). For a related television report, see Channel 13, WHAM, Rochester, NY.
Dr. Pierpont strongly recommends that wind turbines be set back at least one and one-half (1- ½) miles from any home, any school, hospital, or similar institution, in order to protect people from the adverse health effects of wind turbines. Dr. Pierpont’s papers are available at her website, www.ninapierpont.com , under “publishing/ wind energy”, and in the Research section of this website.
Wind developers will relentlessly contend that there are no health effects and allegations to the contrary are absurd. When confronted with wind proponents who deny health effects and question Dr. Pierpont's credibility, direct them to 2nd International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise that was held in Lyon, France in September, 2007 (http://www.windturbinenoise2007.org). It was attended by more than 150 delegates from 24 countries around the world - quite a turnout to discuss problems that don’t exist.
It kills birds and bats and fragments wildlife habitat
Studies indicate that wind turbines kill large numbers of birds and bats, fragment wildlife habitat, and drive away animals. The full range of their ecological impacts have not yet been determined. Most recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has raised concerns about wind turbines ruining habitat in the whooping crane migration corridor through the Great Plains. They also warn that wind turbine development is a serious risk to the viability of the Greater prairie chicken, known as the signature bird of the Tallgrass Prairie.
Many people don’t realize how important bats are in our ecosystem. Their abundance and diversity is rarely appreciated because they are nocturnal. It is estimated that for every species of bird you see in an area, there is one species of bat. They are one of the most important predators of flies, mosquitoes and other airborne pest insects.
In a six-week study of bat deaths in the summer of 2004 at the Mountaineer, WV (44 turbines) and Meyersdale, PA (20 turbines) wind projects, university and scientific researchers documented alarming kill-rates at both facilities. The study was funded in part by FPL Energy, the operator of the facilities. At Mountaineer the research team calculated that as many as 1,980 bats had been killed in just six weeks, with as many as 660 at the smaller Meyersdale site. These high kill-rates appear to be typical of other sites, and could threaten entire species, as temperate-zone bats have only one or two, slow-developing offspring per year. After presentation of the study results and recommendations for further research, officials of FPL Energy abruptly withdrew their cooperation and support, and denied the scientific team further access to any FPL sites throughout the country. See the BCI report.
Many birds are equally at risk. The blades of large turbines appear to move slowly, but the blade tips reach speeds approaching 200 mph. Large, slow flying birds and raptors are especially at risk. The wind factory at Altamont Pass in California is infamous for causing the deaths of thousands of hawks eagles and owls every year due to its location on an important migration route. Various efforts to mitigate the mortality, including relocating some turbines and turn off all turbines during migration periods have all failed to reduce bird mortality. Wind developers will say that house cats kill more birds annual than wind turbines, but they fail to mention cats prey mostly on common urban species, whereas wind turbines can decimate nocturnally migrating flocks of warblers and other endangered species. Ask the wind developer when was the last time his cat brought home a red-tailed hawk?
