Meet the Experts Carl Pope Lester Brown Kurt Yeager Jane Perkins David Freeman Lord John Browne William McDonough Paul Craig

Sierra Club Energy Forum Wayne Maceyka, W. Newton, MA: First, as someone who does not live near Michigan or Nebraska, it's difficult for me to accept the comments about the aesthetic effects of wind turbines. This appears to be another case of accepting less environmentally impactful sources of power only if they do not affect "me". Some folks call it NIMBY (Not In MY Backyard). While people have a right to defend their immediate surroundings from the encroachment of "eyesores," it's important to recognize the hidden costs of other technologies. Just because the "oil wells would have been hidden by the trees," as someone commented, does not mean it's a better solution. Why shouldn't we see what creates our power? As a society, we seem to prefer to hide the elements of our created environment that are unpleasant; landfills, prisons, scrapyards, manufacturing, etc. We don't want to see where our garbage goes, or where the meat is raised and killed for our use, or where the foreign laborers make our clothing. Accepting that wind turbines may not look perfect, but meet some of our energy needs, is one step toward moving forward. With regard to the comment about bird kills and windmills, I agree that they are an unfortunate side affect of some early wind farms. As the technology improves and moves forward, this will be reduced by more accurate siting and research. What I also believe is that the total environmental effects of various power generation methods have not been accurately catalogued and quantified. What about the fish that die from hydro-electric dams? How many animals perish from industrial processes related to oil, coal, and gas? What about the effects of nuclear in the long term? In Massachusetts, we are in the midst of a battle over what could be the largest wind turbine "farm" in the world. Cape Wind (www.capewind.org) has proposed a 170-tower offshore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod between Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island. In a recent NPR broadcast of "The Connection", Cape Wind's president James Gordon argued with Robert Kennedy, Jr., a representative of communities on the shores of Cape Cod, about the visual effects of the farm. Again, the argument (and comments from some callers) boiled down to the NIMBY effect. Social Inertia and fear of change is another factor that must be addressed. There will be initial resistance, but with effort and accurate studies, I hope a satisfactory decision will be made. Michael Melius Hermosa, SD: We greens complain that humans always adopt technologies without much forethought. If that happens with wind energy, the criticism will apply to us, too. Generating electricity with wind is cleaner, emissions-wise, than doing so with nukes and coal, but that doesn't make it green. Wind-driven power plants require an extensive land base with service roads--or water base, as coastal areas are also proposed for wind plants. Traditional "Big Energy" players are becoming heavily invested in wind energy. You'd think these facts would set off alarm bells -- that there'd be loud calls for a national policy-writing process, environmental reviews, and strict regulation. Instead, it's as if environmentalists are looking the other way, blessing the industry with their silence. Consider public lands. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are mandated to facilitate energy development on their lands. This includes wind. National Audubon has drafted a policy recommending that Forest Service lands be off-limits to wind-energy development. But is anyone actually trying to get that into law? What will protect these lands from wind power developers, especially if they're off on some plain, in Nevada or the Dakotas, say? Remoteness may protect many areas--places close to the grid will be developed first. But wind speed is also a prime consideration for wind developers, and public lands with wind, near the grid, might be awfully tempting. Will traditional environmental review processes be enough to prevent such developments? Proponents of wind-driven power plants need to face this question: how much land will you need? (And shoreline?) Where will you stop? Richard Boothe, San Luis Obispo, CA: In the Power Lunch forum, David Freeman stated that the problem with wind power is that it doesn't work on hot days, which he claimed were hot precisely because the wind was not blowing. That may be true locally, but it certainly isn't statewide - much less nationwide. On a given summer day in California, for example, when it's 100 degrees inland, there's a 15-20 m.p.h. trade wind blowing along the coast that could power enough wind turbines to cool inland homes. While I do agree with his contention that we should use windpower to create hydrogen - for use when the wind is not blowing, or for cars - I think it's necessary to look beyond state boundries and consider the amount of wind power that could be available for national distribution. Another factor we must consider, in respect to cooling homes and businesses, is the fact that current air-conditioning technology is absurdly out-of-date and too inneficient for hot climates; it should be replaced by absorption-cycle A.C. (used in both large buildings and old-fashioned natural gas-powered ice-boxes) - and powered with solar heat instead of fossil fuel. It would be simple and economical, in sunny climates, to integrate such cooling with solar H20 heating, as both could share a common collector and heat-exchanger. This would eliminate both the energy costs associated with A.C., and the use of fossil fuels to provide that energy. This solution would be especially appropriate for a place like Phoenix, which relies on highly polluting coal-burning power plants located in the Four Corners area to the north, which is spoiling air-quality there and producing acid-rain in the southern Rockies. It would also work throughout most of the southwest and Florida, and may be suitable for even hot overcast days in other areas, with proper design. Neville S. Long, Orinda, CA: The cover picture of Sierra's July/August energy issue would have been more accurate if you had shown several of the thousands of dead raptors and other birds that are killed each year by "so called" environmentally friendly wind farms. This is another example of unintended consequences. Isn't it time that you started to work for their elimination rather than encouraging the development of more?" Sierra Staff: It's true that early wind farms -- especially the large facility at Altamont Pass, California -- killed large numbers of birds. While the problem has not been eliminated, it has been greatly reduced. Key modifications have included siting turbines away from customary flight paths, designing the supporting structures so as to discourage nesting, and slowing rotor speeds so that birds can see them. Nevertheless, opponents of alternative energy such as the Cato Institute continue to attack windmills as bird killers, despite the fact that even the Audubon Society supports well-sited wind turbines. For further information, see "Do Windmills Eat Birds?" by David Case. Richard Weiss, St. Ignace, Michigan: After reading the August issue about alternate energy sources, I have come to the conclusion that your writers do not do a very thorough job looking at both sides of the issue. Last fall while driving down a narrow road in Nebraska I came upon over 100 wind turbines growing out of the vast prairie. I thought it was cool: cheap, free energy. Also, last fall the village of Mackinaw City, Michigan, decided to have placed inside the city limits two 265-foot towers with three-bladed windturbines atop. Now when you drive south on the Mackinac Bridge, what used to be a scenic view of trees behind the restored historic Fort Michilimackinac on the beautiful Straits of Mackinac now has these ugly huge wind turbines to ruin the view. This is tantamount to putting wind turbines onto El Capitan, Mount Rushmore or the rim of the Grand Canyon. At least oil wells would have been hidden by the trees. Just because it might save fossil fuels does not mean that wind turbines should be placed just anywhere. Choose another topic Energy Forum main | Make your own energy movie | More in Sierra magazine Up to Top