Introduction
Wind power generation in the United States has been growing for years. Growing from 34,863 MW in 2009 and 25,410 MW in 2008 wind power is only expected to grow in years to come. As of December 31, 2010, 40,180 MW of wind power have been installed across the United States.[1] In the words of Monique la Chappa, chairwoman of the Campo Kumeyaay Nation, the choice for using wind power is simple. “The truth is that the benefits of wind energy are numerous - and we must take a big-picture approach to environmental issues.”[2] An American Indian reservation, the Campo Kumeyaay Nation sees their role in building wind farms as an extension of the nation’s commitment to be “caretakers of the Earth”, we “know we have a responsibility to help protect the environment and our sacred resources.”[3] Ms. La Chappa does not seem concerned by criticisms mounted against similar wind farm projects across the country. Commonly referred to as NIMBY (not in my back yard), many renewable energy projects, specifically wind farms, have come under intense scrutiny by NIMBYism in recent years. While NIMBYism raises some valid concerns and can be a voice for one of the many stakeholders in such projects, it is important to remember that NIMBYism is a minority and in many cases is representative of the ignorant, self-serving and hypocritical individual or group that is more often associated with the problem than the solution.
Pros and Cons
Pros
As Ms. La Chappa stated, there are numerous benefits for the use of wind power. Perhaps the most obvious is wind powers benefits for the environment. As Mr. Robert Letovsky describes “unlike fossil fuel burning energy plants, wind farms do not generate any air or water emissions. Unlike nuclear power plants, wind farms do not produce hazardous waste.
Finally, in contrast to hydroelectric plants, wind farms do not require major impacts on rivers.”[5] The use of wind turbines over more conventional forms of energy creation cuts back pollutants in the air and water, and contributes to lowering, among other gases, CO2 which has been linked to global warming and climate change. For example, a conservative estimate for “a one-megawatt wind turbine generating about 3.1 million KW hours of electricity would eliminate 1, 500 tons of CO2 emissions if the turbine replaced a natural gas fired turbine.”[6] Another notable benefit for wind power production is the fact that “since wind is free, the cost of WGE [wind generated electricity] is stable and predictable, once installation costs have been accounted for.”[7] The abundant and free nature of wind is a powerful argument for the economic benefit of wind power. Additionally, as Dr. Linn Draper, Chief Executive of the largest utility in the United States noted at the American
Wind Energy Association’s 2003 annual meeting:
Any renewables added to our generation mix reduces some of the volatility in the overall cost of fuel for our power plants…We’ve seen natural gas prices rise from about $3/thousand cubic feet in late 2001 to as much as $9/thousand cubic feet this year. We like the idea that the cost of fuel for a wind turbine is totally predictable.[8]
Wind power is also competitive as measured against power produced through the burning of fossil fuels. When you factor in “installation costs, operations and maintenance costs, and cost of fuel, one WGE firm estimates electricity costs of between $0.05 and $0.10 per KW hour for wind, versus $0.06 -$0.08 for natural gas fired engines.”[9] Finally, there are also local economy and individual gains for wind power generation across the country. For example in Texas “a landowner can earn about $3,200 per turbine installed each year, with turbines placed every 25 acres.”[10] There are also tax benefits for local communities, for example, “a proposed 200 turbine farm in Grant County, Virginia is expected to pay over $500,000 per year in local taxes, making it the fifth largest taxpayer in the county.”[11]
Cons
While there are a plethora of benefits for wind power generation, there are also some cons. The most notable hindrance for wind power is that the wind is not always consistent. “Simply put, the wind on any given day cannot be too weak, since it will not turn the turbines. However, winds that are too strong can force a shutdown of the turbines to prevent possible toppling.”[12]
Another criticism levied against WGE is cost. Critics claim that “while wind turbines cost between $1,000 and $1,500 per KW to install, natural gas powered plants of equivalent scale cost between $400 and $650 per KW.”[13]
There is also an environmental negative of wind power generation. In areas with high levels of bird migration, “the rotary turbines have caused thousands of bird deaths.”[14] While bird deaths are certainly a concern that should be taken into consideration when assessing new locations for wind farms, thousands of bird deaths from wind farms is more of an anomaly than it is the rule. Indeed, an industry-funded study conducted in 2001 found that the “number of birds killed annually in the U.S. by wind turbines (between 10,000 and 14,000) paled in comparison to the number killed in collisions with cars (60 million), building windows (98 million) and satellite/radio towers (4 million).”[15]
Without a doubt, the biggest criticism leveled against the proliferation of wind farms around much of the developed world relates to aesthetics. Besides the visual impacts which may be caused by “road building and site clearance needed for wind farms, the turbines themselves represent what one critic called “visual pollution.”[16] The phenomenon of residents of an area where a wind turbine project is being proposed objecting to its proximity to their homes while simultaneously supporting the notion of renewable energy has acquired a moniker in the press: NIMBY (“not in my backyard”).[17] The NIMBY phenomenon is perhaps best explained through the words of Mr. Chancellor, an English citizen who lives three miles from a proposed wind project site. In an article he wrote for the Guardian, Mr. Chancellor details that despite the benefits of wind power production and England’s commitment to reduce its pollutions and help fight climate change, that, “the drawbacks of wind turbines are well known and should, we are told, be tolerated for the sake of the greater good. And it particularly behooves those of us who live near potential wind-farm sites to forsake nimbyism and set an example of self-sacrifice. But at this point I must reveal an interest and confess that self-sacrifice is not an option I plan to adopt”[18] Mr. Chancellor describes the ‘drawbacks’ that would prevent him from endorsing wind power in his ‘backyard’. According to Mr. Chancellor, the principal reasons for not developing wind power projects is that turbines are “enormous”, their effect on birds and bat populations, the sound from turbines frightens horses and prevents people from sleeping.[19]
In a 2002 survey of tourists in the Argyll region of Scotland, “91% said the presence of wind farms there would have no impact on their decision to revisit the area.”[20] About “one fifth of the respondents had actually seen one of the three wind farms in the region, and whereas 55% of these people felt that the wind farms contributed to a "generally or completely positive" perception of the region, only 8% said the turbines created a "negative" impression of the Argyll area.”[21] Additionally, while noise may have, at one point, been a concern for residents living near a wind farm, today’s wind farms, including the new Campo wind farm will be in compliance with all applicable noise regulations. In addition, “numerous studies have found no evidence of adverse health effects from sound emitted by wind turbines.”[22]
Case Study: Catamount Energy and the Glebe Mountain Wind Farm
Catamount Energy Corporation (CEC), a renewable energy company headquartered in Rutland, Vermont, made international news in 2004 when the CEC was seeking regulatory approval for the development of a twenty-seven turbine wind farm atop Glebe Mountain, in south-central Vermont.[23] Providing cost-competitive electricity in the United States and Europe for over 15 years, CEC determined that the Glebe Mountain project would deliver a considerable amount of “clean” energy and economic growth to the area. A number of local residents, however, actively opposed the project, fearing that it would “harm the area’s scenic beauty as well as threaten the state’s lucrative tourist trade.”[24] If approved, the 27 turbine, Glebe Mountain project would, generate capacity of “50 MW, or just under 10% of total demand in the state.”[25] The project would span “3.5 miles of ridgeline, with each of the turbines spaced approximately 500 feet apart. The land for the proposed project is privately owned by two individuals, both of whom reside outside the state.”[26] Proposing to lease between 2,000 and 3,000 acres, though the turbines themselves would only occupy about 100 acres, CEC chose Glebe Mountain because it would be the “ideal range for mountaintop turbine siting.”[27] The “$58 million spent on the project would include almost $15 million disbursed in Vermont, resulting in some $10 million in direct and indirect wages for Vermonters. Though construction would only take about twelve months, CEC forecast that the total development period for the project would last between two and three years, and create some 260 jobs. Finally, the company forecast that over the estimated 20 year life of the Glebe Mountain project, some $650,000 would be added to Vermont’s economy each year.”[28] Despite these benefits the NIMBY opponents of the Glebe Mountain project and led by former state legislator and former chairman of the Vermont House Natural Resources Committee Sam Lloyd, based its opposition to the project “on the aesthetic impact of the project. These concerns focused on the height of the proposed turbines, the probable FAA mandate for lighting the towers, and the potential impact of the development on wildlife habitats along the ridgeline.”[29]
Conclusion
As time went on and the cry from the small but vocal NIMBY minority in Vermont grew, the process began to breakdown more and more.[30] By June 2006, Catamount announced it was pulling the plug on the Glebe Mountain Wind Project. According to a statement by Catamount CEO James Moore, "Even though we think that the Glebe project would be good for the state, a majority of the local community was opposed to the project and Vermont's governor has stated that he opposes utility-scale wind projects."[31] It seems that Mr. Chancellor and other misguided individuals active in the NIMBY debate echo the sentiment of Mr. Chancellor when he said that “self-sacrifice is not an option I plan to adopt.”[32] This selfish and hypocritical stance against progressive solutions for positive change around the world is beyond reproach. It is this mind-set, from an ever shrinking minority, that stands against those actively looking to find solutions to complex and global problems. Mr. Chancellor and other NIMBY supporters are part of the problem. Progress is made through compromise, not absolute and narrow-minded self-interest.
[1] http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp[2] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/clean-renewable-wind-energy-benefits-all/[3] Ibid.[4] http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp[5] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 283.[6] Boucher, T. and Stoddard, T. (2003, October 12). Do you prefer wind or coal? The Burlington Free Press, p. A 12.[7] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 284.[8] Regulators vow that change is in the wind (2003 July). Power Engineering 107(7).[9] Northern Power Systems (2003). On site power systems deliver cost savings and emission reductions. Waitsfield, VT: Author.[10] Thaddeus, op cit. Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 285.[11] Ibid.[12] Ibid.[13] Ferguson, op cit.Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 286.[14] Ibid, page 287.[15] Tempest, Rone (2003, December 22). . Bird lovers blast wind farms. The Detroit News, p. 7A.[16] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 287.[17] Ibid, page 288.[18] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism[19] Ibid.[20] American Wind energy Association (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_environmental.html)[21] British Wind Energy Association (http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html)[22] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/clean-renewable-wind-energy-benefits-all/[23] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 277.[24] Ibid, page 277.[25] Ibid, page 293.[26] Glebe Mountain Group (2004). Wind turbines are not magic. [on-line]. Available http://www.glebemountaingroup.org[27] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 293.[28] Catamount Energy Corporation (2003). An open letter to the community. [on-line]. Available http://www.catenergy.com/glebe_mtn_documents.htm[29] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 294.[30] See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-keane/polls-antiwind-nimbys-are_b_819905.html “The poll, conducted by telephone by research company GfK NOP, found 66 percent of residents in support of the project and just 12 percent against.”[31] http://www.projectnoproject.com/2010/12/glebe-mountain-wind-energy-project-vt/[32] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism
