Morning Read: Is it possible to silence a wind farm?
One of the big debates over wind farms and their development in small North Country towns is noise. Now the St. Lawrence county community of Morristown is considering strict new standards for limiting turbine noise.
This from the Watertown Daily Times:
The town’s proposed wind energy law, which has a more stringent set of guidelines for proposed turbines than other towns in the area, was presented before the St. Lawrence Planning Board last week. The board recommended approval of the plan pending certain adjustments.
“We want to have this project go,” board member Thomas L. Jenison said. “It is a big step in the right direction.”
The law would require that turbines be no louder than 45 decibels. 50 decibels is the standard for town laws.
Meanwhile, the WDT is reporting that BP Wind Energy is still considering a big wind farm in Cape Vincent, but may make some significant changes first.
[O]ther, newer turbine models could work better than the proposed GE 1.6-megawatt turbines. A change in model would require updates to the supplemental environmental impact statement…which could take some time.
So what do you think? Are North Country towns taking the right steps to insure that wind farms are appropriately sized and quiet enough so that qualify of life is protected? Comments welcome below.
Tags: energy, environment
.jpg)
“So what do you think?”
I think wind turbines are a lousy idea. They are ugly monoliths to begin with, destroying the pristine beauty of the environment they are supposed to preserve.
Noise pollution.
Pretty soon, battery chemicals will begin to leach into the ground water.
Then, as they begin to require more regular maintenance, a fleet of gasoline powered trucks will be 24/7 running around to service them.
The turbines themselves are manufactured out of petroleum products, and the manufacturing plants are powered by coal fired electrical power plants.
The green movement may want to rethink this endeavor.
I’m also afraid of them learning to turning into deadly robots and gaining the power to walk, perhaps even fly, and wreaking havoc on the land. I mean, look at the things: They’re pretty much Decepticons. I’m with JDM: The environmentalists really ought to rethink this.
I can agree with JDM. The turbines should be painted sky blue or otherwise camoflaged. Seriously I dislike that way they dwarf the landscape making what was once a scenic mountain range seem small. I’ve seen them in Pennsylvania and have many within view on the Tug Hill. With a power plant is is one location but wind turbines, and eventually solar farms they blot the landscape.
But to the point of the town making tighter regulations, I agree with the intent although the hodge-podge of regulations makes progress difficult on a subject that affects so many.
We now have experience with strip mining and nuclear power plants and have more knowledge about long term impacts of our actions. It is good we are learning something from experience. So we extrapolate those concerns to new situations. I’m glad the town is thinking. And I am glad that someone is thinking far enough ahead to re-direct a project mid-stream when something better can be done despite the need for re-evaluation.
This is the problem I’ve noted with every answer to every problem- there’s a group or series of groups or an entire industry dedicated to squashing the idea. Wind farms are using a limitless, clean, power source but they develop noise and vibration and they “blot the landscape”. Solar farms in the barren desert would also be a blot on the landscape and might cool the desert a bit. Geo thermal, hydro, wave gens, biomass, etc. all have a system of opponents pre-positioned to fight ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. God knows all of us hicks burning wood are practically axe murdering baby seal killers, thank goodness DEC is moving yo outlaw anything related to solid fuels! If you grow your own bio-fuels using draft animal power and organic growing systems then you are still wrong because you’re going to burn the fuel, you’re abusing the poor horses and you aren’t contributing to the betterment of the collective by paying fuel taxes! That’s only a slight exaggeration.
Maybe someone on the left, some bright, intelligent, enlightened individual can explain to me how we’re ever going to get anywhere if the same people screaming for answers fight the answers we’re offered?
Bret has nailed it. No matter what energy production method is proposed it will be opposed by one group or another. Perhaps harnessing cow flatulence would be a universally acceptable energy solution. That energy is now blamed in part for global warming. If we can harness and consume it in energy production we will have eliminated a warming source in the process. In the meantime I’m going to patent a “cow muffler”. I do expect opposition from the SPCA though.
“No matter what energy production method is proposed it will be opposed by one group or another.”
And the one that we’re currently pursuing (wind power) happens to be the one NOT opposed by the left.
I read an interesting article that says all power comes from either the sun (photosynthesis turned into fossil fuel, solar power, and the power to drive the wind) or the earth (nuclear).
No matter how you slice it, in order to propel yourself from point A to point B using any type of energy at any speed, the power will either come from the sun, or the earth.
Therefore, the energy used to make the wind turbine simply displaces the energy burned directly in an engine. Same amount of energy from one of the two sources will be used, either way.
One way to get around a lot of these disputes is to get serious about conservation. The cheapest, least controversial energy is the energy we DON’T consume. North Americans use 2-3 times as much energy as Europeans for the same high standard of living, and not all of the difference is for our cars. Reducing home energy use, etc. We should be matching new energy projects–wind or off shore drilling with conservation measures such as the 55 mph speed limit.
As for the wind projects, towns should get tough and ask, “what’s in it for us”. instead of letting it rip their communities apart. Negotiate securing power for local economic development, get the company to go with smaller towers etc. The profits for the company may not be as great, but its would be better the project dying.
Thinking conservationists don’t worry about noise alone. No sir. The very footprint of wind farms means fragmenting and destroying wildlife habitat, especially that needed by forest-interior songbirds like the Wood Thrush, Hermit Thrush, White-throated Sparrow and dozens and dozens of other songbird species, for which the Adirondack Park is well known among naturalists and birders.
“the energy used to _make_ the wind turbine simply displaces the energy burned directly in an engine.” (emphasis added)
Sure, but once it’s made, it can capture far more energy from the wind than it took to make it. You’re trying to make it out to be a zero-sum game. It isn’t.
And Bret, one thing I think no one is against is improving efficiency and reducing waste. It’s wasteful to heat and cool a bigger house than you need, and yet clearly people are building 10,000 square foot houses just to show the world how rich they are– we need to make that unfashionable.
And is anyone really complaining about solar farms in the desert? I haven’t come across that. In any case, there’s all that roof space going to waste, as well as asphalt– maybe you’ve heard the suggestion to replace our highways with surfaces that generate power?
There ARE solutions out there– we just have to find them and resolve to put them into practice. And stop pretending that the problem is unsolvable. Otherwise, we’d better stop having children in a big hurry.
I can see in an area as flush and wealthy as the North Country with full employment that we would really work to stop any new industry like wind power.
dbw hits the nail on the head. Regardless of climate change we need to start to start consuming less energy. Twenty five percent of electricity goes towards lighting our country. Using more energy efficient light bulbs can put a huge dent in our power requirements. Maybe we could stop whining that our freedom is being taken away because the “Edison” light bulbs are going the way of the Stanley Steamer.
Mervel! With teh snark!
As with any new invention there will be some room for improvement, but we would be foolish to stop these developments with over-rigorous regulations. Remember, we’re not comparing wind towers to pine trees. We need to compare wind towers to exploding oil rigs in the Gulf, toxic gas fields in Texas, and mountaintop removal in Ohio. Oh, and perhaps to wars in the Middle East. How many have died to keep our oil supply safe and cheap?
Now locally, in Parishville, I’ve heard of an effort to require a 1500 ft. clearance around any residence. This sounds like a nice safe compromise, but even this could backfire on those with smaller properties. If only the already well-off have space to put up a few towers, and make a buck, then we have not truly helped the community as a whole. Regulations need reasons…and flexibility.
Indeed oa,
But you know I think jobs are a moral issue people have a right to be employed in honest work to support their families. When I see people whining about noise and the view for their river “home” at the expense of people without jobs I have a problem with that.
The key thing to keep in mind is that wind power is an ineffective power generation solution. It is simply too intermittent to feed the power grid in a reliable and consistent way.
All the data shows that we would have to buils wind farms pretty much everywhere, all connebted by thousands of miles of new transmission lines, in order to displace any significant percentage of fossil fuel generation. The cost would be stratospheric.
So why are we prepared to pursue wind power when it has such a huge adverse visual impact, kills birds, lowers property values in the immediate area, and results in very little job creation — and imposes constant noise on those living near the wind farm?
Build wind farms in west Texas or North Dakota if we must — but not here. They simply don’t fit the more closely set community patterns of the smaller eastern states.
Alan, we’re not talking about wind farms in the park. That’s a completely dead issue, not even worth discussion, end of story,
Walker- yes, someone was complaining about the micro climate solar farms would create. My memory says it was Nancy Pelosi I first heard putting the idea out, but my rememberer doens’t work 100%. It was the mega rich elites complaining about the idea of wind farms off Nantucket and Martha Vineyard and of tidal gens elsewhere.
Yeah, I agree on the 10K sf homes, but how do you convince someone
that they shouldn’t have what they can afford and want? Should we pass more laws limiting our rights to the pursuit of happiness? Hey, cooling isn’t an issue in my 1880s farmhouse, but from where do I get the right to tell someone else they need to sweat? Where is the proper balance point?
I also agree on cutting waste and being efficient. But some of the supposed efficiency is a joke. We went to all CFL lights. Zero difference in power usage, the best idea is to turn them off! And I won’t get mercury poisoning from Mr Edisons idea. And as far as efficiency goes, we have the opportunity to build much lighter, more efficient cars. Thing is you need to do away with a lot of junk like air bags, air conditioning, big fat soft tires, multiple electronic controls to monitor seat temps and CD line up. We could produce light commuter vehicles with highly efficient diesels. But as soon as you mention any of the above the Naderites who still think Chevy wants to build the Corvair and the anti diesel/pro airbag/anti skinny hard tire groups will fight it tooth and nail.
I’m not disagreeing with anyone really, I’m just frustrated that for every answer there’s a PAC or institute or activist coalition dedicated to fighting the offered answers. To me it makes sense for rural people across the northern tier to use solid fuels, for those in the southwest to use solar, for those around Yellowstone to use geothermal, for those on rivers to use hydro. Blanket the urban rooftops with solar collectors and mini wind, grow algae and biomass where practical. Give us efficient, affordable alternatives.
The answers are there, why can’t we use them?
I would like to see large scale hydro-fracking for natural gas up here; which is a better job creator than wind farms. Maybe that is less damaging than wind farms?
Energy production is a productive successful industry in the US and it is growing, North Dakota can’t build enough housing fast enough for all of the work they have due to the giant finds up there.
I question that for all of our talk we want new business up here at all, I think many people are just fine with the rates of unemployment and poverty we have right now, which is only going to get worse as the public sector starts to shut down.
This is not just an environmental nimby issue, it is a moral issue about opportunity and jobs.
I part ways with you here, Mervel. Hydrofracking has already proven to be really damaging to water supplies. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)This literally is, to borrow from an earlier discussion, peeing in your own well. This is not the same as a few birds getting whacked, or noise complaints. This is your own drinking water.
Anyways, I don’t think there’s much frackable gas in the North Country. Thankfully.
Hydrofracking??!! Go look at the pictures from those mid-south-western states. They’ve already laid waste to more land than Chernobyl.
I worked with an old man when I was young, and one of the things he used to say was, “If that was a good idea, I’d a thought of it fifty years ago.” He was a crochety old cuss, but he knew bull when he saw it.
Hydrofracking isn’t a new idea, and it isn’t a good idea. It’s just the next idea after exhausting some of our better ideas. It’s desperate, end-of-the-world, technology, driven by people who value the buck over the future.
about hydrofracking: http://youtu.be/V8d_lzo_8Ow
Coal then? Methane capture at large concentration feed lots? (which was proposed in SLC and of course opposed).
It’s one thing after another with you guys, no wind, no oil, no gas, no nuclear, no new business at all really. We have to make tradeoffs there is no free lunch everything is a tradeoff. Maybe we will decide that we would rather have more poverty and more unemployment than develop our energy resources that may be the tradeoff we are willing to make, I am not there yet I would accept marginally more pollution for less unemployment. The question is what is the tradeoff and what we will accept.
You guys?
Mervel, I just told you I was with you all the way on wind. I’m fine with gas that doesn’t pee in my well. There is no more cheap oil, so that’s not really up for discussion. Germany and Massachusetts produced a whole lot of solar. And they’re pretty far north. I’m even fine with looking at some of the new nuke technology.
But as has been said upthread, conservation is the quickest and best of all the admittedly partial solutions. Hydrofracking is one of the worst.
C’mon, Merv!
Ok right, you guys is a bad phrase to use in general.
But all solutions have costs associated with them. I am just surprised at the opposition to wind power and I realize that you are with me on that point. It would seem we could make great use of wind along with many other technologies to solve this riddle. But if we oppose every thing nothing will be solved.
I am interested in large scale conservation, how do you make it work what does it look like?
Thanks, Mervel. To answer your question…
Higher mileage per vehicle standards, for one, like we did in the 70s. Lower speed limits, for another, like we did in the 70s. Change the zoning laws to allow for more density and multi-use development or redevelopment (shopping a non-driveable distance from housing, for instance), and thus more walkability, giving people the option of not owning cars. Change behavior of terrified parents and encourage “walking school buses” so kids in small cities and towns walk to school, like they did in the olden days (30 years ago). More money for passenger rail. I’d rather take a train than drive through snow to Albany and NYC. All of those things would save on transportation fuel.
On top of that, incentives to replace leaky old windows and insulate homes better would save a ton on heating fuel costs.
None of these things are new, and none rely on a lone technological magic bullet. They’re all tried and true. We already know what they look like because we’ve done them before.
i’m hesitant to say this since i haven’t done much to educate myself about the issue, but from what i know, i really do think that wind is a lot better than most/all of the alternatives that have come up in this thread. i don’t think windmills should be sited in particularly scenic places (like in the thousand islands), but aside from that i think the nimbys should just suck it up. for example, i think the windmills on tug hill in lewis county have been a great success.
Therein lays the issue HT, define “particularly scenic”! I think open farmland is particularly scenic, others find the Cascades or the Thousand Islands particularly scenic. So all the groups battle anyone putting towers up anywhere. Same thing for hydro. I think dams are really cool, I like the ponds and small lakes created by small hydro setups. Other people find any type of dam to be a blight on the landscape. Put a wind tower up in you backyard in the right place and you’ll have the APA/zoning board/planning board on your back, not to mention the neighbors that suddenly blame their headaches and male pattern baldness on your wind tower. God help you if you have livestock and a methane digester! And if you are one of those cretins that, (gag!), burns wood……well, get the nails ready and stand by for crucifixion!
It’s sad really. We fight every possible answer, and I’m as guilty as the next guy I suppose because when I hear people talk about using public funding to offset costs for homeowners or to encourage retrofitting a business for conservation purposes I get the heebie-jeebies.
Got me man, we really are our own worst enemy.