New York Times Trashes Wind Power. Twice.
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 11.25.07
A wind farm on Panachaiko Mountain, overlooking the Gulf of Corinth near the city of Patras in Greece. Yannis Kolesidis for The New York Times
The New York Times publishes two stories in as many days trashing wind power with examples from Europe, where alternative energy sources are far more developed than North America. Both will provide excellent ammunition for those opposing wind farms in the area. Why this sudden interest in "the European experience?"
In the Travel section of all places, they write about coal-burning and very windy Greece, where the mayor of Serifos "imagined supersize wind towers looming over the island, destroying romantic vistas, their turbines chopping the quiet like a swarm of helicopters. The project is now stalled, and Ms. Synodinou doesn’t regret it. “No one would come here,” she said. “Our island would be destroyed.”
In the UK: “The eyes are constantly drawn to them,” said John Ferguson, a member of S.O.U.L. (or Save Our Unspoilt Landscape), a group opposing the nine-turbine Barmoor Wind Farm in the lush northeastern English county of Northumberland. ::Times
In an earlier article the Times looks at the situation in Sweden.
"Yet Sweden’s gleaming wind park is entering service at a time when wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors, who complain that the towers are a blot on the landscape, but from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power.
For starters, the wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines, which in Germany and other countries are strained and prone to breakdowns. " ::New York Times
TRADE WINDS Wind Farms, like this one in upstate New York, are operated by a unit of Energías de Portugal, and PPM Energy, owned by Iberdrola.
On November 7, the Times wrote about how foreign firms are buying up wind farms and wind development rights in the US. (which John wrote about earlier in TH)
"All the biggest players in wind power are focused on the United States. Earlier this year, Acciona acquired the wind farm development rights of EcoEnergy of Elgin, Ill., and Iberdrola bought CPV Wind Ventures of Silver Spring, Md. Iberdrola also added the wind development company PPM Energy of Portland, Ore., through its acquisition of a British company, ScottishPower, in April, and in 2006 it bought Community Energy of Radnor, Pa. BP, based in Britain, also added to its green portfolio in 2006, by buying two United States wind developers, Greenlight Energy and Orion Energy. Last month, the German company E.On bought the North American wind farms of Airtricity, of Dublin, Ireland, for $1.4 billion." ::New York Times
If Fox was trashing wind we would chalk it up to their usual politics and xenophobia. Doesn't sound the the Times.
Eventually the landscape is going to be ruined by smog anyway, so I don't understand SOUL's point. This "out of sight, out of mind" mentality is really getting old.
The population of the world is becoming more educated, so eventually eco-tourism is going to overtake conventional tourism. Maybe a few wind turbines won't be so ugly after all.
Entrenched interests are being actively threatened by foreign firms who have little history of donating to the political establishment. Time to turn up the mighty echo chamber volume.
Unfortunately, this does remind me of the Times in the run up to the Iraq war.
This also is a case of 'exception inferred to be the rule.' Lazy reporters, in this case, failed to point out which EU nations are making progress with renewable energy and how siting issues are being managed.
I would happily welcome one in my backyard. Even if I didn't directly benefit from it.
Likewise, the Wall Street Journal is baffled to discover that a Spanish wind company could be worth $40 billion! They say...but, but...that's MORE than ...Duke Energy!
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/11/20/show-me-the-money/
This NYT story is pushback funded by fossilfuel companies to drive down the competition. I hope Europe will drag this backward country of ours (even if kicking and screaming) out of the Oil Age.
I keep asking myself why people always bring up the same argument that wind towers are "blots on the beautiful scenery", yet take noisy, unsightly and polluting highways for granted as if they were a natural part of the scenery rather than an even worse blot themselves...
i agree with susank.....cars/roads are much more unsightly....and nasty than windturbines.....personally i think they are modern "sculptures" clean, modernist, sleek.....picture/imagine a coal fired energy plant on that landscape instead of the windturbines.....i think people would be saying "uh....can we have the windmills back...please"
td
Some of the article is true. The remote issues of some wind farms is an issue, and wind power reliability is an issue. Personally, I don't like any nay sayers during a time like now.
As far as the remote issue, this has always been and issue with Wind farms. If it was milling grain then you had to bring the grain to the mills. So maybe we just need to move some of the electricity hungry industry closer to wind farms.
I think its like alot of other new things. There will be people against it in the beginning, but after they are up for a while you really won't even notice them. Its just neophobia (is that the right word). Eventually enough people will realize their benefit that the windmills and other alt energy projects will go up regardless of the whining. just an opinion though.
Since when was the NYT the standard for any thought comparisons?
Sheesh, it's NYT this and that all over Treehugger. It gets pretty old quick.
I can't wait for the day that every home comes with a wind turbine and/or PV panel. I don't think anybody's proposing putting these in the middle of Yellowstone, but they are far less unsightly than a coal burning plant.
This is just yet another attempt to trash an entire movement because it's not a perfect solution... yet. They ignore all of the positives and focus on nothing but the negatives. With that kind of thinking, we'll be burning off the last bit of coal and then wondering, "What do we do now?"
I don't care for windmills; they are big, white and ugly. I guess I'm still wondering why we still aren't using oil.
You know, if we would just drill in ANWAR, the price of oil would drop drastically.
The size of ANWAR, compared to the rest of Alaska, is very small. Much of the land wouldn't be disturbed and the animal population in the area would move away from the site or sites.
It would be more realistic to take the money that we are wasting on a problem that's never going to be solved (if you can even call global warming a problem) and invest it in solutions to make petroleum cleaner and more efficient. Or perhaps, put the money back into the American economy and let the people decide what's better for them, rather than having everybody tell them that they need "green" this or "green" that.
The Black Forest was hauntingly pretty, Dresden's architecture was quite nice, and the Kölner Dom was not to be missed, but the most beautiful sight I saw while travelling around Germany this summer was a few miles inland from the Baltic Sea where doing a standing 360º I could see six dozen wind turbines.
Maybe it's because I'm in the younger generation, or maybe it's because of the three weeks I had just spent prior – in the smoggier parts of Italy where an unbearable heat wave left me sleeping every afternoon – but there's not a single thing about wind turbines I don't find beautiful.
The argument that they need to be placed far away from towns is true, but the same can be said for hydro, and it would be nice if the same was said for coal... give the smog a chance to dissipate.
A blight on the landscape? What about oil refineries, tar covered beaches, dead wildlife,petro poisons . We had a house in Ocean City when I was in high school to which we drove every summer from PA passing a series of oil refineries that smelled like pesticide and in which the surrounding land looked and reeked like part of hell .
I had nightmares that featured this place for years. My children reported no such effects from the windmills that were part of their experience in the SF bay or a few miles up the road where we live in Vermont.
Why aren't the houses on ridgelines considered a blight?
A large wind turbine is a physical embodiment of the large amount of energy we 'require'.
Because Oil & Coal are so energy dense, we can make the plants relatively small, albeit ugly, so there's less of a NIMBY problem. Unfortunately we now know the fossil fuel plants are a bigger problem, so the whole world should be saying NIMA - Not In My Atmosphere
NIMBYism. Why does Bobby Kennedy, Jr," the "environmentalist", get a pass for opposing the windfarm off the Massachusetts coast that now will not be built? Another opportunity lost and Mr. Kennedy gets to keep his green "street cred". Why are poor folks expected to spend hours of every day on buses to go to low paying jobs, but Al Gore gets a pass for flying by Lear Jet to environmental cocktail parties in Turkey because he buys carbon offsets and curly lightbulbs?
Why do people living in huts in India planting a few trees allow Bill Gates and John Edwards to sleep peacefully "green" in their monster houses? How can anyone accept that hypocrisy as the path to a better world?
It's nice that someone in the press ignores the wishful thinking about wind turbines and actually writes an accurate acount about the problems and drawbacks associated industrial wind energy development. Kudos to the NYT!
As far as posts to this forum suggesting that wind energy will somehow clear the air, reduce smog, help us kick our oil "habit" and prevent new conventional power plants from being built, you may want to do some research. These improvements/benefits are not going to happen even if tens of thousands of huge wind turbines are built.
Wonder if those who decry "NIMBYISM" realize that they are playing into the hands of developers and destroyers of our rural/natual landscape?
This is quite a surprise coming from the N Y Times, well on second thoughts its not, its just typical of the USA. I will give you all a little test.
Whats black, theres plenty of it, and the Americans just love it. No, wrong, its not chewing tobacco, its COAL.
They just love it to death, and it will kill them in the end.
So. NYT, stop this hitting at wind power, it is not and has never been an alternative to other forms of energy, its just that the Americans, well not all of them, only those who live out of the pockets of the big industries, THOSE who make the big decisions in Washington.
When a country like the USA gets over 70% of its energy from fossil fuels, and will continue to do so in the decades to come, then there is something wrong with the American morality.
I hope this has been a civil comment, it sure has been an intelligent one.
I have just read the article in the NYT regarding the Swedish windfarms. I really cant imagine who the neighbours are that are complaining, it sure isnt Denmark for a fact.
Yet again, Sweden does not need to build windparks to get energy. Due to the fact that the Nordic countries are all integrated with their energy production, the 4 countries are able to import and export energy just and when it is needed. You point out that nuclear plants are liable to break down, the same applies to coal powered plants as well, or had you forgot that.
It is hardly worth commenting on the policy of the USA regarding energy production, so whatever other countries come up with, the USA will always play them down, because the USA "knows best" and will continue to invest in coal and use coal as the main source of fuel for its energy production, whatever the cost.
Unfortunately this country does not have the same innovative leadership as Europe. But democracy is in place for a reason. If we want our leaders to institute an energy policy that looks to the future with renewable energy and steers away from the disastrous effects of coal, then the people need to band together to show that.
Think of all the other great social movements in this country. The civil rights movement, the women's movement, the end of the Vietnam war...all these were brought about by citizens who came together to demand action from their government.
Citizens Lead for Energy Action Now - CLEAN
Clean Power Now!
end mountaintop removal - 700mountains.org
I think it is most of YOU who have not done the research on these billion dollar (out of OUR country corporations) not NYT. Yes, lets ruin the environment to save it, and waste tax payers' money while we are at it. Let's "do something" even if it is WRONG.
I find it difficult to fathom that in hanging about on a site called treehugger the majority of you are buying into the wind industry hook line and sinker.
For starters if you follow the paper trail it leads to the wonderful employee loving business that used to be known as ENRON. Corporate behemoths like GE are poised to make bundles off these huge white elephants.
Referencing the advances in Denmark & other European countries lets me know none of you have bothered to peel back the layers of the onion. They'll make you cry too.
The oft quoted fact that Denmark generates 20% of its power with wind is a bit of a twisting of the facts. The reality is that 20% of the electricity generated in Denmark was generated by wind. This doesn't equate to consumption. In 2004 80% of that 20% was sent to Norway where it replaced hydroelectric power.
Note carefully that hydro emits no carbon. It is all about timing folks. Those big nasty coal fired plants don't simply get turned off while the wind blows. They sit in spinning reserve. Think of a small gas powered generator with the engine running and nothing plugged in, just waiting to run a skill saw or something. It is still burning fuel. Something has to be running to fill in the gap left when the wind dies. NO NET CARBON SAVINGS!
As wind power saturates a grid system it contributes to instability. In November of 2006 Europe experienced a massive power failure that was attributed in part to wind energy.
Please don't even refer to any reduction in oil consumption as a result of wind. Even if it were a reliable power source it'd do next to nil reducing our oil consumption. We generate very little electricity that way. Hit people where they listen on the matter of oil, right in the wallet. Big tax penalties for owning gas guzzling behemoths and incentives for fuel efficient econoboxes. Push the auto makers in the direction of fuel efficient autos. Don't even get me started on that petrochemical boondoggle known as gasahol soon to be E85. Watch your mpg fall flat on its face while the quantities of additives to protect your engines from the deletorious effects of alcohol go up. I'm having a rough time believing that burning greater volumes of blended fuels with greater quantities of additives is better for the environment than just burning a whole lot less of the 'other' stuff.
After looking over the matter for the last couple years (I was pro-wind at one time) I see this as dead end technology on a large scale basis. The only green thing about it is the money that it will place in the hands of those who don't need more than they already have.
Conservation is the way forward. All faux environmentalism directed only toward global warming is riddled with consequence. Power conserving fluorescent lighting puts more mercury in the environment. Just turn the lights off and unplug all solid state equipment when not in use. Get off the internet and read a book or go for a walk.
I suppose I'm just wasting my keystrokes as there's no money to be made by the energy industry from reduced consumption. Until then you just keep kidding yourself with the feel good notion that wind power is green. It lets you carry on merrily on your way feeling that in defending it you're caring for the environment.
Focusing on global warming is like missing the trees for the forest. In the meantime we'll just keep digging up coal and oil and choking on the fumes and non-biodegradable plastic products & packaging - business as usual.
Please, for the sake of the planet, don't just assume something that sounds good is green. In your quest for clean energy realise that all energy production has a price. This is certainly one area where (using) less (energy) really is more (green).
"Treegugger Trashes New York Times"
I suppose things like that do make good sensationalist titles. I was expecting Treehugger to have a link to some sort of very negative editorial about wind power based on the headline chosen. To me it seemed like the NYT articles were just pointing out the two sides of the story. They quoted people and their reasons for supporting wind as well as those that oppose wind. It's not as if they are making up the existence of people opposing wind... we know they exist because indeed they manage to block projects.
I'd say in this case it's Treehugger that needs to raise their standard of journalism.