Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When it comes to wind turbines vs. landscapes, I'm confounded by "environmentalists" who I once assumed thought landscapes were integral to the environment. This also includes ocean vistas, of course. I have always enjoyed natural looking scenery, even with low-profile buildings or gray power lines that don't stand out in stark contrast or distract with movement (critical differences from wind turbines). Cities themselves can look good because their tall structures aren't randomly scattered over remote areas. Contextual aesthetics are what it comes down to. Wind turbines might look OK inside Chicago (the windy city) but they're rarely found where the power is used. Instead, we see massive energy sprawl in remote regions feeding a tainted product back to cities.
These days, I'm considered anti-green for thinking that way. We, who oppose gigantic towers looming over farmland and straddling miles of mountaintops, are suspected of being climate deniers or Trump voters. Why? I see all industrial projects as damaging but some stick out more than others. Because of their sheer visceral presence, I see wind turbines as the poster child for greenwashing.
Look at the photos below in the context of over 250,000 wind turbines already installed around the world and potentially 10X to 15X that number in aggressive future scenarios (I call those plans depressive in terms of significant lost scenery). These are just two samples of what's in progress or has already occurred around the planet. The damage is ongoing, though subsidies have declined and protests have ramped up as space runs out to hide them from the public.
Why is it so easy for a certain type of "environmentalist" to ignore colossal machines (some over 600 feet tall) invading the countryside over many objections? Even if they lived up to their full rated power output and put a significant dent in coal-generated electricity, why is it OK to industrialize millions of acres of views from countless vantage points? This is new, growing blight, so avoid comparing it to coal mines or oil drilling. See the definition of cumulative (destruction) if you are tempted to talk about coal mining, which we already know about. Wind power is the tallest physical mass being added to rural areas amid iconic scenery that would have remained untouched by standard development.
Imagine if vandals ran through the world's art museums painting wind turbines (slash, slash, slash!) on famous landscape paintings. Would people claim that the paintings looked "beautiful" or somehow better afterward? I seriously doubt it. I'm looking for detailed answers on why so many wind advocates show little concern for this giant wave of industrialized scenery. Please avoid industry platitudes or changing the subject to economics or carbon as the "only" environmental problem.
Before/after simulation near Searchlight, Nevada that mirrors many real projects (source).
Before/after (via editing to remove turbines) of a wind project in Germany (source w/added caption).
As wind turbines multiply, more flying creatures will die as well (and excuses will be harder to make) but this post is about the visuals.
How, exactly, are wind turbines any different than any other human built structure? Humans have been "defacing" the scenery for tens of thousands of years with houses, cities, forts, lighthouses, factories, farmsteads, silos, open pit mines, highways, castles, harbor facilities, airports, etc.
On a scale of 0 to 10 of causing harm to the environment while producing something useful, with 10 being most harmful, wind turbines are probably not even a 1. Maybe a .5. Ever seen a working open pit mine? Smelled a wood pulp mill? There are much more serious environmental problems that need much more attention than that a view you liked has been changed somewhat by some wind turbines.
Of course, we could all go back to being illiterate hunter/gatherers wearing animal skins and living in caves or dugouts or maybe tents so that the earth can be preserved as a museum ... except that if we returned to that level of "sustainability", we wouldn't have the time, energy or sensibility to appreciate the scenery. We'd also have to kill off about 90% or more of the current human population ...
Wind turbines in Vermont are destroying important high elevation habitat in areas that have previously escaped any development due to remoteness and steepness. The mountains have been blasted on top to create level areas for the turbines and the equivalent of a highway is put up as a service road. It's as destructive as mountaintop removal coal mining and the wildlife (including several endangered species) is suffering from it. The noise is horrible to live next to at times. There's nothing green about it. It's done to collect subsidies and grants.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
I consider the threat to often endangered species such as eagles to be a worse environmental issue than the visual pollution. Looking at your first picture, a location with brown grass on rolling hills is where they belong, I don't find that at all appealing even without the turbines, compared to the second location with the forests. Another example is in Livermore, California, where 800 turbines are located next to a major freeway which in itself is an eyesore. With thousands of birds killed by them, they eventually shut down operations in late 2015.
Nice thing with Aluminum and Steel used in Wind Generation -- they are all sort of "self-recycling" at the end of the their service life -- except for the underground portion / concrete foundation.
The salvage value of the materials is generally more than the collection costs -- so folks will be glad to take them down and ship them off.
And since "Gravity Works," they come down easy.
Not so for Mine Sites and Nuke Power Plants. Many of those are endless, gawd awful clean-up sites.
Wind turbines in Vermont are destroying important high elevation habitat in areas that have previously escaped any development due to remoteness and steepness. The mountains have been blasted on top to create level areas for the turbines and the equivalent of a highway is put up as a service road. It's as destructive as mountaintop removal coal mining and the wildlife (including several endangered species) is suffering from it. The noise is horrible to live next to at times. There's nothing green about it. It's done to collect subsidies and grants.
Let me guess. Somebody doesn't like Bernie Sanders.
There's no way around the problem of meeting demands for energy while trying to prevent or minimize pollution to the extent possible. Something will have to be sacrificed, no matter what solution is chosen. I happen to find the cluster of turbines in the mountains outside Tehachapi, CA, beautiful when I drive past. But I'm very concerned about the harm to wildlife they can cause. For that reason, wind power is not something I could recommend to communities in developing countries with a clear conscience, which I have at times been in a position to do. Everything has trade-offs, and I don't know how to reconcile some of those. I wonder how Germany and Denmark, which have invested heavily in wind power, deal with that. Is the public there not aware of the problem?
I think people need to make adjustments to their standard of living to cut back on energy demand, but on the other hand, economic growth depends on increasing energy supplies, so the whole economic system would have to be rethought in order to address the complexity of issues involved.
I consider the threat to often endangered species such as eagles to be a worse environmental issue than the visual pollution. Looking at your first picture, a location with brown grass on rolling hills is where they belong, I don't find that at all appealing even without the turbines, compared to the second location with the forests. Another example is in Livermore, California, where 800 turbines are located next to a major freeway which in itself is an eyesore. With thousands of birds killed by them, they eventually shut down operations in late 2015.
Some of these locations look perfect for solar panels. They could intersperse them between the turbines, or something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
