March 7, 2011 | 12:25 PM | By

Wind energy: the onshore-offshore connection

FILED UNDER: Mitigation, health, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy

Sean Corcoran has appeared on Climatide from time to time in his capacity as expert on all things Cape Wind (he’s been reporting on and blogging about the project for almost a decade). This week, Sean’s latest work is front-and-center. It’s an in-depth investigation of a controversy brewing here on Cape Cod – as well as elsewhere around the world – about health impacts that some claim are caused by noise from wind turbines on land. I assisted with the series by combing the scientific evidence (peer-reviewed and otherwise) on wind turbine noise and health. But my reason for featuring Sean’s series – The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble with One Town’s Turbine – goes beyond my involvement.

Offshore wind energy development – from Cape Wind to a federally-designated “area of interest” south of Martha’s Vineyard – have met with stiff opposition from fishermen who fear losing fishing grounds to energy development and from environmentalists concerned about industrializing the ocean. I’ve heard it argued that there’s plenty of space on land, so why develop the ocean?

But complaints from people living nearby wind turbines on land are raising a challenging question: how much room is enough room for a wind turbine? As Sean reports, complaints about health problems related to a town-owned wind turbine in Falmouth, MA have bolstered anti-wind sentiments and slowed the pace of land-based wind energy development on Cape Cod and around New England. And Falmouth is far from alone. The anti-wind backlash seems to be gaining momentum internationally.

There is no doubt that we need alternatives to fossil-fuel-powered energy generation. The vast majority of scientists are convinced that human use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. And then there’s the simple fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, at least on a human timescale; at the rate we’re using it, the oil will run out.

But does that mean we should embrace wind or solar or any other renewable energy source blindly? Or that it’s okay to trade the controversial claims of a relatively small number of people for the undeniable health risks of mining and burning fossil fuels? Obviously, these questions go beyond science; they are ethical dilemmas that need to be answered by society. But I would argue that the search for a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable energy system should be just that. And that begins by weighing – as thoroughly and fairly as possible – the costs and benefits of all options on the table.

  • Mark

    The question should not be about a trade-off between what Heather labels “controversial claims” of a relatively small number of people and the undeniable health risks of mining and burning fossil fuels. It has become glaringly clear, evidenced by world-wide reports and studies, that improperly sited industrial wind turbines have introduced undeniable health risks similarly to that of mining and buring fossil fuels. Yet, the infatuation for “going green” has levied societal injustices that only now have caused a few blinks to the otherwise blind eye.

    It is a sad state of affairs when federal, state, regional and local government embrace the wind as the savior-source for ne-newable energy – all the while being perfectly aware of the questionable consequence suffered in the Europe, where wind energy has long been established. The European wind experience should have been a guide. Instead, the European wind problems, resolutions, restrictions, setback histories, health and property impacts were ignored. The essence of the U.S. industrialization of wind – “Build these things and we’ll develop the resolutions, restrictions and setbacks if people complain.”

    The ethical dilemma that needs an answer is what happened to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? A cleaner, healthier and more sustainable energy system is a universally agreeable objective. NO ONE should suffer any harm, in any capasity, in it’s pusuit.

  • http://theflotsamdiaries.blogspot.com Harry

    One reason I’m so hopeful for the deepwater technology in the Gulf of Maine is that it completely resolves both the sightline issue and the potential issue of people’s health. With strong, steady, reliable, & predictable winds, it would be a real boon if the technology for floating turbines works. I understand that it too is not without consequences — there are concerns of interruptions of seabirds, whales, and even the planktonic stage of lobsters. But from what I understand, those are all being studied & mitigated. So, fingers crossed. Because we all know we need to do something.

  • solo_poke

    As a builder of wind turbines I can tell you everybody missed the point of wind and solar energy completely.

    The amount of energy and materials used to construct large energy projects and the transmision equipment and lines required is wasted when compared to small wind turbines and solar panels on peoples homes.

    This is the game being played by the big corporations which saw the loss of an entire revenue stream if people figured out how to supply their own energy.

    I hope people realize that the best way to stop these large scale projects, is to reduce and find the best solution to supply their own energy in their particular location. I have been off the grid with a home built electric car for 2 years, and each time energy prices rise I grin a little wider. My cost to date in materials is $15,000 out. My labor and knowledge did all the rest, instead of working for minimum wage.

  • NoFreeWind

    None of the claims about wind energy can be substantiated by experience. The energy produced cannot be scheduled and must be used whenever the wind is blowing. To make room on the power grid for wind energy, fossil fuel plants must be ramped up and down to balance the highly variable nature of wind. The inefficiency introduced by the ramping consumes as much fuel as wind advocates claim is save d by the wind.

    From an economic viewpoint, since none of the current power plants can be eliminated (all are needed for when there is no wind), Wind becomes an added cost to the overall system. We end up increasing the cost for nothing in return.

    This site id full of articles and studies that show this to be true:

    http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/wind-howlers-part-i/

  • Nrhuggins_1930

    I wonder how many birds they kill as they spin around—anyone know???

  • http://theflotsamdiaries.blogspot.com Harry

    According to the study of Mars Hill in Maine (http://www.downeast.com/magazine/2011/march/everything-wanted-about-power), 22 birds and 24 bats were killed by the turbines. They’ve apparently been mitigated so that birds don’t nest, but it does look like each major project can result in a few dozen flying-animal deaths.

  • Heather Goldstone

    Worth noting that Mars Hill is 28 turbines on a ridge. Falmouth’s Wind 1 is one turbine in a low area will small hills. Just to point out that extrapolating from one site to another is not straightforward.