North Carolina to Ban Mountaintop Wind?

By Kate Galbraith
TurbineReuters Some North Carolina politicians consider this type of thing an aesthetic blight — and want to ban it from the state’s peaks and ridgelines.

A furious battle over the aesthetics of wind energy has erupted in North Carolina, where lawmakers are weighing a bill that would bar giant turbines from the state’s scenic western ridgelines.

The big machines would “destroy our crown jewel,” said Martin Nesbitt, a state senator who supports the ban, according to a report in The Winston-Salem Journal.

As it currently stands, the bill would ban turbines more than 100 feet tall from the mountaintops. Residential-scale turbines (typically 50 to 120 feet high) could still go up, but the industrial-scale turbines that can produce 500 times as much power or more would be effectively ruled out. The legislation appeared likely to pass the state Senate last week, but got sent back to committee.

Such a ban would be virtually unprecedented, according to Brandon Blevins, the wind program coordinator for the the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and it would make roughly two-thirds of North Carolina’s land-based wind potential unavailable.

(The state is also starting to look offshore.)

“I know of no other state that has so uniformly banned wind,” he said. State lawmakers, Mr. Blevins noted, voted not long ago to enact a renewable portfolio standard requiring North Carolina to get 12.5 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and efficiency measures by 2021. “Now they’re stripping away some of the most cost-effective options for their utilities” to achieve those targets, he said.

Christine Real de Azua, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association, said that while some counties around the country have enacted height bans, the association is unaware of similar bans “covering large areas.”

“The main objection seems to be appearance, and the reality is that many people find wind turbines elegant and a symbol of a clean energy future, and that wind turbines often become a tourist attraction,” she said in an e-mail message.

The North Carolina bill has roots in a 1983 law that barred most structures taller than 40 feet along the state’s ridgelines — though exceptions were made for communications towers and windmills, Mr. Blevins said.

An early version of the current bill, supported by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, would have kept big turbines away from the Appalachian Trail and other landmarks, but granted local governments the authority to allow them in other areas.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

The Author July 22, 2009 · 10:41 am

Living in the South my whole; I’m used to seeing counterintuitive rationale and legislation. Guess it’s better to save the look of some mountains, which in my opinion wouldn’t be diminished by wind turbines, than it is to contribute to saving an entire planet. Too bad the majority of the country keeps electing idiots to make decisions for us.

///www.sincerelysustainable.com

ZR July 22, 2009 · 10:53 am

This issue raises a good point – even though wind energy is “clean” is must be done properly to avoid other adverse environmental impacts. Wind turbines harm bird and bat populations (particularly when on ridgelines where birds migrate at night), lead to the fragmentation of the forest canopy which also harms birds and other wildlife, leads to the building of roads and transmission lines through otherwise intact ecosystems, and may destroy or injure the wilderness aesthetic of the few mostly “wild” places we have left.

In short, while I support wind, we shouldn’t destroy large swaths of the environment which wind turbines are supposedly out to save.

Blake Southwood July 22, 2009 · 10:53 am

And some how nuclear reactors and coal mines are beautiful?

Victor Sanger July 22, 2009 · 11:01 am

“You pays your money and you makes your choice.”

We have to find a way to generate the energy that we so prodigiously consume.

Josh Indiana July 22, 2009 · 11:04 am

I just got back from the Smoky Mountains; please don’t despoil the most beautiful place on earth.

I took a friend from Amsterdam there to show him the best of America.

Put your wind turbines in Indiana instead; there are 600 of them starting two miles from my house. We already sell to Duke Energy, and by the end of 2009 Indiana will be the leading wind energy producer in the U.S.

We don’t get tourists, though; what a joke.

Robbie Adler July 22, 2009 · 11:05 am

It is sad to me that a state in our country is close to passing the banning of wind turbines on ridge lines, while just to the north whole mountains are being lopped off through the horrendous act of mountaintop removal without a peep from all too many politicians. If you really cared about ridge lines you’d use your energy to fight mountain top removal. This is simply NIMBYism at its worst.

//www.ilovemountains.org/

Charlie July 22, 2009 · 11:08 am

Doesnt the real powerful wind blow through the valley?

Andrew Smith July 22, 2009 · 11:08 am

According to this:

//tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NC

North Carolina has very high electricity consumption. They get 3/5ths from coal, of which they have none. They get it from West Virginia and Kentucky, where entire landscapes are being permanently destroyed through “mountain top removal” mining methods. That seems pretty selfish of them not to allow a few windmills in their own backyard while they are destroying their neighbors’.

Andy July 22, 2009 · 11:13 am

Robbie’s right on . . . what an embarrassing juxtaposition of moral failures.

Gyorgyi Voros July 22, 2009 · 11:13 am

Putting aside the aesthetics of wind turbines, there is something to be said for making the actual implications of energy use plainly visible for all to see. The devastations of fossil fuel acquisition and processing are hidden from the eyes of those who find, say, strip mining and black smoke plumes distasteful and can afford to live well away from those offenses, but who also want unlimited quantities of electricity and gas at their disposal. If turbines are ruining your view, start conserving! As it stands now, drills, mines, refineries and power plants-arguably far uglier than turbines–interfere not only with the viewshed but with human and ecological health. Out of sight means out of mind–a luxury we can’t afford any longer.

Common sense July 22, 2009 · 11:33 am

Not putting wind turbines on mountain tops because they break the natural line is like not putting a boat in the water because it will break the glassy surface. If you want to cross the lake, you’ve got to dip your oar in. If you want the environmental benefits of wind power, you have to site turbines where the wind is. No power source has zero impact on the environment.

Alex M. Pruteanu July 22, 2009 · 11:43 am

Constantly amazed at the bunch of yahoos undermining efforts to extricate ourselves from 19th Century mentality…especially in light of the proven environmental damage we’ve caused in the last 100 years.

//swine.wordpress.com

austin abd July 22, 2009 · 11:49 am

I understand the point that WVa mtns shouldn’t be sacrificed to preserve NC mtns.

I diverge at this point – if the sensibility that is behind this legislation had been employed when we began ravaging the coal producing states we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in and we wouldn’t have destroyed huge swaths of nature.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” applies here. What has been lost in the coal producing states cananot be restored, even with our most dilligent efforts, and the effects going forward can only be reduced, not eliminated.

Let’s not do to our mtns and shorelines, and all their inhabitants, what we’ve alrady done to WVa, KY and the other places from which we mine coal. Even in the far reaches of the trans-Pecos the miles of turbines are a blight on the Davis Mtns and endangering species whose predators, for the first time, have excellent perches.

Oh, and not entirely nuetral on the beuaty of the Smokey Mtns and Outer Banks. Go Heels!

Divya Mush July 22, 2009 · 12:07 pm

Wind turbines are not as benign as their supporters lead us to believe. Listen to the people in Mars Hill, Maine who live near a wind turbine installation and ask them about the changes it has brought to their lives. This is just one more instance where the urban and suburban dwellers who consume the bulk of the electricity in this country think it’s OK to pull a resource from an area they will never visit with little or no regard for the inhabitants of those areas.

Bill July 22, 2009 · 12:08 pm

Oh yes, much better to allow acid rain to simply poison ALL the forests than to allow sleek wind turbines to impinge on the views of a few wealthy property owners.

This is like the old excuse used to avoid wearing seat belts, “… because it’ll wrinkle my clothes.”

The highway department in Virginia, for example, won’t install reflective lane divider rumble strips because they disturb horses riding in trailers. Now, America suffers over 40,000 highway deaths EVERY YEAR. And these rumble strips are a proven and cost-effective safety measure, but rather than have a few dozen horses spooked, we allow hundreds to die.

This country is full of IDIOTS who can’t handle the TRUTH.

Str8-Razr July 22, 2009 · 12:12 pm

According to the DOE wind resource map //www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap.pdf there are only a handful of places in NC where these windmills are economically justifiable. It seems a complete waste of resources to try and plant them in the few useful spots in the east when there are vast regions of the midwest where they could be concentrated. Putting them willy-nilly all over the US wastes a lot of resources because you can’t ship these things everywhere; they are enormous.

Mitch Diamond July 22, 2009 · 12:21 pm

Please remember that industrial size wind turbines also require long and high industrial size high-voltage powerlines to connect them to customers. These 150-200 foot tall lines will cross hundreds of miles of pristine countryside and ruin landscapes over a huge area. Further, utility companies cannot afford to build these lines just for wind power, so they design these long, ugly and expensive lines to also connect big new coal plants to urban areas, increasing pollution and visual blight. Finally, mountaintop wind is not reliable and has to be backed up – so it is more costly than you think. There is far more power available from offshore wind, it is less costly and it is far more reliable as well.

Rob July 22, 2009 · 12:24 pm

“It seems a complete waste of resources to try and plant them in the few useful spots in the east when there are vast regions of the midwest where they could be concentrated.”

Isn’t that a business decision that any interested wind-power utility could make for themselves?

If there is a place for “only” 50 somewhere near a major transmission line, that’s 50 more turbines than you would’ve had, making a profit for somebody. No one will build them at a loss.

Thomas Zoline July 22, 2009 · 12:26 pm

The North Carolinians and really anybody considering wind generated power would be wise to consider the lessons learned by the people of Samso island off the coast of Denmark.

Chris H. July 22, 2009 · 12:29 pm

I have a feeling that this same debate will spring up here in the Kansas Flint Hills

You can’t find a day w/o wind in the hills and conversely, you’d be hard pressed to find such a beautiful & undisturbed place elsewhere in the U.S.

On the bright side, this is a great problem to have. Both sides have a common interest in protecting nature, they just have to find a suitable compromise.

From Lawrence, KS…

Marcie July 22, 2009 · 12:44 pm

I got this email from NC Sen. Ellie Kinnaird on 07JUL2009:

Thank you for contacting me about SB 1068, concerning windmill construction in North Carolina. The bill was heard in the Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources committee today, and all parts pertaining to the mountains have been taken out of the bill. The bill will now only apply to the coast. If you would like to look at the bill, the new version should be online tomorrow on the General Assembly’s website //www.ncleg.net Sincerely, Ellie Kinnaird

Is this article about NC Senate Bill 1068???

Ken Kreider July 22, 2009 · 12:48 pm

The decision to ban from ridgelines makes sense and is an appropriate local decision. However, with its growth, NC and the mid atlantic region need more power, soon. Ditto California.

The general public needs to get over its irrational fear of nuclear power and we need to start building reactors everywhere. With current technology, the waste is much more condensed than the reactors of 30 years ago. And, to get it done faster and with less flak from the NIMBY’s, the Obama administration should offer decommisioned military bases as plant sites. Calfiornia has plenty of those.

stop killing wilderness! July 22, 2009 · 1:26 pm

“Now they’re stripping away some of the most cost-effective options for their utilities” to achieve those targets, he said….

Nail on the head. As long as we devote our entire energy and environmental policies towards enriching Big Energy, we will continue to have environmental annihilation like the dynamite, steel, huge SF6 spewing powerlines and 33 cement trucks for each turbine.

Meanwhile, the baking sprawl of the built environment goes without solar panels because they would enrich property owners instead of Big Energy. Where are our loans? Where are our feed in tariffs? Why can’t WE get ANYTHING we need to produce our own clean power, and leave the utility profiteers out of this?

Please, the sun shines far more often than the wind in a specific location blows. The enormous, hideous Industrial Wind Developments near Palm Springs produce only 16% of their rated capacity on a yearly basis, yet they keep getting to build more. The sun shines 350+ days a year for 6-10 hours but there are almost no rooftop solar systems out there because there are no programs helping people amortize their costs. This is what’s known as a BOONDOGGLE.

Please, stop looking at what is good for Big Energy and start looking at what is good for US and for the PLANET. The built environment should be where 100% of our first-tier solutions should be located – massive efficiency gains and PV on every sunny roof will knock out 75% of our electricity usage. The rest can be backup gas until better storage solutions come online. Sure, that will change utilities to load-balancing services instead of generation monopolies, but that’s better for us!

James July 22, 2009 · 1:39 pm

So you build windmills to save the environment, but those windmills destroy the same environment they’re supposed to preserve. And likewise with the plan of paving over tens of thousands of square miles of southwestern wild lands for utility-scale power plants.

How about putting some of this stuff in your own back yards? Solar panels will go on your roofs, and save building thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines. And while nuclear plants may not be exactly beautiful, they’re no uglier than any other large building, and can be build on a small site. Surely you New Yorkers can find a good site for one somewhere in Manhattan?

Ric Merritt July 22, 2009 · 1:49 pm

This is nuts. Surely there is a reasonable compromise that preserves more of the things we value with some balance. (The truculent crib-banging of the inadequately identified “James” in #24 does not qualify as reasonable compromise while trying to preserve values either.)