Social Friction: Who Decides What is Beautiful?

By Stephen Lacey, Podcast Editor
February 11, 2010 | 17 Comments

Do you like this podcast?

Bookmark

Feed

New Hampshire [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] Wind might be clean, necessary and economically advantageous, but it's still industrial development. That makes it particularly difficult to develop projects in areas of the Northeast, where the best places to put wind farms are often on mountaintops and ridge lines. And that, of course, increases the likelihood of social friction.

Dear Listeners -- While the written companion article for each episode of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast remains below, the associated audio files have necessarily been removed. We apologize for the inconvenience, and appreciate the support you gave to our podcast production.

Thank you,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com

In this podcast, we'll look at the myriad challenges in building wind farms in densely populated, mountainous regions like the Northeastern U.S., and talk to some developers about how they manage risk and work with communities to build support.

We'll start off by looking at a proposed wind farm in New Hampshire, where some residents are upset about the potential visual impact to the state's heavily forested landscape. Eolian Renewable Energy CEO Jack Kenworthy tells us about how the company is working with citizens to address their concerns.

Landowner Michael Ott describes his personal transition from a self-proclaimed “NIMBY” into a supporter of the 16-MW wind farm.

Steve Sawyer, Secretary General of the Global Wind Energy Council (and former New Hampshire resident) discusses the potential impact of wind on the New England energy mix, as well as the difficulties in defining what is “beautiful.”

Annie Law, a local resident, talks about why she supports renewable energy, but does not support it on the ridge lines of New Hampshire mountain tops.

And Ryan Wiser, a chief scientist with the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, tells us about a new study showing that wind farms do not have a widespread negative impact on property values.

We'll wrap up the show with a roundtable discussion with a group of wind professionals who have some advice on how to work with citizens when developing projects that will change the visual character of their communities.

Charlie Howland, formerly of the Penn Energy Trust and now with the Environmental Protection Agency, talks about how the “fear of the unknown” can hold up a project.

Tom Stebbins, a project manager with Horizon Wind, describes his company's efforts to create citizen action groups in favor of wind farms.

And Al Maiorino of the Public Strategy Group, talks about why opponents of projects are more likely to organize than supporters.

Inside Renewable Energy is a weekly audio news program featuring stories and interviews on all the latest developments in the renewable energy industries.

Other, Wind Power

17 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 13, 2010

Over 90% of new generation is obtained from nearly equal amounts of windpower and natural gas. Yet governments have failed to conduct any cost-benefit analysis (of this $10 billion per year US investment), even though a private study indicated wind increases generation costs by more than twice, while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11%, because the intermittent supply must be inefficiently backed up by natural gas. Disgraceful!

Comment
2 of 17

prateekparag

February 17, 2010

The proposed wind energy farms on the mountaintops and ridges in northeastern state of New Hampshire has become a cause for social friction; although most support it for the fact that it is a clean, renewable source of energy, the primary concern is that it would tarnish the pristine beauty of the heavily forested region. Efforts are on to address the concerns of the residents regarding the issues that they have.

Comment
3 of 17

Anonymous

February 17, 2010

One possible solution is http://www.massmegawatts.com/

They produce a lower profile wind turbine design that does not spin at high speeds and does not require the huge towers to produce power in the same foot print. At least that is the claim.

Comment
4 of 17

davin-aiken-168815

February 17, 2010

Mike, the UK Energy Research Centre (www.ukerc.ac.uk) has a cost-benifit analysis for free download on thier web site. It also describes how the electricity grid systems works.

Before any wind was on the grid system what did it do if a coal or gas or nuclear plant suddenly went off line? The grid has always had plant on part load to ensure the gird remins stable (i.e. load and demand match), wind does increases the amount of plant that needs to be on part load but is not the reason this plant is on part load in the first place. The grid is operated like this to prevent blackouts (i.e. it is a robust and reliable system) and in general it does this very well.

In the UK study the extra balancing costs for the 'addition' of wind was quite low at about 0.15p/kWh. In the UK electricity costs about 8p/kWh to households.

Comment
5 of 17

a-b-24958

February 17, 2010

If you are offended by onshore wind turbines, then do as the europeans are now doing : put them offshore, 30 miles in the sea. Benefit : they produce much more energy given that see breeze are constant and strong due to no landscape hindrance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6695574.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windturbine

Hereunder a link showing Brazilians demanding wind only power quote submittals. If wind was so terrible compared to coal or nuke, why are the not rich Brazilians demanding wind turbine only quotes ?

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/brazil-conducts-first-wind-only-power-auction?cmpid=WindNL-Tuesday-December29-2009

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/brazil-signs-into-law-bill-to-cut-co2-emissions.php
Brazil Signs Into Law Bill to Cut CO2 Emissions 39%

IT IS ONLY IN THE USA WHERE THERE ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING AND COMPLAINING, UNTIL THERE IS NO ELECTRICITY ANYMORE TO POWER THEIR MEGA SCREEN TV AND MEGA FRIDGES. I WONDER WHAT YOU WILL SAY ABOUT THE URANIUM THAT GETS SPEWED BY THE COAL PLANTS, AND THE NU CU LEAR COST PRICE BEING BACKED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS, SINCE NO INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCER CAN GET BANK LOANS WITHOUT GOVERNMINT GUARANTEES TO BACK IT ALL UP.

Comment
6 of 17

neosapiens

February 17, 2010

Given the terrible impacts of fossil-fuel power generation, it is silly to object to wind turbines on aesthetic grounds. The rules ought to disallow aesthetic complaints as frivolous.

Comment
7 of 17

steven-corodemus-80969

February 17, 2010

mike-holly-17241 please send me a link to the private study you refer to in your comment.

Comment
8 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 17, 2010

@ davin-aiken, please provide the SPECIFIC link to the UK Energy Research Centre cost-benefit study that hopefully attempts to calculate the effect of windpower on TOTAL generation costs.

@ steven corodemus, the following cost-benefit study indicates wind increases generation costs by more than twice, while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11%.

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/Hewson-Wind-Benefits-Power-Eng-July-2009.pdf

We need to get to the bottom of this because it is clear the US government won't do it.

Comment
9 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 18, 2010

@ davin-aiken.

I found your cited study but no downloads are available from the site. I did read the study only attempted to answer the question "What is the evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the UK electricity network, and how are these costs assigned?" It appears to be just a literature review. I doubt they found much evidence either way.

What is needed is a detailed analysis like the Hewson study (that I have provided a link). That study is likely flawed. But it is a disgrace that governments are mandating windpower without thorough cost benefit analyses (eg almost as bad as paying people to come to community hearings for windpower projects).

Comment
10 of 17

natasha-long-82395

February 18, 2010

@a-b-24958 "IT IS ONLY IN THE USA WHERE THERE ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING " - I wish. Watch 'The Age of Stupid." Which will show that English people are just as NIMBY and moany about 'dangerous' (seriously) wind turbines (apparently watching the blades is hypnotic [despite their ugliness] and could entrance a driver and cause a crash - this was a serious argument put forward by someone objecting to a wind turbine in their village.

@ Mike Holly: Yes, a cost/benefit analysis does need to be done, but the analysis needs to include the FULL costs of any fossil fuel wind is being compared with. This includes the cost of maintaining the planet in a habitable state which all fossil fuels degrade. And must take into account the fact that wind is a 'new' technology which needs infrastructure building whereas all fossil fuels have their infrastructure already set up. Yes, they still have repair and maintenance costs, but that should be factored into the owning companies' operating costs. If they don't, and they then need to repair something, you can guarantee the cost will be passed on to the consumer, so it needs to be included.

The fact of the matter is that unless we Nuclear Fusion, and/or Hydrogen fuel cells become a workable reality, we need to seriously engage with the renewable energy technologies currently available and wind is a big part of that. The UK has some of Europe's best wind resource and we could generate a significant proportion of our energy from wind. If people weren't so bloody interested in their property prices, which is what it ultimately comes down to.

Comment
11 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 18, 2010

@ Natasha. The problem is America is simply mandating monopolies to use over 90% windpower/natural gas with little incentive toward innovation or the use of biomass, geothermal and even solar, while Europe lacks a risk capital market that can develop renewable energies to dominance. That is why Obama is now providing subsidized loan guarantees for high-cost nukes.

Comment
12 of 17

martin-lee-65392

February 18, 2010

@ mike-holly, With regards to the Hewison study which you suggest might be flawed. It appears to me to be arguing that any wind power generated will displace other renewable forms of energy such as hydro or geothermal. It might well do so if you have a system that says lets burn coal, oil and gas as though its endless and costs nothing. As soon as you do some sums then it makes sense to turn off the coal, oil or gas generation. This allows you to save on the cost of the coal, oil or gas and save money. Once the capital to build a wind farm has been spent it will always be cheaper to turn of the fossil fuel generation when the wind blows. It may be that the overall cost of energy goes up a little due to the extra capital costs being larger than the savings in fuel cost. However should coal, oil or gas go up in price wind power could well be cheaper overall. Whats your bet on the long term price for fossil fuels including a carbon tax? up or down? Oils price has been running at over $70 a barrel and hit over $82 in January. I think that at these prices many wind farms will be producing cheaper energy than fossil fuels. I don't think oil prices will drop much and at least in the UK there's a link from oil prices to gas prices which provides a substantial part of our electricity. I'm not sure how you define dominance but in Europe Wind power installations have exceeded gas generation installations for the second year running. In a couple of years time new wind installations could be producing more electricity than new gas generating stations.

Comment
13 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 18, 2010

@ Martin Lee. Before the government starts mandating the addition of an energy resource over others, it should conduct cost-benefit analyses to prove those mandates are in the public interest.

Comment
14 of 17

martin-lee-65392

February 19, 2010

@ Mike Holly. From 2002 to 2008? the UK had a system which did not favour any particular technology, it just mandated a certain percentage of electrical energy should come from any renewable source.

The result was that the cheapest sources were built. Gas from landfill, co-firing of biomass, wind and refurbished and run of river hydros being the main sources. Political pressure has made them change so that more resources are directed at off shore wind, wave and tidal energy and from 1st April small wind, hydro and PV systems will get additional incentives from the feed in tariff in the UK.

These are being mandated precisly because they are un-economic on the current playing field but politicaly are nice to have as they allow everyone to share in reducing green house gases etc. I would think that if a substantial carbon tax were introduced then there would be no need to mandate any technology as people would move to the cheapest non carbon technologies.

Unfortunatly if you dont like wind turbines they are the cheapest in many situations. Moving to other technologies will cost us more. Personaly I quite like to see them going round as I drive past.

Interestingly there is no support mechanism to drive wind power in New Zeland but they still have around 500MW of wind turbines producing about 3% of their electricity.

Comment
15 of 17

mike-holly-17241

February 24, 2010

@ Martin Lee. You just don't seem to get what I have been posting about under this article. Governments just compare winds costs to other renewables on a per kWh generated basis. There has been no attempt to determine the additional costs of intermittency to the total grid with a cost-benefit study. Wind is likely not even close to the cheapest renewable energy.

Comment
16 of 17

davin-aiken-168815

March 25, 2010

@ mike-holly

Link below and the UKERC comment from the web site. Looks like few, if any, of the 200 reports the researchers have reviewed agree with you.

[http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=Intermittency]
An Assessment of the Evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the British electricity network.

UKERC's report represents a definitive picture of the costs and impacts of intermittent energy supplied by renewable sources, such as wind. Some commentators have suggested that renewable energy is made much more costly, or is drastically limited by intermittency. The report finds that these views are out of step with the vast majority of international expert analysis and that intermittency need not present a significant obstacle to the development of renewable sources.

Also in the report on page iv (£3/MWh = £0.3p/kWh)
"System balancing entails costs which are passed on to electricity consumers. Intermittent generation adds to these costs. For penetrations of intermittent renewables up to 20% of electricity supply, additional
system balancing reserves due to short term (hourly) fluctuations in wind generation amount to about 5-10% of installed wind capacity. Globally, most studies estimate that the associated costs are less than £5/MWh of intermittent output, in some cases substantially less. The range in UK relevant studies is £2 - £3/MWh."

I like seeing wind turbines but when driving it is the driving I concentrate on first. Most of the European the forests were cut down in the 1600 and 1700's and then the next major fuel was coal which gave need to develop mine pumps etc leading to the modern industrial age (a brief history indeed!) - we have already changed the landscape for energy reasons.

In the long run will it be physics or politics? The immovable object or the unstoppable farce.

Comment
17 of 17

jchjchha

May 14, 2010

Your article is very good, I am interested in, usually I like to browse sites about air Jordan shoes, because I really like air Jordan shoes, I saw a very nice air Jordan shoes web site, if you have friends also like it can take a look!
Like air Jordan shoes http://www.mydiscountjordanshoes.com/ air Jordan shoes! Support Jordan!

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

NEW Smart Phone App

Stephen Lacey

About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »