Community | August 10, 2009 | 142 comments

North Carolina Senate bans mountaintop wind turbines

source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/north-carolina-bans-wind-turbines.php

Image
pjacobs51
When news first broke that North Carolina's ban wind turbines from being installed on mountains--on the grounds that they were too ugly--it generated some lively debate. But now, it appears the debate is over and the state senate has voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ban (a stunning 42 to1). And thus, large wind turbines will be left out cold--along with two thirds of the state's potential wind power capacity.


From Green Inc:

The 42-1 vote on Thursday represents the strongest stand against wind turbines taken by lawmakers in any state. The bill would amend a 1983 “ridge law” to allow only turbines that are 100 feet or smaller to be placed on ridgelines above 3,000 feet. This effectively bars industrial-sized turbines — which can reach several hundred feet in height — from the windy mountaintops.

Now, the bill still has to head to the state House of Reps, but it's not looking good for the future of mountaintop wind turbines in North Carolina. And though we're only talking about one state, this vote could have a large influence on renewable energy policy nationwide. It's the first time a state government has voted to ban wind turbines--doing so not because of ecological concerns, or because of questions of the technology's value, but because of the appearance of the structures themselves.


According to Green Inc:

The potential blanket ban on big turbines “is very much an issue about do people want to look at wind turbines in the mountains of North Carolina,” Mr. Urlaub said. “It’s not about the state’s commitment to renewable energy or lack of commitment.” He acknowledged, however, that the vote “has had the effect of raising concerns about North Carolina’s commitment to clean energy.”

So it looks like this debate--originally mostly an amusing hypothetical 'will renewable energy powerhouses like solar plants and wind turbines mar our landscapes?'--has just gotten dead serious. If the ban passes the NC House of Reps, it will effectively prevent the state from realizing 2/3 of its potential capacity for wind power. Is it worth sacrificing vast clean energy potential to keep mountaintops wind turbine-free?

or the record, this is not a snidely framed 'well-of-course-it-is' hypothetical question--peoples' ability to be inspired by the beauty of nature is important, too, and worth protecting. But at what cost, the issue remains. We've got to weigh the specific value the turbines present (how much wattage could the turbines create? how many North Carolina coal plants could they replace?) against the value of keeping the ridges turbine-free (how many people hike in those mountains? how visible are the turbines, generally, and how unpleasant do hikers find them?), and I'm afraid the senators have not really done this--according to a report from a local paper, it seems like the ban passed due on more emotional-driven, reactionary grounds. I hope the House looks at the issue thoroughly before passing the ban.

Otherwise, if the ban catches the attention of other skeptical states, we may very well see renewable energy become a Not-In-My-Backyard issue with damaging effects to the developing clean energy economy.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   WTF,   US Politics,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Wind Turbines
  3.     
    |

142 comments // North Carolina Senate bans mountaintop wind turbines

  • sgwhites
    • 0
      sgwhites  
    • bansheewail:

      I agree that the outer banks would probably better for wind energy. The wind there is much fiercer than in the mountains.

      And yes--WNC has a lot going on in terms of sustainability. In addition to App State, Warren Wilson does a lot too, and UNCA.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chheang
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • bansheewail:

      OK...you live there and know your state better than those of us that do not live there.
      Has there been any proposals for wind tubines at the outer banks? Is it a better place, considering that wind turbines cannot handle high winds?
      Not being a smartass here, just asking a question.

    • 2 years ago
  • Shadylady
    • 0
      Shadylady  
    • bansheewail:

      I REMEMBER SEEING SOMETHING WRITTEN IN THE PAPER ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, IN REGARDS TO THE WIND TURBINES BEING PUT ON THE COAST OF NC. SAME PROBLEM. NOT IN MY BACKYARD. THEY DESTROY THE VIEW. SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A STAND. COAL TO FURTHER DESTROY THE OZONE OR WIND TURBINES.

    • 2 years ago
  • sk8bs55
  • TenGig
    • 0
      TenGig  
    • bansheewail:

      Modern wind turbines have anemometers. They change direction with the wind. They also look a lot better than that one, a lot more aesthetic. Arguing you case using 30 year old technology is like designing modern graphics on an Apple Classic. Get your hillbilly friends and yourself into the 21st century, mmmk.

    • 2 years ago
  • isnamthere
  • theauthor
    • 0
      theauthor  
    • Image
    • bansheewail:

      The turbine in your picture is about a 30 year old NASA RESEARCH turbine...the technology is much more streamline and less obtrusive now. You can't tell me you haven't seen one of these pictured above.

      BTW. The eyesore in your picture isn't the turbine; it's the mountaintop clearing for all the buildings and parking.

    • 2 years ago
  • BDiamond
  • boiscalm
    • 0
      boiscalm  

    • I don,t think there are coal mines in NC. Not many if any.
      The mountains of NC take up a small part of the state, I would hope the rest of the state is still open for the Windmills. As a long distance truck driver, I have seen them all over the country and it makes me proud that we are doing something for our future. As a resident of NC and a big supporter of Green Projects, I hope that Congress will at least get them started in the rest of the state ASAP.

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • lj111
    • 0
      lj111  

    • remember this is nc and every thing here is done either backwards or sideways which ever come first. we are last in so many things, that a wind mill or two would hurt us.

    • 2 years ago
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  

    • This has nothing to do with the aesthetics of wind power. North Carolina is in coal country and wind threatens the future of coal. Greed overpowered a clean energy future in North Carolina.

    • 2 years ago
  • locutus
  • bansheewail
    • 0
      bansheewail  
    • uroborus8:

      Where are you talking about in NC? I grew up in NC, in the mountains, I've never seen a coal mine. But, I wasn't really looking either. I've seen mines all over WV and Va. but not in NC.

    • 2 years ago
  • TenGig
    • 0
      TenGig  
    • uroborus8:

      Only one area in North Carolina is known to contain coal beds of potential commercial importance. This area is the Deep River coal field which lies along the Deep River in Chatham, Moore, and Lee counties. That being said, mining is a huge industry in NC (emeralds, feldspar, mica, etc) and there are a lot of mines in those mountains.

    • 2 years ago
  • pinkerbelle
  • uroborus8
    • 0
      uroborus8  
    • Image
    • uroborus8:

      "North Carolina’s electricity production is high. Coal-fired power plants typically account for more than three-fifths of North Carolina’s electricity generation, and nuclear power typically accounts for about one-third. Hydroelectric and natural gas-fired power plants produce most of the remainder. North Carolina’s coal-fired power plants burn coal shipped primarily by rail from West Virginia and Kentucky. North Carolina is one of the top nuclear power producers in the United States. The State has three nuclear power plants. Hydroelectric power plants located along several rivers in central and western North Carolina produce substantial amounts of electricity. North Carolina’s electricity consumption is among the highest in the Nation. As is typical in the South, many North Carolina households (nearly one-half) use electricity as their main energy source for home heating."

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • uroborus8:

      Duke Energy based out of North Carolina is the nation's operator of coal fired electrical generation.

      They have at least two new plants under construction that I know of right now in North Carolina.

      It only makes logical sense to me that if you want to sell people electricity made with coal, that you would try to put as many barriers as you can to block wind, solar or any other type of renewable energy out of the market. Obviously, if they are constructing coal fired plants right now---they are planning to force the people of North Carolina to be stuck with using coal for probably the next 50 years.

      I'd guess the most backwards people in North Carolina are sitting in executive board meetings at Duke Energy.

      BTW, who do you think owns most of the mineral leases that the coal companies come in and strip mine on? Duke Energy. The coal companies just strip mine the coal under lease. When the coal runs out, they move on---and so does Duke Energy. Duke Energy already owns the coal---they just pay the mining companies to dig it up for them.

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • I'm sure most are very sentimental about the blue ridge parkway, which brings in a lot of travel (I think that is what it is called; I recall seeing on lots of plane magazines).

      In California/florida they hide the cell towers as palm trees. Why not just disquise the wind turbines as a giant redwood or something (I realize redwoods dont grow huge in n. carolina)?

    • 2 years ago
  • titvol
  • ii386
    • 0
      ii386  

    • I wonder about getting turbines up there and maintaining them and clearing paths for them.... That will destroy a whole lot of mountain greenery.

      Maybe some other options would work better, considering that vote is pretty overwhelming. Try an idea that isn't so dispersed. Maybe a few solar fields?

    • 2 years ago
  • Nettle
  • MajorMajorMajorMajor
  • TenGig
    • 0
      TenGig  
    • ii386:

      Wind blows about every day in those mountains, and even at night. Comparatively, the sun only shines, on average, 60% of the days, and never at night. Wind, even with the distance and maintenance, is far more economical and efficient and the effect on the landscape of the roads would be negligible considering the amount of mining and logging that goes on in those hills.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • ii386:

      tripe, pure tripe. can someone show me where wind farms damage ecosystems more than mountaintop removal, or ewven solar? dosent look like a heavily forested area there in the pic, in fact i dont think you could tell the difference between there and tehachapi during the winter here in california. sounds like payola to me.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • TenGig
    • 0
      TenGig  
    • ii386:

      You're a moron. You want math? About 1.4kW/m2 of energy hits the earths atmosphere from the sun. Because of the atmosphere, about 1kW/m2 of that actually penetrates to the surface, on a good sunny day (which NC has about 130 a year, with the rest of the sunshine (~90 days) coming on partly cloudy days. Gen2 solar cells convert roughly 20% of the sun they collect to energy. So now you're down to .2 kW/m2. Sun only shines, on average around the world, 12 hours a day. So that's 2.4kW/m2/day.

      A wind turbine, on average, can power a 2000 kW generator. Wind turbines can run 24 hours a day. Give up an average of 50 days a year for maintenance and weather (and that's very conservative).

      To match the output of a wind turbine, for only 12 hours a day in perfect sunshine, you'd need 2.47 acres of perfect solar cells. To match the daily output of a single turbine, you'd need 5 acres (20,000 m2). To match the yearly output, you'd need over 10 acres. That's a lot of expensive, highly fragile glass.

      so .. umm .. lol @ ur math.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • ii386:

      Screw wind or solar, what about perpetual wave motion... why are we not harnessing the ocean... solar power is not all that efficient, wind energy has issues, and kills birds. You scream about the sun not being out all day? The wind stops blowing sometimes too... waves, they do not stop...

      major major major major... love the name, I feel like jumping out the window most days as well... and it seems that our government truly has endorsed Milo's egg scheme... so many parallels it almost isn't funny.

      peace,
      -Washington Irving

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • ii386:

      Milch, you are correct on the comments about wave power. I saw a small Discovery Channel article on a generator designed to work on wave power. The guys tested a small version and lighted up their caravan, or travel trailer as we would say. However, wave power seems to me to be a great source of power with little environmental damage. I am including using tidal surges, etc. as a source of power.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  

    • Hmmm...mountaintop removal for coal is OK, but renewable energy is not.
      Makes sense to me. NOT!
      There is a faction of the public that has a real aversion to wind turbines. Usually it is because they are ignorant of the benefits of them, and have read somewhere that they cause fires or some such bunk.
      Of course the massive global climate change we are experiencing isn't caused by humans either....

    • 2 years ago
  • simonl
  • 2helenahandbasket
  • jeffissleeping
  • sirpaulmcdarkney
  • CreditFigaro
  • ProjectBat
  • BDiamond
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • jeffissleeping:

      -------"this is why i'm trying to move out of this state...backwards ideologies."--------

      You could leave in a sailboat. (LOL, just teasing you a little)

      It isn't that Tarheels are backwards----it is just that some of the backward people have taken over.

      It means that the Progressive people need to collect signatures and force a referendum on the the law. And they should start recall referendums on all of the Senators and Representatives who voted for it.

      Coming up against opposition isn't backwards---but doing nothing about it and letting the rock heads have their way without a fight is.

    • 2 years ago
12
101 - 142 of 142
more from Community:
from the community

top videos