Transitions are hard.
When oil derricks first graced the western landscape, they were greeted with mixed emotions, depending on who profited and whose landscape was blighted.
Today, we face conflicts as windfarms elicit similar emotions. The “No Wind Farms” signs posted around the Palouse are counterproductive, though. Communities must have a meaningful voice in issues of land use, wildlife impacts, cultural values and aesthetics, but a costly delay only prolongs the inevitable.
There’s a concern windmills kill birds. The reality is modern turbines kill a small fraction of birds compared with other causes.
New blades like DynoTails appear far more efficient than previous generations, capturing wind energy more effectively, reducing noise pollution, and lessening risk of bird and bat mortality.
Innovations, such as inter-cropping and controlled environmental agriculture, promise to improve coexistence between windfarms and agriculture. Farmers can benefit from leases on marginal land and at the same time provide electrical power.
Wind power is critical to the energy mix of utilities like Avista — not because it’s trendy, but because it’s necessary.
As battery technology improves, the contribution of wind (and solar) will become more significant. All methods of creating energy — hydroelectric, coal, oil and, yes, wind — have environmental costs. But unless we’re ready to return to the lifestyle of the 1890s, we need to encourage clean energy.
I find the sight of turbines on hilltops heroic. Let’s appreciate their work for all of us.
Mary DuPree
Moscow, Idaho
Reader Comments(0)