Draining peoples’ finances and maintaining (or worsening) climate change is not all that wind power buys: It also makes people sick and destroys their property values. Lack of grid capacity means developers need to locate wind farms close to end users, which puts monstrous wind turbines in the back yards of many rural residents. Setback requirements designed to prevent these effects vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and are often far below what experts recommend. Wind-hungry authorities often make setback exceptions to attract wind developers as well. Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) is the term used by medical experts to describe the maddening and nauseating effects of the flickering light and rhythmic noise (and inaudible “infrasound”) wind turbine blades can have on nearby residents. WTS has compelled a number of lawsuits against wind developers over the past few years, including a recent suit filed by an Oregon resident for $5 million. Developers generally cite sources claiming there is no solid evidence of WTS in their defense. These claims are reminiscent of how electric companies prevailed over allegations that high-voltage power lines cause cancer or other health hazards in the 90s, of which there is still no evidence of any conclusive link. However, research scientists have concluded that wind turbines can, indeed, have hazardous effects on human health. Some courts have also recognized WTS, finding in favor of complaining residents and enjoining the operation of wind turbines located close to their homes. Such decisions often come at a substantial economic loss to the community as well. In some cases, where homeowners could find no injunctive relief, WTS has compelled folks to abandon their homes. In fact, 40 families did just that in Ontario before Canadian authorities finally conceded that WTS indeed causes varying degrees of harm to humans. There are also stories from the U.K. of thousands falling sick from WTS and conclusive confirmation of falling property values as a result of nearby wind farms. Understandably, U.S. residents are increasingly becoming skeptical and divided over proposals for wind farms in their communities despite the prospect of economic prosperity. This phenomenon was the subject of the full-length 2012 film called Windfall, which documented the issues the community of Meredith, NY addressed before ultimately rejecting a wind-energy tycoon’s proposal. It seems that more and more awareness of the health hazards of wind energy is leading to more and more “not in my backyard” attitudes.
Wind energy doesn’t just hurt people; it also kills birds, bats, and endangers biodiversity. In 2009, the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife estimated 440,000 bird kills from wind turbines, giving rise to the notorious phrase “Arian Cuisinart.” A more recent study by the University of Colorado puts the annual bat death toll between 600,000 and 900,000 for the fiscal year 2012. Some commentators analogize the situation to the 1994 endangered spotted owl protections that devastated the timber industry in much of the Pacific Northwest. The intended inference is that the government is hypocritical to allow the wind industry to kill so many birds—some of which are likely on the endangered species list—when it all but shuttered the logging industry to save the spotted owl. The argument for wind implies that these wildlife losses—along with the economic sacrifices and human harms associated with wind energy—should be chalked up to the cost of advancing renewable power sources. A Wyoming court recently disagreed, convicting a wind project of “avian takings” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to the tune of $1 million in fines and restitution. An environmentalist group is also suing to block Columbia Energy Partners’ new wind farm in Oregon, citing potential damage to migratory routes for big horn sheep, golden eagles, and the endangered sage grouse. That case is pending, but the sage grouse has already proven a useful advocate. The states of Idaho and Wyoming employed the jeopardized bird to oppose the construction of 1100 miles of high-voltage power lines across their territories designed to bring wind power from rural farms to end users in urban centers. That case also included 2600 public comments complaining of adverse effects to undeveloped and prime farmlands, private property rights, and pristine scenic views. It seems some folks just don’t think wind energy is worth these costs.
All these lawsuits and complaints have some concluding that anti-wind activists and environmentalists are unreasonable and promote a “none of the above” energy policy. It is surely true that there are plenty of criticisms to go around and no easy answers. But an emerging consensus holds that high-efficiency natural-gas and safely-commissioned nuclear power plants are more efficient and realistic sources for stable energy. These sources also hold the greatest potential to reduce GHGs and mitigate climate change without blowing our economy on a breezy delusion. Perhaps even better answers lie in other sources of electricity generation. One thing seems pretty clear, though: Wind blows.
Tags: bats, birds, energy, health hazards, wind
