Everyone Knows It’s Windy
by John Weckerle
(Editor’s Note: Your editor has made much of his living over the last couple of decades in the area of assessing environmental impacts of various projects and programs. He has worked both sides of the fence in this area, and has worked and continues to work with Federal agencies preparing National Environmental Policy Act documents and providing support for compliance with this law. He supports the appropriate use of renewable energy, has done work with clients in both the renewable energy and green building industries, and is a member of the New Mexico Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council.)
The winds of change are blowing strong – and the breeze of discourse has reached gale force, at least in the editorial pages of recent editions of The Independent. From opponents of unrestricted windmill construction expressing outrage to windmill advocates indulging in a little name-calling as they attempt to make their point, it seems likely that the Spring winds normally scheduled for March are starting early and roaring across the plain, or at least the publications serving it, giving us the opportunity to take a metaphor and whip it to death like a flag in a tornado.
First, let us be clear: this subject is very complex and very important, and it is important that we conduct the discourse seriously, with a willingness to consider all factors, and with respect for those with whom we may disagree on the subject. The discussion has already taken at least one unfortunate turn where that is concerned – we refer to the letter by Douglas Mercer in the January 4 issue of The Independent, in which Mr. Mercer characterizes the objections of Tim Oden (letter opposing windmills in the January 28 edition) as “outdated and antiquated” and “the very sort of shallow consideration “attitude” that has gotten our country into the trouble it’s in today.” Mr. Mercer then goes on to blithely dismiss the potential effects of windmills on visual resources and property values – issues of great importance to local residents and property owners – as irrelevant. Shallow is as shallow does, we suppose, but we encourage a more comprehensive consideration of the subject by all parties.
The fact that Mr. Mercer believes residential wind power generation is more important than socioeconomic factors and that Mr. Oden places more value on the latter points out a crucial need to address a broad spectrum of issues. As before, we recommend development of a comprehensive study of the relevant issues, including socioeconomics, and analysis of reasonable alternatives by QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS as a precursor to any development of a plan, strategy, or ordinance to bring Edgewood into the renewable energy age. We concede the point that windmills have many beneficial attributes, providing a renewable and relatively “clean” source of energy that can be adapted to both centralized and distributed energy production. However, there are other issues to consider. Let’s take a brief look at a few of the relevant factors.
First, it is important to note that windmills are a source of electricity. Under current and near-term future conditions, they are unlikely to provide any significant amount of energy for transportation or other non-electric uses. With that having been said, let us give some thought to the effect of windmills on decreasing “our dependence on foreign fuels,” an issue raised by Donald McNeily. Using information extracted from this table provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we obtain the following information on electricity generated from various sources for the year 2007:
Thousand Megawatt Hours Percent of Total Coal 2,020,572 48.6 Petroleum Liquids 49,956 1.2 Petroleum Coke 15,752 0.4 Natural Gas 893,211 21.5 Other Gases 15,414 0.4 Nuclear 806,487 19.4 Hydroelectric Conventional 248,312 6.0 Other Renewables 102,988 2.5 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage -6,994 -0.2 Other 13,815 0.3 Total 4,159,514 100.0
As we can see, petroleum products, our energy import of greatest concern, represent a small fraction of our total electrical generation. Most is generated by coal (of which we export more than we import) and natural gas. The U.S. produced (after processing) about 19 trillion cubic feet in 2007, and imported about 4.6 trillion cubic feet – 82% of which came by pipeline from Canada and Mexico, both of whom are close trading partners with the U.S. and with whom we enjoy friendly relationships. Unless we follow a T. Boone Pickens-style approach, to which there has been no formal commitment and which faces substantial logistical hurdles, wind energy appears unlikely to have a significant impact on the amount of fuel we import from other countries, especially potentially hostile ones. The greater benefits of replacing coal- and gas-based electrical production include a reduction in pollution (including carbon emissions); decreasing or eliminating the environmentally damaging effects of extraction, processing, and transportation; and decreasing the drain on our economy that results from use of these resources for producing electricity.
Then there are effects on wildlife, especially birds and bats. Bird kills at wind installations tend to be the result of collisions with blades, towers, or guy lines. Raptors seem to be disproportionately affected. Bats make up about 60% of the kills, and for the most part show little evidence of collision. Rather, it appears that most of the deaths result from blood vessels in the lungs exploding; some have proposed a theory that bats are attracted to the blades, and that depressurization near the blades then damages their sensitive lungs. According to this Virginia Sierra Club presentation, more than 4,000 bats were killed at a single installation over a period of six weeks, and projected deaths in that area for two installations were in the tens of thousands per year. Both birds and bats play an important ecological role, including control of insects and rodents as well as pollination. Further, depending on how many of the birds and bats are migratory, significantly affecting the population may have far-reaching consequences not just for the local ecosystem, but for ecosystems throughout the animals’ annual migratory paths. Because these effects can vary widely based on the location of the windmill(s), a study of the local bird and bat populations, both resident and migratory, should be completed before any official action is taken.
The value of visual resources, in and of themselves, has been widely recognized by government agencies and is often a key element of environmental assessments and impact statements associated with projects that involve towers, power lines, and other prominent features. Placement of towers certainly affects visual resources and noise effects, as do the height of towers and type of turbines, and nobody wants a carpet of dead birds and bats in their yard as a result of the windmill next door. The effect of windmill placement on visual resources, combined with potential noise and biological effects, may have a negative impact on property values, as Mr. Oden notes. While we may not go quite as far as saying that property values and aesthetics trump all other issues, these are very important in a society in which many citizens have a substantial amount of their financial capacity tied up in their homes and property. Further, restrictive covenants may often be legally enforceable, and Mr. Oden is far from unreasonable in suggesting that property owners may take legal action to enforce them. Socioeconomic concerns are an important part of the environmental equation, and must be considered.
Next, it would appear that the Town’s focus is primarily on wind energy, with only minor attention being paid to energy conservation and other renewable energy sources. In my discussions with renewable energy professionals, some have conceded that the best “bang for the buck” under the current state of technology still comes from conservation. With respect to other sources, of particular interest are solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy production and passive solar construction. These are well adapted for residential settings, usually not requiring tower placement and often suited to roof mounting. Solar thermal systems are relatively inexpensive and represent a substantially more efficient conversion of solar energy than photovoltaics to usable energy when the goal is to produce heat or hot water, which together can add up to a substantial percentage of a household’s annual energy consumption. Solar photovoltaics, while more expensive, are the solar “weapon of choice” for residential electricity, and they can be made much more efficient by adding tracking mechanisms to the system. Passive solar construction may have substantial advantages over any of the “active” technologies in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, at least for some applications.
Most of the factors associated with renewable energy projects are very location specific, and it is disturbing that the Town appears to have proceeded to development of a draft ordinance – and a highly simplistic one, at that – without completing the studies that should support and guide the committee and the Town Council in formulating an appropriate renewable energy production policy. Because of Edgewood’s unusual size and diverse assemblage of ecosystems and residential configurations, a “one size fits all” policy based solely on lot size appears overly simplistic and fatally flawed. Further, the Town should be considering potential placement of windmills and/or other renewable energy assets not only in residential areas, but in commercial areas and on school properties, where they may provide a substantial benefit in offsetting energy costs associated with business and educational institution operations. Expert consultation and development of environmental studies should be a prerequisite for developing policy, and the resulting policy should result in a balanced energy portfolio that provides the maximum benefit possible while ensuring that environmental, socioeconomic, and other concerns are respected and incorporated to the greatest extent practicable.
Finally, it should be noted that the Town appears to have fallen down badly on the public involvement part of this issue, as it has with other subjects (the recent mess with the animal shelter comes immediately to mind). Simply holding a meeting or two and seating a committee is not sufficient. Plans, proposals, references, and other materials associated with planning issues should be posted on the Town’s web site, and adequate public notice should be provided to ensure the best participation possible at public hearings and committee meetings. One can point to the Town’s difficulty on that score by noting that, as of this morning, the most recent Town Council meeting agenda posted on the Town web site was for the January 21 meeting, and that a public hearing for rezoning the “Nanneman Property” was omitted from the preliminary agenda but added to the final agenda, which was not circulated by e-mail until 8:46 the morning of the meeting. The Town should take its public involvement, Open Meetings Act compliance, and other disclosure and communication responsibilities more seriously and make a better effort at keeping its constituency informed and aware of the local government’s activities.