The two counties I'm most closely associated with-Allegany County, MD, and Mineral County, WV-are looking at permitting industrial wind turbine farms on local mountain ridges.  I know that we must switch to green energy if we hope to avert an unfolding environmental disaster unparalleled in human history, and I am a strong advocate of green energy.  However, the more I learn about wind turbine farms, the greater my opposition to them being sited along the Allegany Front.  I have a number of reasons for my opposition. 

When industrial wind promoters approach an area with the idea of building a wind farm, they begin their advocacy with a basic lie, that lie being how much electricity will be generated.  The industry will say a wind farm has a certain capacity that could supply electricity to x-number of houses.  But no wind turbine produces at or even near its rated capacity, and that fact is seldom mentioned by the industry.  How much of rated capacity does a wind turbine produce?  The industry usually projects 30 to 40% of capacity.  But actual output generally hovers in the 15 to 30% range.  According to the federal Energy Information Agency, all U.S. wind power produces only about 25% of capacity on average.

 

If wind farms are placed in Mineral or Allegany County, could they be expected to even reach 25% capacity?  A study by Northwest Pacific Laboratory on wind energy potential in the U.S. doesn't even list West Virginia or Maryland in the top twenty states with wind potential.  That, alone, should raise a red flag.  We have wind farms to the north and south of us, so why aren't officials asking how much electricity is generated by these farms?  My guess is that these farms produce very little electricity.  If they were cranking out lots of power, developers would by citing those figures at every opportunity as a selling point for more wind farms.

 

A major problem with wind is variability.  No one knows when it's going to blow, especially along the eastern mountain ridges.  Even with the problem of wind's variability, and it's a big problem when trying to balance the electrical grid, wind power in areas such as Texas and the upper mid-west-often called the Saudi Arabia of wind-may prove viable in helping us reduce our dependence on coal.  But a turbine needs a minimum 30 mph wind to produce a meaningful amount of electricity.  How often do we have 30 mph winds on our ridges?  Have our officials asked this question of the developers?  Surely studies have been done.

 

One major question that officials should ask is whether wind farms on our ridges will reduce our use of dirty coal, the major source of greenhouse gases and toxic mercury in our environment?  Germany, which had 7,050 MW of wind power capacity by the end of 2004, required 80% back-up power.  Other European countries have found only minimal reduction in their need for back up.  And back up for us is going to be coal in a majority of instances.  According to National Wind Watch, "the [wind] industry has been unable to show any evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels."

 

So if we have only minimal wind resources in this area, and if industrial wind farms produce little electricity, and if these wind farms have no impact on reducing greenhouse gases, why are they being proposed for our area?  As is so often the case in this country, the answer is money.  Federal and state subsidies can cover over 70% of the 1 to 2 million dollar cost per megawatt of capacity.  In a very real sense, we taxpayers are financing these windmill behemoths.  A few people will make a lot of money at the expense of our environment and the rest of us.  The ultimate irony, perhaps.

 

What about the taxes communities collect?  According to National Wind Watch, "The usual arrangement is arranging "payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), so that the wind power company controls what it pays.  When they are forced to pay their fair share in taxes, they typically contest it, forcing communities to spend lots of money in legal fees. In many cases if a community does get a "windfall" from the company, the state adjusts its payments so that the financial gain is largely cancelled."  Of course, property values drop in wind farm areas, so the tax base shrinks.

 

What about protecting homes from the noise of turbines, a problem that's much worse than the industry admits.  Scientific research in Europe has led the French National Academy of Medicine to call for a 1.5 kilometer setback from residences because sound from turbine blades expose people to permanent medical risk.  The United Kingdom Noise Association also calls for a setback after studying the issue.  Will there be adequate setbacks if our officials permit industrial wind farms?  Shouldn't protecting citizens be a prime objective in any decision about wind farms?

 

As for jobs, after the turbines are in place, a community can expect one low-paying job for each 10-20 megawatts of capacity.  Not exactly a boon for a community.

 

Other scams are involved, such as renewable energy certificates, a scheme created by that ultimate schemer, Enron.  Surprise, surprise.  Details about this can be found at Nationalwindwatch.org.

 

In the final analysis, wind farms on our ridges make no sense, except to line the pockets of a few.  I would be the first to say wind turbines are beautiful if they were doing anything useful, but they are not.  We would be far better served to use the money thrown away on wind farms to ramp up solar solutions on our homes.  Admittedly, we have places in this country with the wind resources that might make wind turbines a viable asset in our search for green energy.  But on the ridges of the Allegany Mountains?  I think not.  I can only hope the officials in Mineral and Allegany County will consider just what they are getting, and what they aren't getting, before permitting these wind farms.