Wind Turbine Siting

At the core of wind turbine conflicts, is the issue of siting. The issue in essence, is how a turbine interacts with its natural environment, including the living things in its proximity. While world politics affects the usage of fossil and nuclear fuels and the siting of their facilities, it is local politics and ad hoc associations that have the greatest effect on the placement of wind energy installations. NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) opponents of wind installations around the world complain about issues that are physically close to home like noise and shadows created by turbines. They consider the operation of large turbines be a land use that is incompatible with a residential area.

However, turbines in different contexts generate less controversy. A small wind farm in Atlantic City, NJ, satisfies the local population’s concerns because it fits into the resort town cityscape, and is built on the grounds of a wastewater treatment plant. In a completely different setting, the proposed installations in the Hebrides archipelago off the Western coast of Scotland are being loudly criticized by locals, who say that the turbines will spoil the pristine natural surroundings, kill birds, and discourage tourism. A survey of opposition to wind energy around the world reveals a repeated set of issues, with minor variations depending on local conditions.

The first thing to remember when discussing any siting issue, is that there are a limited number of sites that are useful for wind turbines. This is in contrast to fossil fuel and nuclear facilities which easily fit into industrial settings. Wind turbines need high quality wind, meaning that it blows fast, and often, and with minimal turbulence created by the surrounding landscape. Turbines are also more effective the higher they are above the ground, which further contributes to one of the biggest issues in windmill siting, disruption of the viewshed.

Viewshed disruption is the most cited argument against new wind installations. When proposals are made for any place where the turbine will be visible from a distance, they meet resistance from local residents. This includes offshore development, notably along the Northeast coast of the United States. In essence, many NIMBY objectors oppose any visible development of wind energy. Even so, Wind power does not suffer from NIABY arguments, also known as Not In Anyone’s BackYard, as in the case of nuclear energy. While specific installations are often opposed, wind energy is generally considered to be a boon for the environment.

On and offshore, wind energy is highly criticized for its effect on the viewshed. All over the world, communities are concerned about destroying their pristine natural resources, driving away tourists, and lowering real estate prices. Adding to the controversy are conflicting opinions on real estate values related to wind turbines. Suffolk County Long Island, New York,  Legislator David Bishop may have said he best with his statement, "The most fundamental question is whether the benefit is worth the sacrifice.” Discussion in this regard centers around the anthropogenic acceleration of climate change, and the effects of fossil fuel pollution, against the perceived disruptions caused by wind turbines and the question of their effectiveness in curbing the problems associated with fossil fuel energy production.

Onshore windmills are thought to, and sometimes do, create noise, cast a significant shadow, and when the sun shines through the turbine blades, create a flicker effect. However, these issues are easily avoided through careful planning and engineering. The use of three dimensional modeling accurately simulates viewshed concerns, as well as turbine shadow and flicker. Turbine design and placement can ensure that people are not disturbed by excessive noise.

Offshore, there is the fear that turbine installation will interfere with the operation of commercial fishing nets and drags, as well as interfere with the fish themselves. In Danish offshore installations, drags are not allowed in the turbine area, but in the proposed Cape Wind site off of Cape Cod, the lines would be buried deep enough to allow them. Sport fisherman, and whale watching operations fear that the installations will have a similar effect on their activities. The Danish story, by far the most complete, shows that fish exist in the same manner they did previous to the turbine installations. Their way of thinking shows the turbine installations as creating reefs, which add to the diversity and health of ocean life. The effect is not instantaneous, as a reef takes time to form. Additionally, once installation is complete, maintenance trips and any noise from the turbine operations will be no more disturbing than the already present shipping operations. Concerns over coolant oil leaks into the surrounding ocean have also been addressed by some groups, who plan to use a non-toxic gaseous replacement.

While it may seem like there is no physical place for wind power, there has been an average cumulative increase in capacity of 28% per year between 1999 and 2005 worldwide. This is in a large part due to advances in technology, which increase capacity and improve reliability. These improvements lower the cost of generation, making it a better business choice for investor.

There is no short answer to the question of where wind turbines are welcome. For any proposed development, onshore of off, there will be an effect on someone or something that somebody cares about. This is well illustrated by the opposition towards drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would have only a small impact on humans, but would be expected to disrupt a pristine natural area. The question becomes one of which uncertainties and social costs people are comfortable accepting, who is willing to accept these burdens in place of the status quo, and who receives the benefit.