Opinions
Category:
Impact on Views or Tourism
Browse in :
All
> Topics
> Impact on Landscape
> Impact on Views (33)
All > Topics > Impact on Economy > Tourism (33)
All of these categories
All > Topics > Impact on Economy > Tourism (33)
All of these categories
The "simulated images" of the wind farm project contained on Cape Wind's Web site show how the turbine forest might look to the casual observer driving by. ...Cape Wind is riding the "clean energy" bandwagon all the way to the bank, while we who live here will spend the rest of our summers staring at a colossal eyesore.
Little has been said about the transmission lines, which will carry the intermittent power produced by the looming mountaintop monsters down to the Tracy power plant. These are high-voltage transmission lines hanging off of 70-foot-tall, rusted-steel towers. In the years to come, such transmission lines will crisscross our valley, wind down narrow canyon roads and march somberly along property lines to their final destination.
Minister fails to grasp the impact wind farms will have on tourism
November 5, 2008 in Barry's Bay This Week
November 5, 2008 in Barry's Bay This Week
When debating wind energy, there is one point we can all agree on: there are sites suited for wind energy and sites that are not.
Our beautiful township is not suitable. The moratorium passed unanimously by our Township Council reflects this.
One visit here and it will be clear to you. ...The point is, Mr. Smitherman, our main industry is tourism and recreation. Visitors drive for several hours to enjoy the sense of wilderness our beautiful township offers. They come here to get away from industry.
Please understand, this township's livelihood and way of life depends largely on the natural beauty of this land.
The Ocean State recently granted a New Jersey-based renewable energy firm the right to build an industrial-size wind farm about 20 miles off the coast of Rhode Island.
DeepwaterWind CEO Chris Brown told the Associated Press his firm builds turbines on large platforms originally designed for offshore drilling rigs, which means they can operate in deep waters and out of sight of land. He expects to build around 100 turbines offshore.
"What we've really focused on is that we want to be beyond the horizon," Brown said. "We don't think that you have to choose between...the view and the environment."
Of the proposals under consideration, at least one would be off the coast of Ocean County, 18 miles from Long Beach Island. Although a study prepared for the BPU noted the impact of wind farms off the Jersey coast on the fishing and tourism industries would be temporary and relatively minimal, it indicated there was far greater sensitivity to the visual impact of wind farms in Ocean County than in Cape May and Atlantic counties. The BPU should take that into account. ...The projected loss of tourism revenue would drop off dramatically if wind farms were located 6 miles or more off the coast.
Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy?
Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year.
Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000!
Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there are problems with the whole scheme. ...Let's make sure that if we choose to install hundreds of 400- foot high turbines in our heritage countryside we do so from informed choice.
The Maple Ridge wind-power project in Mr. Yancey's town "produces enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes." Most articles on wind power include such boilerplate information, but rarely put the number in context: Despite tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies for research, development and marketing, wind power still is two to three times more expensive than carbon-fired electricity.
It's why, despite all the hype and the pipe dreams, wind turbines still produce less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity ...
When St. Lawrence Wind submitted its draft environmental study to Cape Vincent, there was no assessment considering the viewshed impact from the St. Lawrence River. This is astounding and negligent considering much of Cape Vincent's economy is tourism based on water recreation. Many people will view this industrial wind plant from the water.
...to think that wind turbines are going to offer a long-term stimulus for tourism revenue is foolish.
These giant wind turbines are a novelty to Michiganders right now. But as time goes by, the novelty will wear off. And as more and more wind turbines are built, there will be more and more people living here and paying the price for this "green" energy. ...and those living in the Thumb with these wind turbines towering over their homes will pay again in loss of property value and quality of life.
Often, the visual impact of 130 wind turbines as tall as the Statue of Liberty in the middle of Nantucket Sound is presented as a clash of aesthetic sensitivity vs. alternative energy reality. But the National Trust for Historic Preservation has reminded the U.S. Minerals Management Service that real laws and mandates exist, and it says MMS is not going by the book in its evaluation of the Cape Wind project. ...Nobody, the National Trust included, expects that the views at the Kennedy Compound or the Nantucket historic downtown will remain forever unaltered. But Congress has decreed that all efforts must be made to preserve the integrity of historic sites, and the MMS must comply.
The United South and Eastern Tribes, an organization of 25 federally recognized Indian tribes in 12 states, has joined with the Wampanoag of Gay Head (Aquinnah) in their opposition to the wind factory on Nantucket Sound.
The board of directors of the organization called upon the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which is reviewing the Cape Wind application, to "respect the Traditional, Cultural, Spiritual and Religious beliefs of the Wampanoag People and preserve the spiritual integrity and sanctity of the eastern horizon, vista and horizon viewshed; and to deny the permitting of such a devastatingly and destructive experiment, which will adversely affect and destroy the essence of tranquility, sanctity and spirituality of this sacred place for all time."
While being a multi-state resident for decades now, I have grown to appreciate Vermont much more than Connecticut, so much so that I have started a new business here in hopes of permanently moving here soon. But while the controversy rages about ridge lines, and wind mills, I can't help but wonder why the state of Vermont has banned all billboards from the interstates, and disguises the cell towers along the interstates to look like trees as not to offend the local character, but now it seems as though we will have no problem building 30-story tall structures on the most visible and scenic areas of the state, all with the flashing navigation lights so all can see for miles around in the once silent and dark scenery of the last great 'Kingdom' in the east!?
A recent letter about the Jordanville Wind Project oversimplifies the opposition of the Holy Trinity Monastery and others to the location of the proposed wind farm.
The monks are not selfishly choosing serenity over clean energy. Rather, their concerns speak to a larger issue: the impact of industrial-scale wind turbine projects on New York's historic, scenic and cultural resources.
In fact, the Preservation League of New York State named the Holy Trinity Monastery to our Seven to Save list of endangered places this month in part to call attention to the need for statewide siting standards for wind energy projects.
On Lewis the turbines will dominate the shores of many trout lochs, yet Lewis Wind Power's environmental survey makes no mention of the environmental impact on the lochs; it makes no reference to the existence of the lochs at all.
The "green lobby" often use terms like "sustainable" to describe the industrial complex that Mr McIver hopes the Barvas Moor would become once the turbines are built.
Industrialisation and the current sustainable lifestyle which has protected a unique ecosystem for thousands of years are incompatible, it is impossible for them to work hand in hand ...
Scenery or aesthetics management is a key element of any planning process that is committed to integrating human values into ecosystem management. The proposed wind farms do not fit into this process because they would bring green energy only in an environmentally destructive form.
The wind farms would be the proverbial Trojan horse: Masqueraded as a green energy source, they would bring esthetic and environmental destruction.
The vandalism of our beauty spots continues. I refer to Stirling Council's decision to shun its planning department's advice and support a wind farm at Craigengelt. Its 410ft turbines should make a splendid backdrop to the massive pylons planned from Stirling to Denny.
Formerly known as the entrance to the Highlands, Stirling should in future be dubbed: "Gateway to the industrial belt."
... a proposal by U.S. Wind Force to lease 400 mountaintop acres in the Savage River State Forest and Potomac State Forest so it can install about 100 wind turbines the size of the Washington Monument, may be one of the most destructive and dangerous policy proposals ever to confront he citizens of Allegany and Garrett Counties. ...It is very troubling that Gov. O'Malley is even considering this proposal, while at the same time promoting tourism and economic growth in our region. This is good stewardship of our natural resources and an improvement to our public land? This is government working in our behalf?
At the Mountain Maryland PACE Legislative Breakfast held earlier this year, our Governor said, " ... we are preserving our heritage - protecting our forests ... and promoting tourism." Really?
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was an attempt to pave the way - almost literally - for energy companies to take advantage of pre-approved corridors that cut through public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The problem is that much of the land that would be pre-approved is in sensitive wildlife habitat and cherished wildlands. Routes were chosen more with an eye to economic efficiencies than environmental impacts, and the result is a plan that is blatantly skewed to favor the interests of the energy companies over the interests of the general public. ...The Energy Department recently released a draft of its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and will be accepting public comment on the statement until mid-February. It plans to hold a public meeting in Helena on Jan. 29, but you can provide your comments now by going to its Web site at corridoreis.anl.gov.
We hope Montanans from all over the state will take the opportunity to firmly oppose the plan as it's currently proposed, because it will take all of Montana to sink this awful idea.
Mr. Cashman's attempt to sneak past the Massachusetts House of Representatives an amendment to the Ocean Sanctuaries Act as part of a recently passed energy bill shows just what kind of tactics he is willing to resort to in order to build his wind farm. This amendment would clear a major impasse for the development of large-scale industrial wind power plants along the Massachusetts coast. ...In case you are not familiar with it, the Ocean Sanctuaries Act designates approximately 85 percent of Massachusetts state waters as ocean sanctuaries. There is good reason for this. We are fortunate to live in an area of some of the most pristine waters off the coast, but it is also a very fragile ecosystem.
Mr. Cashman and proponents of his project would have you believe that it would have no negative effects on the Bay. How is this even logical? First of all, the only way not to affect the Bay is to do nothing; in other words, things stay the same. I certainly can't see how a large-scale industrial power plant could be positive for the condition of the bay, and to say it would have no affect at all is ludicrous. ...This is not about spoiling the view of some rich people. It is about one rich person, Jay Cashman, and him making himself richer. This is about much more than a "NIMBY attitude." It is about preserving a natural treasure, Buzzards Bay.
About "getting used to the turbines," I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I, get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers' estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you? ...There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above.
The turbines will not help our energy needs and don't belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.