Article

Aesthetics not main objection

There is no question that between the number and size of the proposed wind towers in Ira that it does raise questions of aesthetics. Thirty-three industrialized wind turbines between 400 and 500 feet in height in such a small town are an abomination and absurdity. The town and its townspeople do have the right to make an argument of aesthetics. But it is not the primary argument.

Ms. Kirk's suggestion that we host an artistic competition to create "imaginative exterior design" for wind turbines, as the opposition so often objects to their "ugly" appearance, is, if not a tongue in check exercise, a misunderstanding of the primary criticism.

There is no question that between the number and size of the proposed wind towers in Ira that it does raise questions of aesthetics. Thirty-three industrialized wind turbines between 400 and 500 feet in height in such a small town are an abomination and absurdity. The town and its townspeople do have the right to make an argument of aesthetics. But it is not the primary argument.

Vermont statutes define renewable energy as "energy produced using a technology that relies on a resource that is being consumed at a harvest rate at or below its natural regeneration rate."

Wind appears to be one of those "resources" ripe for the picking. The failure, however, is the means we choose to harvest the fruit. The means - the technology used - are wind turbines, which perform in a manner contrary to the purpose if not the intent of the legislation.

If we accept that the intent of "renewable energy" is to reduce the consumption of fossil... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  

Ms. Kirk's suggestion that we host an artistic competition to create "imaginative exterior design" for wind turbines, as the opposition so often objects to their "ugly" appearance, is, if not a tongue in check exercise, a misunderstanding of the primary criticism.

There is no question that between the number and size of the proposed wind towers in Ira that it does raise questions of aesthetics. Thirty-three industrialized wind turbines between 400 and 500 feet in height in such a small town are an abomination and absurdity. The town and its townspeople do have the right to make an argument of aesthetics. But it is not the primary argument.

Vermont statutes define renewable energy as "energy produced using a technology that relies on a resource that is being consumed at a harvest rate at or below its natural regeneration rate."

Wind appears to be one of those "resources" ripe for the picking. The failure, however, is the means we choose to harvest the fruit. The means - the technology used - are wind turbines, which perform in a manner contrary to the purpose if not the intent of the legislation.

If we accept that the intent of "renewable energy" is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, reduce the country's reliance on foreign oil, reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce the production of climate-changing gases, wind turbines, as the "technology," fails at this endeavor.

Wind turbines provide an intermittent source of power which requires that base-load suppliers of electricity, two-thirds of which in this country are coal and natural gas plants, to continue to operate at or near full capacity to anticipate the fluctuation and sudden drop in wind power. Where, in this scheme of electrical generation, with the exception of the resource of the wind itself, do we find the creation of renewable energy? We don't. That is the heart of the issue and to argue aesthetics tends to miss this point.


Source: http://www.rutlandherald.co...

JUL 10 2009
http://www.windaction.org/posts/21103-aesthetics-not-main-objection
back to top