NEW WEST ESSAY
The Case For A Wind Farm in Idaho Falls
New turbines in southeast Idaho will wreck property values, upset wildlife and make too much noise. Or will they?
By Contributing Writer, 11-24-10
The foothills making up the skyline east of Idaho Falls have seen many changes over the past century. During the early 1900s, the sagebrush was plowed under and grain was planted over most usable acreage. Back then, local sustainability and food production took precedence over wildlife habitat and watershed management.
Sixty-some odd years later, the dry farm plots gave way to housing development. Not just standard tract housing, mind you, but large two- and three-story luxury homes on 5-acre parcels that could be seen from miles away. Back then, the housing boom fueled by a strong economy took precedence over the low yield patchwork quilt of agricultural lands that had been the view from the valley for decades.
In recent years, the skyline has changed again, this time in the name of wind energy. The foothills have evolved into a dramatic landscape of 300-foot towers supporting mega-watt wind turbines designed to harness the never ending southwesterly gusts that residents of the Snake River Plain have learned to endure.
But this iteration of change isn’t being welcomed with the open arms of progress as changes of the past have been. From the editorial pages of the local newspaper to standing room only county hearings, residents of Idaho Falls seem to be overwhelmingly against any further wind energy development and they are telling the rest of the nation:
We do not want these towers in our backyard!
Folks living up on the hill have formed a grassroots organization called Idahoans for Responsible Wind Energy (IRWE). These luxury home owners have suddenly become environmental custodians of our adored foothills and have developed what they claim to be a well-researched list of concerns exposing the evils of wind energy and the harm wind farms have caused in communities all over the country.
The first and foremost concern on the IRWE website’s list of wind energy evils:
“Property value: Having dozens of nearly 500-foot-tall wind turbines within plain view of your home could significantly reduce your property value or even make it virtually impossible to sell.”
According to a three-year research study titled The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis, conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the claim made by IRWE asserting wind farms will affect their property values is a complete falsehood. The study concludes: “Specifically, neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices.” The report is available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf.
The IRWE’s next concern is less about fact and more about individual opinion:
“Visual impact: The County Ordinance allows for commercial wind facilities permits on land zoned G-1 (grazing), A-1 (agricultural), industrial or commercial. This describes the vast majority of the county. Wind farms create a highly visible, industrial complex seen throughout the county and likely from your own home. Nighttime impact will also be significant as turbines will be lit by red and white beacons.”
Yes, I see the towers from my home, and to be honest, I find the wind turbines far less visually offensive than the hundreds of pseudo-mansions I also see spotting the hillside. But of course one man’s beauty is another’s bane. There is no right or wrong on this issue. Its’ individual preference. I would point out the turbines are creating clean, renewable energy from the wind; the luxury homes are using more energy than two or three cookie-cutter tract homes populating the flatlands of the valley below. This comes back to the “part of the solution vs. part of the problem” argument in my book.
The IRWE has apparently gone green based on the next concern:
“Ecological impact: potential adverse effect on sage grouse, raptors and big game populations and their habitats.”
At the risk of sounding like I was born and raised in Idaho Falls, are you shitting me? If the IRWE was really concerned with the adverse impact of encroachment on wildlife, members wouldn’t have condoned replacing native vegetation and animal habitat with residential streets and custom built homes. The wind turbines don’t hold a candle to the disruption of native species caused by barking dogs, screaming kids, lawn mowers, and the constant stream of $60,000 SUVs running up and down the hill eighteen hours a day.
Noise is a major concern, according to IRWE:
“Noise impact: The County allows up to 45 decibels of continuous wind turbine noise at adjacent residential homes day and night.”
There have been hundreds of studies conducted on the health effects of living close to wind turbines, including health risks related to noise levels. All credible sources indicate there are no health risks. Note I used the word “credible” in that statement. The term “annoyance” is used to describe most complaints from residents who live near wind farms. In a presentation given at the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Anthony Rogers of the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory nailed the noise issue on the head when he stated, “Annoyance in people living close by wind farms is created when residents saw the countryside as a place for peace and quiet as opposed to a place with important economic activities, residents felt a lack of control over the wind project, and residents felt a sense of being subjected to injustice.” This describes the situation in Southeast Idaho perfectly. On a personal note, I have stood in marvel under the wind turbines many times; the noise level is not noticeable, unless of course you’re looking for something to complain about.
The IRWE is also concerned with my access to Idaho Endowment lands:
“Loss of public access to state land: State land is included in proposed commercial wind projects.”
It turns out the loss of state land is only a few acres of scrub sagebrush that was set aside back in the late 1800s to help fund public education. The rents from the land leases go directly to the state to use for Idaho schools.
Finally, the real kicker that gets everyone’s goat here in Southeast Idaho:
“Electricity produced is NOT destined for an Idaho market: Nearly all the power produced by the wind farms is destined for markets outside of Idaho.”
Energy is where you find it, be it hydroelectric, fossil fuel, or even wind. It would be great if every community in the country could produce self-sustaining power locally, but that isn’t the reality we live in. More people live on the West Coast than in Idaho, a lot more. We have the natural resources to create wind energy, and the west coast needs that energy. Therefore, the energy created by our local wind farm is sold to those who need it and are willing to pay for it. It’s called supply and demand folks.
The two biggest negative issues facing large wind farms and wind energy as an industry aren’t even addressed by Idahoans for Responsible Wind Energy.
First, the turbines may interfere with military and civilian radar. I have read several reports dealing with the Federal Aviation Administration and its stance on wind energy. There are definitely legitimate concerns that will have to be addressed before many areas should be developed for wind energy.
The second issue is the amount of funding the Obama administration has dedicated to the development of wind energy. All energy industries in the US have enjoyed federal assistance, especially in the development stages. Based on the amount of money invested from both government and private sources thus far, wind energy is here to stay, regardless of who controls federal purse strings in the future.
In some ways, I can sympathize with the folks backing IRWE. I too am caught up in the energy fiasco. The views from my beloved Worly Ranch down in Rockland, Idaho, will soon fall victim to the Gateway West project being built as a joint venture by Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power. Essentially, new 500kV transmission lines will be run between gigantic wind farms near GlenRock, Wyoming, and the Murphy substation west of Boise. The proposed route brings 300-foot transmission towers straight across the Rockland Valley, a half-mile north of my place. My new view will be very industrial to say the least.
But unlike my neighbors living up on the hill outside Idaho Falls, I’m not going to protest or form a grassroots organization to block the Gateway West project. In fact, I’m happy to play my part in an emerging industry that doesn’t create greenhouse gasses or toxic waste byproducts. I take comfort in the hope that with each turn of the propeller on those monstrous turbines, it might mean one less kid has to come home from the Middle East missing an arm or a leg.
Is wind energy the answer to all our energy needs? No. But it’s a baby step in the right direction. It means the country is beginning to think about what life is going to be like for our grandkids, it means we’re finally coming to grips with the realization that fossil fuel is going to play a lesser role in the years to come, and it means we’re finally doing something about it. So I’m going to set an example. I’m not going to bitch and piss and moan about my view being ruined. And above all, I’m not going to cop a “not in my backyard” attitude when it comes to addressing our nation’s energy needs. I hope one day my neighbors will do the same.
Clarence Worly blogs about life and other topics at Clarence Worly’s Southeast Idaho.
Clarence, I have lived in Idaho Falls my entire life right below the foothills and cannot agree more with you on this issue. Living right at the base of the hill, the amount of housing development that has gone up there is astonishing and has ruined our view of the foothills permanently. What would you rather look at--a brick and stucco McMansion with a 6 car garage and two acre lawn or the natural landscape with a windmill in the middle of it? However, I think the key issue here is looking at RESPONSIBLE windmill development, a lot like RESPONSIBLE housing development. There are places for windmills and there are places that windmills do not belong. The reason I support the windmill development in the foothills of Idaho Falls is not only because it is a viable energy solution, but because the foothills were already ruined with development. At least people can look up at the hills now and see an ECO-STATEMENT, not an EGO-STATEMENT. Or in this case, I guess they will see both.
Comment By Clarence Worly, 11-24-10JJ86-
"At least people can look up at the hills now and see an ECO-STATEMENT, not an EGO-STATEMENT."
I couldn't have said it better, thanks for taking the time to comment.
-CW
Pretty funny. Environmentalists have be whining relentlessly about fossil fuels and the need for more sustainable energy. Turns out, they don't much like wind or solar either, when it actually turns up in their back yards. Maybe they're just NIMBYs masquerading as environmentalists.
Comment By former spud, 11-25-10Speaking of the IP/RMP you support.
When you look at the U.S. Dept of Energy wind map some of the best place for wind farms are on the coast, particularly the West Coast where the energy is needed. The top three categories of wind generating potential is there.
Wyoming is actually wind weak by comparison. Why are we not building the wind farms there? Shorter transmission lines, maybe the enviros could get them to bury the lines underground like they do in Europe.
Why? Because of the Ted Kopechne Kennedy (may he burn in Hell) syndrome of not in my back yard it will spoil my view of the ocean. So energy companies go after the weak coalition of ranchers and farmers who are almost powerless against the energy companies who want to steal their property rather than go across Federal land.
How much of the power going to the west coast is tied into the lame excuse wind power line is going to come from the coal fired plants?
Out here in Lincoln County, Colorado (population about 6000, annual county budget about 2 million dollars) the new wind farm is adding about 3.5 million dollars to the county coffers and about $750,000 each year thereafter prompting the county commissioners to lower property taxes by two mills this year. Pretty popular move with all the folks who opposed the wind energy projects and renewables in general.
Comment By jim, 11-26-10I love how regressives always come up with the nimby argument. So silly. Now lets see how that works......I don't want something crappy in my back yard, so there is something wrong with me - or - I can only be opposed to something if it is in someone else's back yard....but really, let's not debate the real issues here because we don't have a leg to stand on. The real issue is not how we produce energy but how we cut back on our usage, and the only argument the regressives have for that one is, i wanna be a pig and I will because god said americans aren't patriotic unless they are pigs. waaaah.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-26-10I love how reactionary NIMBYs always consider themselves progressives.
Comment By Jay Greene, 11-27-10Selfish considerations have led us to the current impasses mick; but characer assassins like former spud seem bound to keep up the superficiality even after their targets have died. What a dork!
Comment By former spud, 11-28-10Ah, yes only recently has Al Gore fessed up to the fact ethanol was a mistake, without gov'mint subsidies it failed miserably. Is wind soon to follow? If it is built and used locally I have no problem with wind power, but don't build it in WY and claim the powerline carrying it to the coast is necessary. Apparrantly you did not do your homework to see the most advantageous location for wind power and it is not WY.
Comment By former spud, 11-28-10But, if I were going to build a wind farm I would build it in eastern WY and run my powerline along a route so every coal fired power plant from Gillette to Rock Springs can tie into it.
I'll call it a green energy project because there is a wind farm along the way makes perfect sense to me, because what I really want is the reliability of coal power to sell. Besides it is much easier to get permits to build coal fired plants in WY than in OR or CA where the power is needed.
No company constructs wind farms presently without completing a wind study of the site to determine that the site has enough wind to make the production of wind generated electricity feasible at that site. It would be kind of foolish to do otherwise.
Comment By Clarence Worly, 11-28-10@ former spud:
This article has absolutely nothing to do with wind energy in Wyoming other than a brief mention of the Gateway West project.
I examine some misinformation created by a group of right wing upper-middle class conservatives turned hand-holding save the planet environmentalists based on a single event occurring in their backyards.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
Thank you Clarence! and right on to "Jim"...let's see those NIMBYers turn off their lights when they leave the room!
Comment By bluemtngirl, 12-02-10Where I live, we have wind farms all around us and what a blight they are on the views...
I'd think if they were truly concerned about the amount of energy consumption we use, they'd spend the money to have us all on solar panels, instead of setting up colleges and factories with solar panels. Build more nuclear reactors to fuel the electric grid... Maybe Nikola Tesla had the right idea about each of us having a device that gathers electricity from all around us and harness that power si we're not on the grid...
Urban sophisticates pay homage and real money to the NGOs of the environment, and vacation in the south of France with ease. In one of those particular insanities that is the New West, this deal about wind turbines not far from the Idaho nuclear preserve around Arco, and the aesthetic of the French countryside, is that France has nearly 70 nuclear power plants, and the environmental NIMBY crew won't allow one in the New West. France thinks they are green as hell, as does the EU. China is building them to slow the use of coal which now has to be imported at cost. So what particular information do we in the New West have to the contrary, that shows nuclear is so dangerous and ill advised that we would salt the earth with obtrusive wind turbines across broad landscapes, all the while ignoring obvious environmental disruptions and degradations?
I would imagine that if we were constructing nuclear power plants (probably mostly opposed by coal interests, proponents of government subsidized power, and by global peaceniks who think every plant is an islamic terror target, which they probably are), which actually have the possibility of producing non-government subsidized energy without the global climate change onus dangling from them, the outrageous costs and subsidies to the wind farms producing energy to meet bogus environmental goals foisted on the public by zealots who are not aware this country is on the brink of bankruptcy and global insignificance economically, we would be enjoying safer and cheaper power and it would be owned by Americans and American companies. I can't imagine---no, with our government that is wrong--I can imagine we would ask that only US companies own and control with the government, nuclear power plants.
Ask anyone over 50 who can't find a job, and never will because his or her job is now being done at a great savings by someone in Asia who is not yet thirty and without the baggage of pensions and health care costs packed onto the service or product being produced, and they will tell you that their power bills continue to climb and their incomes continue to decline. We no longer have sufficient numbers of tax payers to fund our local and state governments, none of which is able to print money like the Feds are doing, to pay bills. The accumulated economic errors add up, and the sum indicates the New West cannot afford wind power, or public schools, road maintenance, and public safety. There simply is no longer enough money to subsidize wind power. And I will attribute some of that to the dogged pursuit of energy sources that cost much, much more than alternative green sources like nuclear offer. Wind energy is a social decision, a political decision, all gussied up and lipsticked to please green zealots who are pros at spending other people's money, not paying taxes on their revenue stream, and having a way of deflecting any criticism by calling it racist, radical right wing politics, or stupid. It has certainly appeared that all through the comments on New West over time, an inordinate amount of words have been printed that are devoted to calling someone who does not agree with the progressive leftist views stupid. Stupid is spending vast sums of precious capital on ideas that do not pencil out on the bottom line of the P/L statement without public subsidy. A lot of talk about "welfare ranchers", when the "welfare wind turbine", the "welfare ethanol producer", the "welfare hydro plant" (now producing the cheapest power in terms of dollar outlay but constantly being milked for environmental remediation of dubious outcomes), "welfare mass transit", and the list goes on and on, are accepted as costs of living in the New West. Why not talk about "welfare public education providers?" Or "welfare wildlife?" Or, as may be the case, "welfare professional legislator?" All that money raise, constantly, for re-election taints the whole of the process of "free speech." More like "fee speech." Politics has become "welfare legislators subsisting on fee speech." That alone ought to give one pause to ponder where we are headed. I can see the time when we have black footed ferrets chasing prairie dogs on treadmills to make electricity, to electrify the lab studying both critters. The dogs escape to run again, and the ferrets get a piece of meat after the exercise, and the meat is beef from a "welfare ranch." The perpetual motion machine of government and politicians, all conjured by a grant writer in search of free money, which was freed by taking it from some dupe who thinks the government spends it wisely and carefully. Fries with that?? Want to super size your subsidy?
We live in a subsidized world economy. The loudest screamers with the most money determine who gets the tax dollar. Wind turbines have won out over sane, cheap, dependable, nuclear power which has a much, much smaller environmental footprint. No macerated birds and bats. No vast vistas of real estate covered with ticky-tacky white gihugeous wind turbines. Power 24/7, not dependent upon the vagaries of high and low pressures and the resultant winds or calms. And, when the sun goes down on the solar panel, and the wind is calm, you have to have hydro, fossil fuel or nuclear to pick up the slack. And when the wind blows, and the water flows, you do have to address shutting down turbines due to excess power issues. Or dumping water, which on the Columbia and Snake River systems means harming fish at certain times of the year. Wind power kills fish. Poor management of wind farms and poor governing legislation is producing power spikes that result in hydro dumping water that is loss potential income, and an environmentally destructive act, which pales some of the green in that wind power.
Wind turbines are hugely government subsidized feel good constructs, which come with a cost we no longer can afford when all the alternatives are prudently looked at.
Nice rant, Bearbait but state, county and city governments do print money. They issue bonds and raise the property tax to the pay the bonds off and they get Federal Grants which is the same thing as printing money.
Comment By Clarence Worly, 12-05-10Bearbait,
Can we at least agree all the players involved with these "welfare programs" be drug tested before they see a dime of our tax dollars? ;)
As usual, your comments are insightful and well thought out. Thanks for reading.
-CW
So I pick up the morning paper, and one of the small stories is how the roof has collapsed on part of a French nuclear power plant. That damned global warming!! 'Scuse me..global climate change. So there goes the French nuclear safety claims. The real charge against French nuclear plants is that they are more expensive to build than some others. The correct number of nuclear power plants in France is 59, one of which is now missing part of its roof.
Korea builds nuclear plants cheaper than France, and now there is a Toshiba-Westinghouse one also cheaper than the French EDF plants. Other French builders are now into building smaller, cheaper nuclear reactors for making electricity. No matter, the rest of the world is building them, which will reduce CO2 emissions and the treasure of the builder somewhat less than wind turbines on a per Megawatt hour basis, and the US is not. Who is the fool?
Oregon is awash in wind farms, all there because of wind and the available BPA transmission lines. Where cheap, close energy used to go to smelt aluminum, those plants are closed due to cheap imported aluminum, and the power now run massive computer server sites for the likes of Google. The data intense world runs on electricity, and availability (like a mile from the dam making it) is the most important aspect of business. Meanwhile, the massive wind farms of Oregon, all on the BPA grid, are owned by off shore companies who sell the energy elsewhere. I don't think Oregon gets much power from the wind or solar. Our two largest producers are coal at Boardman (using coal from Montana), and Wyoming, the PacificPower Jim Bridger plant (think Warren Buffett owner). So Buffett owns the railroad carrying most of the coal west, and he owns the huge coal fired Bridger power plant. I would guess if he does not know own a coal mine, he soon will. Or several.
Wyoming coal is low sulfur, so it is hauled as far as Atlanta to make electricity and little sulfuric acid. We burn the same coal in Oregon, and it is now planned to be shut down by 2021. The issue is that burning coal produces mercury in the air. I guess only Oregon's PGE Boardman plant is a mercury polluter. Like don't let the wind blow here from China, Dude. Oh, and haze. All summer long, the haze from Boardman fouls the air. If it can be found among the smoke and topsoil from WFU, AMR, "let it burn" forest fires. Funny the enviros are not suing to shut down letting fires burn due to the smoke and the resulting haze, pollutants, and mercury.
I spent time in Alaska in logging camps. The generator was shut down at ten in the evening, and started up again at 5 in the morning. Maybe that is how we need to live. Our power is on when the wind blows, and the sun shines. Other than that, you live without. You know, the Iraqui way. Only they fire up gas powered home generators, and make noise all night. And air pollution. Damn. You just can't win, can you??
Although I fully support the so called let burn policy, I wonder if there 's been a study of Mercury and other heavy metals and toxic compounds released and deposited during a wildfire. It other words has forest fire smoke been analyzed to the extent that smoke from older coal fired plants have been analyzed?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 12-07-10Yeah, there has, Mickey. Rather substantial release of deposited goodies, in microparticle form. But it's "natural" and therefore good.
Comment By Mehmnet, 12-12-10These turbines kill birds and bats - which leaves a substantial portion of the insect population go unchecked. Just sayin'...
Comment By Daryl, 4-30-12I have nothing against wind power. But why couldn't it have been placed further into the hills so it would not be such a visible scar on the skyline? It might be a nice ECO-statement, but it doesn't do anything for the local economy. Even the construction costs went to contractors from outside states. At least the EGO-statements of the big houses resulted in significant local jobs during construction, and still results in significant lawn-care, landscaping, and other maintenance expenses which directly benefit our local economy. I'm not so sure I want to help California's energy needs by polluting the skyline with windmills that could have been placed further back at the same cost.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_case_for_a_wind_farm_in_idaho_falls/C618/L618/