Public debates surrounding wind power in Michigan, USA, are typical of attitudes in many other parts of the world: we are all for green energy, but not in my back yard. Below is the summary or an article by Curt Guyette published in the Metro Times
Michigan state Gov. Jennifer Granholm told a recent gathering that the state could make a transformation from the "rust belt" to the "green belt" by aggressively pursuing policies that promote clean energy alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels. A law was passed two years ago that requires the state's utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015.
Granted, Granholm got a little carried away when she repeated an observation attributed to some unnamed source that Michigan could be considered the "Saudi Arabia of the wind industry."
A more realistic assessment is that Michigan, when compared to other states in America, is ranked 14th in wind-energy potential by the
American Wind Energy Association. But that still puts us ahead of 36 other states.
Michigan is ranked only 26th in terms of wind energy actually produced. With a peak production of about 20,000 megawatts an hour from all the state's electric power sources, Michigan's wind energy industry produces only 144 megawatts. One megawatt per hour can satisfy the electrical needs of between 250 to 300 homes.
'Not here, not here, not here.' It's been happening everywhere. And what's been surprising is the ferocity of the attacks.
Days later a few hundred people crowded into the ballroom of the Grosse Pointe War Memorial to hear presentations and air their views about a proposal to place wind turbines on the Ontario side of Lake St. Clair. Judging from the questions and comments, few of those in attendance favorably view the prospect of 165 massive turbines twirling on the beautiful lake. Much was made of how unsightly they would be, even if they'd be five miles in the distance. The potential risk to birds and bats was pointed out, but no mention was made of the 29 miners who perished last month in a West Virginia disaster, or the hundreds of other coal miners who died in mine accidents between 1990 and 2009. The estimated 10,000 miners who have died from black lung disease over the past decade likewise received no mention.
It could well be true that the Lake St. Clair project won't produce enough electricity to justify the investment or environmental tradeoffs, but the focus on parochial concerns — "The first question should be, 'what is the impact on recreational boaters,'" said one man at the meeting — without mention at all of how such a scheme could be part of a larger plan to reduce the world's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels indicates just how difficult it can be to get local buy-in on transformative visions.
The Green Nimby syndrome
Keith Schneider, a former correspondent for the
New York Times, is now director of media and communications at the nonprofit U.S. Climate Action Network based in Washington, D.C. He's also been working part time as a consultant to the publicly owned Traverse City Light & Power utility, which had met fierce opposition to its plan to begin generating some of its electricity by burning wood biomass.
"The environmental community on a national level is pushing like hell for more clean energy," says Schneider. "But local affiliates of those national organizations are pushing back" against local renewable energy projects. When it comes to the big picture, he says, the need to make a transition to clean energy is clearly seen. On the other hand, when it comes to individual projects, environmentalists living in areas directly affected can frequently be heard saying, "'Not here, not here, not here.' It's been happening everywhere. And what's been surprising is the ferocity of the attacks." "I keep asking my environmental friends, 'What happens if you win?'" And then he answers his own question: "What you get is more coal."
On his blog (
modeshift.org) Schneider has been writing about this issue a lot lately, tracking the phenomenon as it manifests itself in different parts of the country.
He's taken note of a "developing struggle in the Mojave Desert," where environmental activists are "revving up local opposition to a [750-megawatt] solar facility." "Any major technology that comes down the pike is going to have consequence," says Schneider. But if your only response is to fight change now and wait for something better to come along, he contends, the consequence of that will be that you let the Chinese capture new green energy markets as polar ice caps continue to melt.
Part of the issue, asserts journalist Tim Dickinson in the May 2010 issue of
Outside magazine is that "alternative energy is no longer alternative. It's big business, backed by giants like Bechtel and Goldman Sachs." That, he contends, is a positive development. "If the U.S. is going to break its dependence on coal and oil," Dickinson writes, "we're going to need massive renewable energy projects and all the capitalist spirit we can muster."
Just how strong the tug of war between those two forces — the desire to protect pristine local wildlife and vistas vs. the recognized need to address global climate change — can be seen in the nearly decade-long fight to install 130 turbines six miles off of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Among the opponents of that project were both the recently deceased liberal icon Sen. Ted Kennedy and his nephew Robert Kennedy Jr., legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel and one of this nation's leading environmentalists. Last week, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the Obama administration's approval of the project. Even so, experts predicted that legal challenges would keep the battle going.
James Clift, the policy director of the Michigan Environmental Council, says that the environmental advantages of wind power are clear-cut. What should convince everyone, he says, is the economics of it all. For starters, there's the fact all the coal and uranium Michigan uses to fuel its power plants, as well as most of the natural gas, are imported from other states. Meaning Michigan is seeing billions of dollars a year flow out across its borders. Utilizing wind power and other renewable fuel sources will help keep some of that money at home. Beyond that, because the massive utility-size wind turbines are very expensive to transport, there is a big incentive to manufacture them as close as possible to where they will eventually be installed. It is, says Clift, an undeniably appealing package: Cleaner energy with reduced health and environmental costs, and the opportunity to put people back to work while reducing the amount of money spent on importing fuel.
"The biggest challenge we face is one of education," says Conan Smith, executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. "People still consider this a fanciful idea. They haven't yet wrapped their heads around the potential. "What we need is a culture shift."
In some areas, that's already occurring. John Sarver of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth points out that the village of
Pigeon, in the Thumb area's Huron County, has truly "embraced" the 32-turbine wind farm that has been there since 2007. "The Village of Pigeon is very happy to invite you to see these marvels," is the offer extended on the community's website.
The cost of electricity produced by large-scale land-based wind farms is about twice as much as that produced by existing coal-fired plants, Sarver says. But the wind power is competitive with the cost of electricity that would come with newly built coal plants, and is cheaper than electricity from new nuclear facility.
Photo by A Anichkin: Wind farm at Carrefour du poteau, the Manche, France
.jpg)
