They're Blowing Hot and Cold on Wind Farms

They're Blowing Hot and Cold on Wind Farms

Aug 08 - The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Missouri)

One of the greenest forms of energy -- wind power -- is picking up opposition from the very people you might expect to champion it: environmentalists.

In fact, some Kansas groups are among the leaders in a growing groundswell that's reached other states and even Europe.

"This is not just a Kansas problem," said Larry Patton, a member of Nature Conservancy and Audubon of Kansas, two groups that are raising red flags about wind farms. "We all wish that wind turbines were a silver bullet that would solve all energy problems, but that is not the case."

That doesn't mean, though, that all environmental groups oppose wind power. The Sierra Club in Kansas strongly supports it as a renewable energy that is much cleaner than burning fossil fuels.

It also doesn't mean environmentalists oppose wind under any conditions. If regulations were stronger and the location were right -- a difficult prospect, they say -- wind could still work.

Supporters of wind energy still contend that turbines are valuable tools to clean the environment and fight global warming.

But as Kansas is trying to woo the wind energy industry and decide whether to allow it in the heart of the Flint Hills, some groups have broken ranks with supporters.

Among their arguments:

--The effect of wind energy on global warming will be minuscule. Wind is intermittent and the technology will only allow it to produce a small amount of electricity, so power plants will still be needed.

--Wind farms needed to produce that small stream of electricity are huge, with dozens of turbines that can reach almost 400 feet high. That's an eyesore, especially in scenic areas such as the Flint Hills.

--The turbines, with blades longer than 100 feet, kill birds and bats and disturb the habitat of numerous animals on the ground, including the disappearing prairie chicken.

--Wind farms are too expensive, costing billions of dollars in federal, state and local tax breaks and grants for a small amount of electricity.

"Some environmentalists think just because a wind turbine is renewable it is good, and they are willing to ignore siting issues and tax expenditures," said Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas. "This is a dual tragedy because great places are being destroyed and taxpayers are being hoodwinked into paying for these things with enormous subsidies."

Wind farms are only acceptable if regulations keep them out of pristine areas and if nearby residents agree to them, Klataske and other environmentalists say. For example, they don't have a problem with Kansas' only existing turbines, located in a sparsely populated area southwest of Dodge City.

They acknowledge that there are no easy answers to what the country should do instead of wind power.

"That is the $64,000 question," Patton said. "Everybody has an opinion."

But many suggest that the money going into wind development could be more wisely used on making existing power plants cleaner and on research into safer nuclear energy.

Wind energy "has a pernicious negative impact in that it lulls people to sleep thinking we have done something to address climate change when we haven't," said Alan Pollom, Kansas director of the Nature Conservancy.

Supporters vigorously defend wind energy.

While wind farms may never produce more than 20 percent of the power the United States needs, they also don't create the dangers that opponents claim, they say. The technology has improved and there is little evidence that they harm birds. As for prairie chickens, their populations declined before a single turbine was erected.

As with all forms of energy, large tax subsidies are common, supporters say.

Wind has become so popular in recent years because it is competitive in cost, said Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL Energy, which built the wind farm near Dodge City.

"If you look objectively at wind energy, there is no water use, no greenhouse emissions, and from an economical standpoint, wind is competitive on a per kilowatt basis with fossil fuels," he said.

But some conservation groups in Kansas and around the country are forming alliances with those who traditionally have opposed wind energy -- ranchers and companies in the coal, oil and gas industry.

Environmentalists, ranchers and industry people recently organized the Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Foundation to pay for lawsuits to fight wind development.

"Unfortunately these environmental groups, to keep these wind turbines out of places like the Flint Hills, are forming a coalition with people who are promoting the continuing burning of coal and nuclear power," said Charles Benjamin, attorney and lobbyist for the Sierra Club in Kansas. "This unholy alliance â?¦ I find that unconscionable, frankly."

Wind opponents cry foul, saying Benjamin as an attorney represents wind developers. But Benjamin says that there's nothing wrong with that, and that his concerns are helping future generations live with cleaner air.

The groundswell among environmentalists raising questions about wind energy is gaining steam through the ease of the Internet.

Just look at Patton's Web site for a group he has founded, Protect the Flint Hills, and you will find links to more than 200 groups worldwide who oppose wind farms.

That irks wind supporters, who argue that a lot of concerns raised on the Internet are groundless.

"As soon as somebody thinks up an idea about why wind is bad, they put it on the Web and the issue starts getting circulated," said Tom Gray, a spokesman for the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's national trade association.

"There is all this global communication making it easier to contact people who feel the same way."

Strong opposition from conservationists and others is found not only in Kansas but also in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia, Oregon and Washington. Where wind farms were established early, such as in Iowa and Minnesota, little or no opposition exists, Gray said.

In Kansas, resistance to wind farming began in the Flint Hills. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has asked wind developers to stay out of a portion of the Flint Hills while awaiting a report on tourism in Kansas, which is expected to be released this month.

But just a few miles south of the temporary border, a wind farm is being erected in Butler County on tallgrass prairie. And developers announced plans for another wind farm not far from there in Cowley County, also in tallgrass prairie and just outside the area of the Flint Hills considered off-limits.

At a meeting in McPherson County, more than 50 persons turned out to hear a proposal from a Spanish wind company, Gamesa. Almost all opposed the farm, county officials said.

"I think it was a surprise to the folks in McPherson County the number of anti-wind folks and the kind of voracity of the opposition," said Lee Allison, the governor's top energy adviser.

-----

To see more of The Kansas City Star, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.kansascity.com .

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.