Changing of the landscapes

Living in Kansas and spending countless hours on the prairies and in the flint hills where the wind never stops blowing, I found this site of interest. The video posted Nov. 6 summed it up for me.

Artists Against Windfarms

It's a tough business, trying to go green! You also have mainstream environmentalists facing the problem needing to fight huge solar facilities being placed in formerly non-industrialized locations, often with not just scenic value but biological value as well.

More BANANA logic. Go figure....

This issue has more to do with inadequate or non-existent zoning laws in rural counties and towns. The wind farms could just as easily be an automobile factory, a massive pig farm, or anything else a community deems inappropriate. The simple solution is legislate public hearings and votes on ANY use that doesn't conform to approved land uses for the areas.

When I have the oil rights and the rig is on my land pumping oil it is beautiful. When I have wind rights and the wind towers are on my land generating electricity they are beautiful. When the rig or tower is on your land and I don't have one they are an eyesore at best and a pollutant at worst. So I should let my neighbors determine if I can have some on my 2,000 acres or if I should just raise cattle?

I look upon wind farms as a temporary solution, for how long who knows, but at some point in the future they will be obsolete. I just hope there are safeguards to insure when that time comes they will be removed and recycled. I would rather see wind farms than coal mines or fracking.

I actually don't mind wind farms to a certain extent--as John says at least theyre not spewing large amounts of pollutants into the air. But i understand the fight against unfettered industrialization. There always seems to be a mistaken assumption that we must have X amount of energy to keep the world going forward, and that the means of supplying it always have to be the biggest and most extravagant, or it wont work. Like in the San Luis Valley here in CO, where solar power could easily be used on a local/small scale basis to supply all the power the region needs (in fact, many locals are off the grid) but they still want to build massive solar panels that would probably destroy the aesthetics of my favorite National Park. The fact is, most non artists don't even understand the value of aesthetics...

In my travels I've gone through many windblown god-forsaken landscapes that have windpower development that seems pretty innocuous. It's unfortunate that such a pretty area as the flint hills are seeing windpower develoment. Putting the towers out of sight seems like a superficial answer to me. Sort of like cleaning your room by putting all the junk in the closet. As renewable energy goes, I think it is one of the cleaner technologies availible right now and perhaps a trade-off for a shot at fewer carbon emmisions and less climate related problems for the next generations.

In my opinion, it's looking at the problem incorrectly. The best solution is for people to use less energy, to have smarter grid systems and other alternatives that are better. Maring a pretty landscape such as the flint hill has a real value not paid for by the developers or customers. If people started paying for market externalities such as this, it would be a good incentive to explore better solutions. I don't see that happening, but it might be worth while to oragnize locallly to prevent or better plan these things.