ANWR wind farm proposal

The subject line is not true (yet) but think about the concept.

Would "green" types OK massive visual blight and access roads for
thousands of 400-foot wind turbines in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, just because they are a "zero-emissions" power source? I would
hope not, but aesthetics seem to eva****ate in the wind for advocates.

ANWR is a landscape few people ever see but I'm almost more OK with
oil drilling than wrecking more pristine scenery with huge, spinning
industrial towers. The profile and motion of man-made objects is
critical to a view. The word "green" conjures images of views colored
by chlorophyll, not white steel.

CO2 isn't good but oil derricks are harder to see from a distance and
aren't usually perched on ridge-lines. They would also (presumably)
come down after the oil is depleted, leaving the landscape free of
obvious structures. Wind turbines would have to stay indefinitely, by
design.

It's re****ted that 60% of U.S. turbines are behind in maintenance due
to lack of skilled workers. When gearboxes fail they are useless
eyesores for weeks or months. Drive by any wind farm and you'll see a
good number of idle turbines. This is not set it and forget it
technology.

If we must put up thousands more turbines, they should be painted the
color of the average local sky to blend into horizons. But that could
heighten the bird-kill risk. I really don't see how wind power fits
with environmental activism.

Building more roads and forcing industrial views upon millions of
acres is what it comes down to (if maximum deployment is achieved).
People who call wind turbines "beautiful" must think cities are the
most interesting part of the landscape. That's industrialism, not
environmentalism.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Don't blight the land that feeds you.