New Video: Wind Turbines Supporting Hard Hit Rural Economies

October 7, 2019

Spending a lot of time last few months talking to citizens and officials in rural Mid-Michigan, where wind development is transforming hard-pressed small towns and rural areas with new revenue and opportunities.


18 Responses to “New Video: Wind Turbines Supporting Hard Hit Rural Economies”

  1. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    That’s what I need to hear right now.

    One thing, though: Nobody mentioned the wind turbines’ role in scaring away werewolves.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      no one’s seen a werewolf in these parts since the turbines came in. Nor Bigfoots neither..

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Fake news—we have virtually NO wind turbines in the DC area, and yet we have no werewolves or bigfoots either

      Unless the presence of lobbyists, dirty money, and corrupt politicians works as well as wind turbines at scaring away ww’s and bf’s?—-I would think the opposite is true—-should be more vampires and flesh-eating zombies here too.

    • If you kids want to get serious about wildlife impacts, do the search below. Insects could end up being the most significant casualties, as they support the low end of the food chain. Old Nils Hellstrom was premature.

      Bats aren’t doing well, either. You can’t just shut down entire arrays when bats fly in, nor eagles, but that’s the current bogus solution. The bird species they kill are different from the “house cats kill more” theme, but that won’t stop you from repeating it.

      It’s like trying to tell AGW-deniers that the 1998 El Nino spike is a devious place to start a “cooling” graph. Their agenda is to deny global warming and yours is to deny any real impact from huge machines all over the countryside, even though anyone can see they’re unnatural.

      I’m old enough to remember when anything that blighted nature or killed species in droves was protested by environmentalists. Webster’s needs a new word:


      [Noun: Shills for Big Wind companies, or naive youth who think they’re only the size of Tinkertoys.]

  2. In Germany every farmer has windmills on his land. It brings in more money then farming. He is harvesting all year around wind energy. Does it make any difference how you make your money?

    • Here’s another counterpoint to this turbine love-fest that only mentions the superficial benefits. Have you people seen what the German countryside actually LOOKS like? The map below (sourced from Wikipedia) is just from 2011 and it was bad enough then. It resembles a case of pox or spiky acne.

      Below is a major German anti-wind-energy site, fairly easy to translate to English. Real environmentalists around the world see what’s going on and can’t just let the blight grow. A graph of Germany’s CO2 output reveals weak carbon-reduction, after they also foolishly scuttled nuclear plants.

      Wind turbine density in Germany is equivalent to over 820,000 in America; about 14 times what we see today. When I see “environmentalists” cheering on more massive sprawl, it’s like being surrounded by pod-people who only care about maintaining growth in any form.

  3. You won’t mention that wind projects are also hitting them hard with spoiled scenery, noise and red-lit nights, which shills dismiss as NIMBYism. There was a time when environmentalists routinely protested big land & ocean developments. Now, you face angry smugness and chants of “global warming denier!” if you don’t worship white giants.

    I was glad to see this Atlantic article mention low-frequencies from wind turbines: (noise is a big deal, folks)

    It could have easily focused on infrasound instead of a noisy data center cooling system, just as the movie “Promised Land” (2012) was originally going to be about wind turbines, not fracking. Natural gas plants routinely back up Big Wind and they should make a sequel tying it all together.

    Nearly 230,000 acres are currently being blighted for two Wyoming wind projects called Chokecherry and Sierra Madre. Environmentalists who protest urban sprawl have some values-reckoning to do. But most prefer to sell-out and post pro-IWT slants on blogs like this, CleanTechnica, etc.

    When you see that the world’s current 355,000+ wind turbines have done almost nothing to halt global warming, you have to ask yourselves whether tenfold that number (aka the Green New Deal) is going to do anything of real value vs. its blatant impact on nature.

    A common rationalization is that wind power can “save more birds and bats” by preventing warming, even as if kills them in droves today. Where is the plausible evidence for that? It looks more like Big Wind wants to grab as many subsidies as they can before the PTC plays out.

    Another popular tactic is using Trump to “prove” that all wind power critics are buffoons:

    • dumboldguy Says:


      • What a mindless shill, as I’ve seen before. You’ve got nothing of substance to say because you lack an honest argument.

        Wind turbines as a “clean alternative” to fossil fuels (from which they’re built) is similar to vaping as a “safe alternative” to smoking. As recent vaping news shows, every new technology is prone to new pitfalls.

      • More content-free stuff from dumboldshill, like a kid spitting up on a rug. All you do is cry fake news when wind power negatives are documented. That makes you no better than Trump and Co. on fossil fuels.

        There are basically four views on Big Wind sprawl:

        1) We need to fix AGW by any “clean” means possible, and to heck with the physical impacts on nature. But lets still call ourselves Green because it sells.

        2) We think there can be a balance, aka “careful siting” of massive wind projects that won’t interfere with nature too much. (This is a longstanding farce on a finite planet with fewer spots to put them every day).

        3) We should use energy sources with the smallest footprint possible, which means nuclear and rooftop solar, and small wind turbines only. The other part of that strategy is degrowth, not “green growth.” It means people need to scale down as individuals and a society. Not very popular, since it questions innate greed.

        4) Global warming is a hoax and oil is infinite, therefore wind turbines are a total scam. (This is the main strawman on blogs like this.)

        If you actually read for content, you’ll see that far more wind power opponents favor #3 over the other views. Then, there’s view #3a, which says nothing’s going to stop the industrial plague except a global economic collapse.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      The “eyesore” argument is just petty.
      When a pulmonologist sees a wind turbine, she sees lower cases of black lung, children’s asthma, and other combustion insults.

      When a rural county resident sees a wind turbine, he sees better funding for schools and county services.

      When a hydrogeologist sees a wind turbine, she sees lower demand on local water sources.

      As for wildlife damage, I don’t see it as at all likely that the per-Megawatt damage from a wind turbine is worse than the per-Megawatt damage of coal (mountaintop removal, combustion poisons, ash slurry pits, CO2 ghg effects), or even gas (fracking-damaged aquifers, CH4 leaks, pipeline routes, CO2 ghg effects). There is growing research and expertise on tricks to reduce the likelihood of flying vertebrates hitting wind turbines as well.

      • Those are standard rationalizations, you know. Appeals to aesthetics go right through proponents of the new Manifest Destiny with green branding. “Build, build, build!” is all you care about. Buy off a few farmers and claim nobody else protests. Wreck a 10-mile mountain ridge and call it “beautiful” as if you have the last word on everything. It’s got the same smugness as the fracking invasion but at least that infrastructure can be removed when it plays out.

        Your paragraph with the typical windspeak of “per megawatt damage” writes off potential extinctions with vague techno-fixes. Sensors to shut down a wind farm are the current panacea when bats or eagles are drawn to blades (no cats to blame). Does anyone really think that’s pragmatic? The bloated contraptions are idle often enough already! Wind turbines get built where there’s wind, and they can’t be too concerned about flyways. We’d see vastly restricted development if they truly cared about birds, bats, and don’t forget insects (wind engineers mainly care about blade efficiency when bugs splat; food chain be damned).

        Even if wind had a chance to the replace fossil fuels that allow it to exist, the blight and carnage wouldn’t be worth it. Nuclear SMR (e.g molten salt) is far more pragmatic. Small footprint, much more reliable, much safer than older nuclear plants. Fear of nuclear is a major enabler of “clean” energy sprawl. France needs to speak up more about its nuclear success.

        The page below has rebuttals to all your denials, but they won’t register with wind geeks. The wind industry should disassociate itself from environmentalism altogether. Say what you’re REALLY about and stop riding the coattails of Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Carson, Stegner, et al. With so much pressure to develop “empty, wasted” desert lands, a guy who’d really knock wind power was Edward Abbey. His cherished deserts are looking more and more like this:

        • dumboldguy Says:

          False P’s overreach is so long that his arms must be long enough to scratch the rear ends of anyone within 25 feet. It’s not worth the time to respond, so I’ll take a nap instead—–ZZZZZzzzzzzz…….!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: