On oil derricks and windmills

Transitions are hard. When oil derricks first graced the western landscape, towering over homes, these were greeted with mixed emotions, depending on who profited and whose landscape was blighted.

Today we face conflicts as windfarms elicit similar emotions. The “No Wind Farms” signs posted around the Palouse are counterproductive, though. Communities must have a meaningful voice in issues of land use, wildlife impacts, cultural values and aesthetics when a windfarm is proposed, but costly delay only prolongs the inevitable.

There’s a concern that windmills kill birds. The reality is that modern turbines kill a small fraction of birds compared with other causes of mortality, and mitigation continues to improve. A simple fix like painting one windmill blade black increases visibility and reduces bird deaths by more than 70% (https://tinyurl.com/45dm62hh). New blades like DynoTails appear far more efficient than previous generations, capturing wind energy more effectively, reducing noise pollution, and lessening risk of bird and bat mortality (https://tinyurl.com/2p9vb7pk).

Innovations, such as intercropping and controlled environmental agriculture, promise to improve coexistence between windfarms and agriculture. Farmers can benefit from leases on their marginal land and at the same time provide electrical power for the grid.

Wind power is critical to the energy mix of utilities like Avista—not because it’s trendy, but because it’s necessary. As battery technology improves, the contribution of wind (and solar) will become even more significant. All methods of creating energy—hydroelectric, coal, oil, and, yes, wind—have environmental costs. But unless we’re ready to return to the lifestyle of the 1890s, we need to encourage clean energy sources as their technologies mature.

I find the sight of wind turbines on Palouse hilltops heroic. Let’s appreciate their work for all of us.

Mary DuPree

Moscow, ID