[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

How green is my (wind) energy? 

Credit:  William F. Zachmann, Duxbury Clipper, eduxbury.com 7 December 2011 ~~

Last week, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to ask the Duxbury Alternative Energy Committee “to withdraw any consideration of presenting a 2012 Town Meeting warrant article” for additional funds for additional studies on building a wind turbine in Duxbury. Although narrowly about the proposed Town Meeting article, the vote was, in effect, a broad rejection by the Board of the idea of building a wind turbine on public lands in Duxbury at all – the notion that prompted the Selectmen to appoint the committee in the first place.

It is common, when someone in Town government wants to promote a project, to appoint a citizens’ committee to “study” the project and bring forward “recommendations” in favor of it. That way, instead a few individuals owning up to wanting to get it done, it can be promoted as being sponsored by a citizens’ committee, typically advised by one or more carefully chosen consultants (often paid at taxpayers’ expense), and sold to the voters has having been put forward by “these selfless citizen volunteers who have devoted so much of their own time and effort” working on the project.

However, it is rare for such a committee, once set in motion, after it has come forward with its recommendation, subsequently to be discouraged by the Board of Selectmen from pursuing the project. So what is different in this case? What issues does it raise? What can we learn from it?

The obvious explanation is simply that well organized, articulate opposition by citizens opposed to the project last week convinced two of the three Selectmen, Chris Donato and Ted Flynn, that it would be best to drop the wind turbine idea altogether. Both were happy to accept what do seem like some pretty far-fetched claims by opponents that wind turbines pose health hazards including “sleep disruption, fatigue, hearing loss, mood disorders, depression, stress and heart palpitations” even though, clearly, neither was entirely convinced by such claims.

But that does not necessarily mean Flynn and Donato were wrong to vote as they did. Health hazard or not, wind turbines are big, ugly and potentially noisy structures that just do not make good neighbors. But there are two other good reasons to oppose such a project. First, siting a wind turbine on public land is far more likely to benefit private contractors, consultants, and utilities than to benefit Duxbury’s taxpayers and citizens. Second, the promise of renewable energy from wind turbines suffers from the same problems afflicting many other supposedly “green” and “renewable” energy schemes.

Like all government-promoted projects influenced more by industry lobbyists than by authentically concerned citizens, so-called “green energy” legislation stacks the deck in favor of private parties in pursuit of profit and against local municipalities. Wind energy in Massachusetts is an example of this.

But worse, however appealing to folks who adhere to “Green” as an ersatz religious belief with “rather die than think” conviction, much purportedly “green” technology has real energy costs much higher than advocates claim and rely on very un-green component technologies. Solar cells and electric cars are egregious examples. Wind turbines are another. In the present state of the technology, none genuinely delivers economically justifiable alternative energy. That’s why they all require government subsidies and incentives even to get them considered, let alone broadly adopted, by normal, sensible, people.

Source:  William F. Zachmann, Duxbury Clipper, eduxbury.com 7 December 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky