‘Vacant Land Myth’: Hundreds Of US Localities Are Resisting The Spread Of Green Energy

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • U.S. cities and states have risen up against the spread of solar panels and wind turbines.
  • One expert says at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have put up barriers to renewable energy development.
  • Those supporting renewables rely on the “vacant-land myth” to push their green agenda, the expert said.

From New York to California, localities have taken action to stymie solar and wind energy projects to preserve their way of life, according to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce.

“All-renewable scenarios rely on the vacant-land myth, the faulty notion that there’s endless amounts of unused, uncared-for land out there in flyover country that’s ready and waiting to be covered with forests of renewable-energy stuff,” Bryce told Senate lawmakers in a hearing Thursday.

“The truth is quite different,” Bryce said in prepared testimony for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“Rural communities, even entire states, are resisting or rejecting wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission projects and that opposition is already slowing deployment of new renewable capacity in the U.S., Canada, and Europe,” Bryce said.

Bryce chastised the “scant” media coverage of the growing resistance to renewable energy projects, which is especially important given Democrats push for sweeping plans, like the Green New Deal, to significantly ramp up renewable energy use. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez Says Climate Change Is ‘Fueling’ The Immigration Crisis)

“By contrast, national media coverage of the growing backlash against deployment of large-scale renewable-energy projects has been scant,” Bryce said. “That lack of media coverage is particularly true when it comes to controversies about wind-energy deployment.”

U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey hold a news conference for their proposed "Green New Deal" at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

It’s not just wind energy development, Bryce said, but opposition to renewables in general that the media has glossed over in recent years. But that opposition complicates sweeping plans, like the Green New Deal, to power the U.S. on renewables.

“Since 2015, I have been tracking rural opposition to wind energy projects,” Bryce said. “By my count, some 225 government entities from New York to California have moved to restrict or reject wind projects.”

“You won’t read about it in the New York Times, but the towns of Yates and Somerset as well as three upstate New York counties – Erie, Orleans, and Niagara – have spent the past three years fighting the proposed 200-megawatt Lighthouse Wind project, which aims to put dozens of wind turbines near the shores of Lake Ontario,” Bryce added.

That sort of opposition could spell trouble for state and federal planners looking to put wind turbines off the East Coast. New York, for example, has a goal of getting 9 gigawatts of offshore wind power in eleven years. (RELATED: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Could Derail A Favorite Tactic Of Climate Activists)

Across the country, Los Angeles County banned large wind turbines in unincorporated areas in 2015, and one county supervisor called wind farms a “visual blight.” San Bernardino slapped strict limits on large wind turbine developments early this year.

The Oklahoma town of Hinton banned wind turbines to avoid becoming an “industrial wind complex,” the town’s mayor told Bryce.

A GE 1.6-100 wind turbine is pictured at a wind farm in Tehachapi

A GE 1.6-100 wind turbine (front C) is pictured at a wind farm in Tehachapi, California June 19, 2013. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni.

President Donald Trump recently added to the anti-wind fervor sweeping across some of the country, claiming in a recent speech that wind turbines ruined views, depressed property values and even caused cancer.

“If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay?” Trump said at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual dinner in early April.

Wind turbines average 466 feet in height and are getting bigger all the time, which means they’re visible for miles. There are also environmental consequences in terms of land use and turbines killing of millions of birds and bats.

A 2017 study, for example, found the amount of wind turbines needed for the U.S. to get all its electricity from renewables would cover roughly 193,000 square miles, or six percent of the land area of the lower-48 states.

Solar farms also take up large allotments of land, and like any other development, displace animals and plants. Solar thermal plants in the California desert incinerate birds that fly over its vast array of heliostat panels.

With these concerns in mind, Spotsylvania County, VA, residents are worried a massive 3,500-acre solar project could damage the environment. Roughly 60 miles north in Washington, D.C., environmentalists are skeptical of Georgetown University’s plan to cut down 210 acres of forest to build a solar farm.

What about the transmission lines needed to get wind power from the windswept Midwest to population centers? Some state and local governments have opposed those as well.

Heliostats reflect sunlight onto boilers in towers during the grand opening of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert near the California-Nevada border

Heliostats reflect sunlight onto boilers in towers during the grand opening of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert near the California-Nevada border February 13, 2014. REUTERS/Steve Marcus.

“High-voltage transmission projects are also facing opposition,” Bryce said, pointing to a 2017 Iowa law that “prohibits the use of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines.”

“The move doomed the Rock Island Clean Line, a 500- mile, $2 billion, high-voltage direct-current transmission line that was going to carry electricity from Iowa to Illinois,” Bryce said.

Follow Michael on Twitter

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 12, 2019 4:12 am

Driving through the Midwest one night and off to the left of me in the darkness I kept seeing red lights flashing in the distance. At first I thought I was tracking a train as there were tracks running parallel to the road. But then it me– those are windmills. Then my heart sank– even at night I cannot get away from the visual blight.

Windmills are everywhere in places like Nebraska and especially Iowa. It’s tragic.

Reply to  leowaj
April 12, 2019 8:52 am

I’ve seen similar blights as I drove across (not flew over) the USA a few years ago. Tragic, shocking, horrifying. The land is only “vacant” because New Yorkers and Californians don’t live in it or see it. But it’s beautiful land blighted by their inefficient contraptions of Occasional Power (think AOC).

Bryan A
Reply to  Kenji
April 12, 2019 10:02 am

All Occasion Communism?

April 12, 2019 4:20 am

Oh, but there are vast tracts of sparsely settled land. There’s Nunavut with a population density of 0.019 persons per square km.

For some reason, they don’t want to put wind turbines and solar panels on land that is actually mostly empty. 🙂

Carbon Based Lifeform
Reply to  commieBob
April 12, 2019 5:08 am

The mostly empty land is to far away from population centers to make it practical

nw sage
Reply to  Carbon Based Lifeform
April 12, 2019 5:43 pm

Sorry, ‘practical’ was NEVER a requirement! It doesn’t matter if we have to spend 90 gazillion dollars to build a transmission line to send 100 watts (average) to a load center – we have to build it anyway!

Lee L
Reply to  commieBob
April 12, 2019 5:50 am

Commie Bob… Think solar. Think “land of the midnight sun”. Think winter. Think diesel.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  commieBob
April 12, 2019 9:28 am

The Greens have already done enough damage to the lives of native peoples of the Arctic.
Leave those people alone!

Reply to  Alan Robertson
April 12, 2019 12:11 pm

When I was a pup, a joke went something like this:

The average Eskimo family consists of 5.43 people:
1 – father
1 – mother
2.43 – children
1 – anthropologist

Reply to  commieBob
April 12, 2019 10:03 am

The American deserts used to be a fragile, crucial, ecosystem inhabited by all manner of rare, endangered species and “medicinal” flora. Until they were identified as valuable to exploit by the same so-called “greens” who FIRST sought to protect them from man. Now, the desert creatures have to take a back seat to green profiteering. Tough luck tortoises and birds.

April 12, 2019 4:27 am

Bird blenders are eyesores. However the liberals in the big cities never see them. Out of sight out of mind, so we have to not only pay for these eyesores we also have to live next to them.

April 12, 2019 4:34 am

Solar and wind sound great to those who don’t have to look at the installations. Just my impression, but those who want grid scale solar and wind are NIMBYs and always want the installations somewhere else where they don’t live.

I do note that I have been seeing some localized use of solar that makes good sense. I’m in a somewhat rural area and there have been warning or informational solar powered lights added to signs that would have otherwise never been lighted. Solar landscape lighting has become quite popular and makes a lot of sense as well.

I’m a proponent of wind and solar where they make sense. They will get installed without passing laws or providing subsidies when it makes sense. Grid scale wind and solar don’t meet that standard. It’s that darned intermittency and spinning reserve for the intermittency that screws the pooch.

John Endicott
Reply to  H.R.
April 12, 2019 5:15 am

Just my impression, but those who want grid scale solar and wind are NIMBYs and always want the installations somewhere else where they don’t live.

Yep Ted Kennedy, very much a “green” in his day, opposed a wind project near his family’s vacation home. He was all for “alternative energy” (as renewables were called back in the day) except when it was in his back yard.


Reply to  John Endicott
April 12, 2019 8:41 am

Thanks, John. That incident in particular was niggling in the back of my mind while I was writing, but I couldn’t recall the who-what-when-where details.

Bill Powers
Reply to  John Endicott
April 12, 2019 10:21 am

And John, the Kennedy’s are special. The Family is part of U.S. Royalty. They don’t like to use the term elite when talking about themselves and it really should go unsaid so long as it is understood

that is what sits at the root of this hoax and many like it. Elites see the great unwashed as a necessary evil but what concerns them is the peon of the world, and there is a never ending surplus of them, are growing in numbers by orders of magnitude and using up precious resources that the elites rely upon for all their creature comforts. Those resources need to be conserved for the Kennedy children and grandchildren. We should all understand that it is their understanding that the unwritten rule is “fossil fuels for me and solar and wind for thee.” Ergo put those nasty windmills on the other side of the tracks.

April 12, 2019 4:43 am

“…environmentalists are skeptical of Georgetown University’s plan to cut down 210 acres of forest to build a solar farm.” – Good. Trees are water sponges, as is other vegetation. There is zero excuse for demolishing something that is beneficial to replace it with something that is a blight on the landscape. Once gone, those trees take decades to cover what was lost to stupidity. The greed and utter stupidity this solar/wind twaddle has generated is appalling, especially when those obnoxious things are as ugly as the greed they generate.

If you really want renewables that don’t destroy the land, then build new reactor plants.

April 12, 2019 5:20 am

I would pose the question. Has anyone thought about the long term affect of these wind turbines on the length of day. I think they over a long term would have an affect on the rotation of the Earth by forcing made on the rotation. This could lead to longer or shorter days and thereby affect the climate.

[Yes, it has been discussed. No, the effect is not measurable. .mod]

Reply to  Mike
April 12, 2019 6:42 am

Wind energy is already being completely absorbed. If it weren’t, wind speeds would keep increasing every year until the wind reached escape velocity.

April 12, 2019 5:26 am

Wind turbines that slice and dice innocent birds, solar flux that cremates birds in flight, and unreliable solar PV all requiring vast investments in dependable energy like nuclear, gas, coal, hydrogen, hydrothermal, who never get compensated for switching off when the spoilt brats of wannabe energy actually runs. This all predicated on a hoax.

April 12, 2019 5:54 am

After all of the fear mongering of nuclear power with the foreboding pics of the cooling towers any home within sight of any similar tower is also devalued.

Bryan A
Reply to  Usurbrain
April 12, 2019 2:54 pm

The massive cooling towers are mainly Gereration 1 reactors Like Three Mile Island.
comment image

Generation 2 reactors are different and don’t have the large cooling towers Like Diablo Canyon.
comment image

Generation 3 reactors are even smaller and also weren’t designed with massive cooling towers, though none have been built to date. (enviroloons won’t allow them to progress)
comment image

Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2019 6:27 pm

Point I was trying to make is that the people go ballistic over cooling towers that have nothing to do with a nuclear power plant and are used for Fossil power plants and other industrial uses. Cooling towers are the result of EPA and rules associated with excessive heating of lakes, ponds, rivers , etc. The same EPA rules apply to Fossil power plants and there are more of them for fossil plants than Nuclear [power plants. TMI planned on using the river and got stuck using a cooling towers.
Diablo Canyon’s is a so-called “once-through cooling” system, which sucks in more than 2.5 billion gallons of water a day from the Pacific Ocean. The water passes through the plant to cool its twin nuclear reactors, then discharges the unnaturally heated water back into San Luis Obispo Bay. I believe its Environmental permit was approved before the restrictions prevented use of the ocean.

Reply to  Usurbrain
April 12, 2019 7:13 pm


Sort of. You’re right. In details. But nuclear powers are more often forced (by the EPA rules you mentioned on “total river water heat increase” limits than fossil power plants for several reasons.

A nuke plant requires many times larger manpower requirements (for security, radcon, NDE, engineering, staff, and support) than do fossil plants of the same size. A 750 MegWatt or 1200 MWatt gas turbine “might” have 35 people total, a nuke 360 or more. So a nuke site will try to build as large a unit as possible (so the people-per-Mwgawatt ratio goes down), and then put two or three nuke plants in the same “fence” as possible (so the security and engineering and supply and radcon and QA and staff can support both plants), and so the EPA and NRC “background” paperwork of site surveys and geological surveys and flood surveys and everything else get shared between the two plants. OK, fine. Costs go down as nuke plants get larger.

But nuke plant is seldom supercritical (superheated) steam, and so a nuke plant of the same electric power output (1200 MegWatt in this case at 32% thermal efficiency) will put out MORE waste heat into the river as a 1200 Meg superheated coal plant running at 45% efficiency, and many times more waste hot water than a 1200 MegW GT + GT + GT + Waste Heat Recovery Steam Plant does. In that one, only the “tiny” 300 MegW steam plant has any waste heat going out to the river, and it is superheated steam condenser, so it is more thermally efficient at 42-45% than the 1200 MegW nuke at 32-36%. So, a fossil 1200 MegW is putting out much less thermal energy to the river than the nuke. And two 1200 MegW nukes are likely on that same river in the same place.

So the cooling towers are associated with nuclear plants. For the reasons you gave.

william Johnston
April 12, 2019 5:58 am

Once again President Trump is misquoted. He did not say they cause cancer. His statement was “they say wind turbines cause cancer.” Unfortunately, we don’t know who “they” are.

Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  william Johnston
April 12, 2019 6:29 am

I never gave the issue a thought previously, but your comment motivated me to find out who ” they” might be.

According to some reports, noise can lead to cardiovascular problems, and increased stress.



Some studies dismiss the cancer/stress link , but others indicate that there is a link between stress and cancer.

“Evidence increasingly points to chronic stress as a factor that might contribute to cancer causation and influence survival.
By Paula Derrow
Medically Reviewed by Kaylan Banda, MD
Last Updated: 10/16/2018”


So “they” is a combination of studies showing that windmill farms produce noise, noise increases stress, and stress may increase cancer risk.

Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
April 12, 2019 5:10 pm

Readers here might also be interested in hearing the presentation that Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira gave in May of 2018 to professionals in Slovenia on the harm to both the neurological and the vestibular systems from low frequency noise and infrasound radiation emitted by turbines. This harm is cumulative and irreversible.
She has stated that knowing what she knows about the harm, she would not live within 20 km from wind turbines.
She states her qualifications within the first few minutes of this presentation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  william Johnston
April 12, 2019 7:59 am

“Once again President Trump is misquoted.”

Yeah, the Liberals will add this to the other 10,000 lies they claim Trump has uttered. Just guessing I would say those 10,000 lies are in the same category as this “lie”. Trump’s “lies” are actually misquotes and distortions of what he said by those who are trying to undermine him.

No doubt Trump has had some misstatements but I can’t think of any that were deliberate lies, and I can’t think of even one instance where Trump deliberately uttered a consequential lie.

What really drives the Left nuts is that Trump tells the unvarnished truth and the Left can’t stand the truth he tells. Trump is the opposite of Politically Correct. Trump’s truthtelling is anathema to the Leftist agenda, and it is a powerful weapon because he speaks the truth about them and about the world situation and reality backs him up.

The Expulsive
April 12, 2019 6:01 am

When someone proposed to put wind turbines in Lake Ontario near Toronto, the Liberal government of the day (those that brought forward the Green Energy Act to favour these things in the first place) passed a regulation to set a minimum depth of water they could be built in, effectively negating the ability to build them as this dramatically raised the cost. While Toronto has a “toy” turbine on the Exhibition grounds, which does not actually produce much power or run for days, they don’t want the great people of the Liberal vote to actually see them.
There are plenty of turbines where Torontonians rarely ravel (off Lake Erie, in the hills around Shelburn, etc.), as the great Liberal thinkers were always careful not to put them square in front of those of the greater Toronto area, so you have to travel well out of the city to see them. They exist on the ridge of land that is part of the “Green Belt” east of Toronto (but you have to strain to see them from the 401), north west of Toronto in the hills west of Caledon, on poor Wolfe and Amherst Island in the St. Lawrence near Kingston, down west as you approach Windsor, but not in and around Toronto and especially not near Toronto Island (as the “progressive” elites will see them).
Some may see this as hypocritical, but in reality it just pushes the eye-sores in front of those country folk who are mostly conservative. This “empty” country with all that vacant land (used by farmers and wildlife) is best suited as it is far from the eyes of enlightened city sophisticates who will vote Liberal, NDP and Green.

Reply to  The Expulsive
April 12, 2019 5:21 pm

Take a look at this ‘notice of application’ from Lawyer, Allan Whitely.


The Expulsive
Reply to  Sommer
April 13, 2019 7:21 am

I am familiar with this group (live in Picton) and have backed them in the past to stop the proliferation of wind turbines in PEC, some of which were partially built, at break-neck speed, in and around Millford PEC.
I don’t know how effective this latest claim willbe, though I think Todd Smith has generally been in support of the protests against industrial wind turbines and the proliferation of solar panel sites in and around Hastings/Prince Edward

Reply to  The Expulsive
April 12, 2019 5:27 pm

Take a look at this recently filed notice of application:


Kevin kilty
April 12, 2019 6:10 am

The places in North America where wind resource is of high quality is limited. In fact, because wind turbines are now being designed for lower power density we may have filled the best sites already. How many wind turbines will it take to make a reliable grid, even assuming it can be done with wind turbines in the first place. What most people fail to imagine is what their view will be like when the number of wind turbines in sight go from a few hundred to tens of thousands.

And then there is the impact on birds and bats. Of course, someone famous once said, “The death of one bat is a tragedy, but the deaths of millions a statistic.”

George Daddis
Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 12, 2019 7:24 am

One example of “desirable” locations (from the renewable energy company’s perspective) are the ridges between the Finger Lakes in rural Western NY.

I was part of a committee formed by our town supervisor to study the possible impacts of industrial wind sites. (Development had reached to a village just south of us; clearly we were a target.)

It turns out that the negative impacts are not limited to the obvious (spoiling views in a high tourist area, clearing mountain ridges of vegetation for animal habitat, low frequency sound etc).

An industrial wind site would have been an environmental and financial nightmare for our town; land owners, not the municipality would gather any proceeds leaving the costs to the town.
– the proposed area atop these ridges had no roads, beyond old logging trails. The new road system would have to be massive to allow for the weight and turning radius of the oversized transport vehicles carrying the turbines, blades and cranes. Even though that would be paid for the new company all approaching rural roads and bridges would be severely strained (and widened). The “clearing” would necessarily be far more than just the actual site.
– we had worked hard to become an official “Audubon Important Bird Area”. That would have gone out the window.
– the foundations (and of course the nearby roads and bridges) were massive. The foundation for each proposed turbine was 30′ deep and 50′ wide. The renewable energy companies were all recently incorporated and often had principles from foreign countries. What happens at the end of the useful life of a site or in the event the company goes bankrupt? How will the site be restored?

We did establish town ordinances (for private, commercial and industrial sites) concerning permissible heights, distances from residences etc. We also required a bond before construction to cover the cost of rehabilitation at the end of the site’s useful life.

So far industrial wind sites have not been placed on those ridges; it is unlikely our ordinances were the reason; there were other economic and public relations factors in play. However, with the new push by the “downstate” dominated legislature and the Governor for renewables, I wouldn’t doubt the ridges will be filled in the future.

The irony is that this area is sitting on Marcellus shale which would, if tapped, be a huge economic gain for the state and local governments, property owners and prospective workers; but the very same ideological group pushing “renewables” abhor “fracking”.

(For reasons including taxation and climate; I have since wisely shifted my residence to a state well south of NYS.)

kevin kilty
Reply to  George Daddis
April 12, 2019 9:30 am

This is a great comment, and I should bookmark it for future reference.

I work at a university, and there is some daft thinking around here, but one comment that takes the blue ribbon prize is from someone in one of the social science told me she thought the local wind farms looked like so many ballerinas dancing in the air.

Reply to  kevin kilty
April 12, 2019 9:54 am

That is terrifying. They look like those WW2 painted airplanes with the teeth—terrorizing all those around. The turbines are not sweet and adorable, they are meant to say “We don’t care about people or wildlife, only money”. There is nothing cute, nice or caring about them.

Mark Whitney
April 12, 2019 6:13 am

If you seek to prevent climate change by switching to a system that removes energy from the climate system won’t that change the climate? > ; }

April 12, 2019 6:48 am

Expulsive: Go take a ride on the Trans Canada up by Sault Ste. Marie if you want a horror scene of big white visual pollution that can be seen from 20 miles south in the US.

April 12, 2019 7:02 am

Would love to see a poll taken on the opinion of those traveling to Vermont during the fall to view and take pictures of the colorful mountain scenery think of the Wind Turbines polluting the area. Also wonder if it has helped their tourist travel during that season. Used to go up there every fall to take pictures. Glad I still have them and the film. Have not visited since they started building those monsters.

John the Econ
April 12, 2019 7:13 am

Probably the single most consistent aspect of Progressivism is the assumption that it will be someone else who has to pay or suffer the consequences of Progressive dreams and policy. Every thing is out-of-sight, out-of-mind with these people, from who is going to pay for all of this to who is going to have to live with it. They want electric cars, but refuse to allow for the mining of rare earth minerals required to make them here in the US. They want power from windmills and solar panels, but only as long as they don’t have to see or hear them.
They are the ultimate NIMBYs of our society.

As for you rural folk and your green resistance, good luck with that. Once they eliminate the Electoral College and the eco-fascists fully take over, you won’t get a choice. You’ll just be a giant “District 5” to our social betters on the coasts.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  John the Econ
April 12, 2019 12:35 pm

RE: “District 5” I wonder why people don’t see Hunger Games as an analogy for the future that would result from leftist activity. I doubt even Suzanne Collins realizes what she has written.

April 12, 2019 7:17 am

Policy makers need to do the Math, by 2050 we need to add 3-5 cubic miles of oil energy equivalents; or 12 to 20 Billion solar rooftops, 9 to 15 million turbines or just 4 container ships of the Seaborg.co 20′ 30-ton shippable MSR:
The Case for the Good Reactor https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/

Tom Abbott
April 12, 2019 8:15 am

Windmills and Industrial Solar are losing propostions.

It looks like more and more people are seeing it the same way.

There’s still inertia in the system but it seems like we are having a sea change in thinking among the average citizen.

The Elites, on the other hand, are still going along like the world is going to end in 12 years.

Walter Sobchak
April 12, 2019 8:26 am

None of you mentioned the best anti-windmill moment of all. The Nantucket Sound proposal — Cape Wind.

The leaders of the opposition included the late Senator Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, YS*, best known as a Co-inventor of the waitress sandwich; and his nitwit nephew, noted anti-vaxxer and watermelon, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The opposition fought the proposal for 16 years until the proponents said no más.

Windmills (a/k/a bird chomping Eco-crucifixes†) are not being proposed to provide energy to the American people. They are being proposed to destroy the American economy and impoverish, humiliate and demoralize the lower classes.

The watermelons have absolutely no intention of letting any “renewable” energy infrastructure be built anywhere near them. They are just shiny baubles to distract us from the damage they are doing.

*An ancient Hebrew Curse on the evil dead: “yimakh shemo” “May his name be obliterated”
†h/t James Delingpole.

John Endicott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 12, 2019 10:10 am

Walter Sobchak
None of you mentioned the best anti-windmill moment of all. The Nantucket Sound proposal — Cape Wind.

Actually, Walter, it was mentioned (just not by name), up thread about 3 hours before your post.

Yep Ted Kennedy, very much a “green” in his day, opposed a wind project near his family’s vacation home…..

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
April 12, 2019 10:32 am

John Kerry was involved, too.


John Kerry is leading the climate fight in the Senate. So why won’t he support a major renewable energy project in his own backyard?

“But in a 2007 posting about the “controversy” on his website, Kerry suggested he was no fan of the [Windfarm] proposal. “You can’t just have someone plunk something down wherever the hell they want,” Kerry wrote, questioning “whether this is the best location.”

end excerpt

All these Leftist Elites are hypocrits. Do what I say, not what I do, they say.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 12, 2019 10:58 am

A few years previously (in the article I linked to earlier in the thread https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/2/20060302-124537-9804r/ ) Kerry was quoted thusly:

>Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts’ junior senator and another key green ally, called attempts to derail the project an “insult.”

Not surprised Kerry turned out to be so wishy-washy on the subject. I guess he was for it before he was against it. 🙂

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Endicott
April 12, 2019 2:43 pm

Sorry, I missed that. But, in a way, it ought to be exhibit A of watermelon hypocrisy about “renewable” energy.

Hoyt Clagwell
April 12, 2019 8:46 am

That picture of the Tehachapi wind farm doesn’t begin to show the blight that Tehachapi has become. From the Center For Land Use Interpretation:
The Tehachapi Wind Farm, with around 4,731 wind turbines, is the second largest collection of wind generators in California (the largest is at the Altamont pass, near Livermore and the San Francisco Bay area). The turbines are operated by a dozen private companies, and collectively produce about 3,236 megawatts of electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of 350,000 people every year. With over 11,000 turbines in the state (4,029 at Altamont and 2,159 at San Gorgonio Pass, near Palm Springs), wind power in California makes up about 6.5% of California’s electricity, as of 2014. Until just a few years ago, these three wind farms were the largest in the world.

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
April 13, 2019 3:35 am

So the Sierra Madre-Chokecherry being the largest is just another lie???? (Thousand turbines). Color me shocked.

HD Hoese
April 12, 2019 9:06 am

Click on the clutter extending northeast from Corpus Christi, turbines mostly in farmland like cotton fields, some interestingly absent. Objections came from the Naval Air Station in Kingsville thirty miles to the SW with satellite fields in Corpus and Rockport. If there is so much waste land why are property taxes so high in Texas? Corpus area has lots of wind, still putting them up, all were apparently outside of strongest Harvey winds. You can clearly see them on Google Earth, not sure how much they cost.

Area developers and politicians are pushing for industrial and other development, but the problem is water. Plans in Corpus are for a desalinization plant across from Port Aransas where they are temporarily storing turbine blades, was just told that they don’t know what they are doing, Corpus planners that is.

April 12, 2019 9:44 am

Until a grid battery is developed wind and solar electrical generation will always rely on fossil fuels and nuclear for backup (Except where hydro is available however limited). Can’t get around that fact no matter how much propaganda is spewed. Meanwhile the fossil fuel energy generation plants are still in standby operation but that’s a “dirty” little secret no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge.

April 12, 2019 9:48 am

Every time I see Occasio-Cortes I realise that the Greens have found an answer to the population problem

A woman too stupid to even have children

April 12, 2019 9:57 am

Of course, nobody wants to look out their front door at a view of a powerplant with a smokestack either .. or live downwind of that smokestack … or with 100 miles of a nuclear powerlant .. or downstream of a hydroelectric dam. And that is just powerplants.

Here in Florida NIMBY’s pop up on any and everything that anyone wants to build … including roads, schools, hospitals, stadiums, multi-family housing projects, houses bigger than theirs, houses smaller than theirs.

In case you never heard it before, NIMBY is a real deal.

And no, windmills don’t cause cancer.

John Endicott
Reply to  Duane
April 12, 2019 10:16 am

Yes, NIMBY isn’t unique to the bird chopping industry. But, as in the case of Teddy Kennedy, it is often seems to be an even more hypocritical NIMBY than in other NIMBY situations due to the virtue signaling that the wind NIMBYs routinely engage in.

Reply to  Duane
April 13, 2019 3:43 am

“Of course, nobody wants to look out their front door at a view of a powerplant with a smokestack either.”

It’s a water vapor stack and I look out my bedroom window at one. Its doesn’t bother me as much as the stupid hundreds of turbines I can see out my bedroom and living room windows, on the way to town and from my cabin. ONE power plant versus hundreds of spinning shark faces (remember the teeth on the WW2 bombers….) that defile acres and acres of land only to enrich the already rich while destroying the environment on a massive level—I’ll take the ONE plant any day. Only an fool would be bothered by a real power plant—it keeps the lights on. Fake, environmentally nasty tax breaks for the rich that number in the hundreds—only idiots worship those.

And we have no idea what causes cancer in 99.9% of the cases. Actually, 100% since none of the “causes” are even close to 100% true in all cases. We know only risk factors and many of those are not really scientific. So if Trump said this, he was quoting one or two studies. Of course, if we are honest, that is all science is now—the study of the day pushed by the media. So I guess Trump was being scientific.

April 12, 2019 10:07 am

With his book The Past and Future of the Kaffir Races (1866), W. C. Holden was one of the early writers on South African history to publish a book that used the theory of empty land as an explanation for landownership in South Africa. In order to legitimise European settlement in South Africa Holden argued Europeans and the Bantu tribes had entered South Africa at roughly the same time and that up until that point South Africa had mostly been an ‘empty land’. The theory outlined by Holden claimed that the Bantu had begun to migrate southwards from present day Zimbabwe at the same time as the Europeans had begun to migrate northwards from the Cape settlement, with the two movements finally meeting in the Zuurveld region between the Sundays River and the Great Fish River. This, the theory claimed, gave equal right to the land to whoever could take ownership of it, with force, and maintain that ownership. There were therefore no ‘original’ inhabitants with an ‘original’ right to the land, only two migrating groups who had equal claim to it.

Although Holden was the first to publish the theory of empty land in a book, the theory itself had been circulating in the colony for a long time, with many colonists claiming that they had as great a right to the land as the newly arrived Bantu. Myths of empty and vacant land were common currency by the mid 1840s.

So, the GND is, in part, based to the same myth that helped to get apartheid going.

Reply to  Neo
April 12, 2019 3:19 pm

Looks like the Euro centric thought had to rationalize the land ownership.
I wonder if the Bantu even had a concept of land ownership?
So who was correct?
Is there a measure of this kind of correctness after almost two centuries?

Jim Gorman
April 12, 2019 11:04 am

When the granddaughter was into The Hunger Games, I told her that was fiction I used to think the same about the book 1984. Not anymore. I wonder at times if the The Hunger Games won’t become true also.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 12, 2019 12:36 pm

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

April 12, 2019 1:20 pm

The English landscape, which used to be beautiful, has been largely ruined by a blight of wind farms in the highest and most visible locations.

Bill Murphy
April 12, 2019 2:07 pm

I posted this a few months ago, but it fits this thread so well. As a resident of part of that “uninhabited” land in an area known for wind (SD) you might think that the few folks up here would be all in on wind power. And at first, they were. Then the realities of it all started to become obvious. This is what most here think now.

comment image

April 12, 2019 3:00 pm

US electricity demand is about 4 trillion kilowatt hours per year.
Each wind tower has a nameplate capacity of about 4,000 kilowatts. At an average 30% capacity factor that equates to generation of 10 million kilowatt hours per year.
So it would take 400,000 towers to meet US electricity demand, on average.
Space them 300 metres apart, and they would from a line 120,000 kms long, equal to 3 times the earth’s circumference.
With very strong winds, on occasion they will deliver 8,000 kW, so lots of batteries required to store that surplus. Or without batteries, when the wind doesn’t blow there needs to be 100% backup from reliable gas or other generators.
Now tell me again how this can deliver cost effective electricity.

Ian MacCulloch
April 13, 2019 12:07 am

Down Under the phenomenon is called ‘terra nullis’ or vacant land. Some time ago our highest court ruled that did not apply. This gave rise to the reinstatement of a lot native land to their original owners. Utilities in USA will one day have to run up against your SCOTUS on this one. A layers picknick for sure. Enjoy the feast.

April 14, 2019 3:00 pm

Windmills DO cause cancer. Proof: We have increased our use of windmills. People are getting cancer at much higher rates than before the dramatic increase in windmills.

Johann Wundersamer
April 19, 2019 3:21 pm

President Donald Trump recently added to the anti-wind fervor sweeping across some of the country, claiming in a recent speech that wind turbines ruined views, depressed property values and even caused cancer.

Infrasonic “unhearable” sound drives people from their homes – bevore they know what they’re fleeing from.

%d bloggers like this: