One of the more revealing aspects of the current debate on the proposed use of wind turbines in Kent County is that most people support the development of wind power as an alternative energy source – at least in concept.
In real time, not so much, at least not here.
The voicing of grave opposition to the Virginia-based Apex Corporation’s plan to install fifty towers, reaching close to 500 feet in height (about the size of a 48 floor office building) just a few miles from Route 213, the county’s most traveled road, suddenly turns the environmentally progressive into naysayer.
This unfortunate contradiction — the understanding the need for alternative power sources colliding with the gross reality of what that would mean for this small county — is a hard one to resolve easily without accepting a certain degree of NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard).
And NIMBYism has been alive and well on the Eastern Shore for centuries. In Kent County alone, the list is long of projects proposed and defeated by a defiant, and sometimes self-righteous proclamation that our community is different from all the rest. One 30 second clip from the Spy’s recent interview with Dan Tabler, former editor of Record Observer recalling Kent County’s outrage of a bay bridge proposal coming to Tolchester is a wonderful example of this tradition.
Whether it be a waste removal incinerator, a second Bay bridge, or a chemical stockpile disposal site, Kent County’s grievances have been heard loud and clear, and usually successfully, in convincing decision-makers that our small little part of Maryland is not compatible with those kinds of land use.
And it doesn’t stop there. The fight to preserve Kent County can also be found in zoning ordinances, some of them the most restrictive in the Mid-Atlantic region.
The results of all those protests, zoning laws, letters to politicians, angry town meetings, and other means to influence outcomes over the past fifty years is simple – the remarkable Kent County landscape as it stands today, one of the last remaining undisturbed open space on the East Coast. The community has continuously pushed away special interests that would have enhanced tax revenue, provided more employment, and countless other short-term benefits to protect this tiny, museum-quality 400 square miles viewscape unaltered since the 17th Century.
History is once again repeating itself over the wind turbine proposal. An outside corporation is coming in with very tempting projections of the net cash benefits being offered the County by allowing them to installing wind turbines.
And once again, Kent County must once again suit up to play the role of David to combat its most current Goliath, in this case, Maryland’s Public Service Commission, to argue for its protection. It is the right thing to do.
Bill Anderson says
“The community has continuously pushed away special interests that would have enhanced tax revenue, provided more employment, and countless other short-term benefits to protect this tiny, museum-quality 400 square miles viewscape unaltered since the 17th Century.”
That statement, in its proper context, proves the statement uttered some years ago concerning George Washington’s last visit to the area. Asked by the leaders of the County, and Chestertown in particular, what advances should be taken, Washington responded, “Don’t do anything at all until I return.” Clearly, the community has followed that sage advice ever since and the area remains in the past in nearly every measure. Maybe electric lights someday in Chestertown?
James Dissette says
I think it would be interesting to know exactly how tax revenue would be enhanced, what employment possibilities are offered in the equation and what additional benefits might be available from this proposal. It would help in clarifying the dialogue.
David Foster says
While I agree that there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, I have found the Wind Mill opponents (including close friends and colleagues) to be very indignant at the mere thought that NIMBY might be involved here in Kent County. One remark seemed rather telling: “Oh no” said she. “We will not have NIMBY in my backyard!”
Deirdre LaMotte says
I have never understood the negative aspect of “NIMBYism”
If one cannot protect an area where they live, who will?
Andrew Kraft says
I think the idea of protecting the land is an interesting one. Protecting from what? Clean renewable energy that plugs directly into the local power grid. I am not certain how the structure of the agreement would be set up, but from a purely technological standpoint, the power used by Kent County would be cleaner. If we want to protect the county, maybe we should look at the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, which is causing measurable sea level rise. If we want to protect our county, how about moving forward with a progressive energy source that doesn’t contribute to sea level rise.
Also, from an aesthetic standpoint, I don’t know if any of you have seen how uranium or coal are mined, but it’s not pretty. Considering that nuclear currently makes up around 39.9% of our electrical generation, while coal is approximately 35.5%, one would assume that the aesthetics of that production are significantly poorer than a windmill. If we are ok with the risks of nuclear and coal, then I suppose people around here can be content having the lights magically turn on. I wonder if there was a same aesthetic argument when cell phones towers, tv antennas, and power lines were introduced? Let’s hope we can preserve that aesthetic of chicken manure spreaders, cell phone towers, power lines, and not to forget the sweet relaxing sounds of an 18 wheeler flying down 213.
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
https://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts
Janet Christensen says
You seem to be implying that the energy produced from the turbines is going to stay local. You may want to study up on ISOs and RTOs to understand the true nature of power distribution.
PJM is Maryland’s regional transmission organization, the power produced here in Kent County feeds into a grid that stretches from Michigan to North Carolina, Ohio to New Jersey.
Your arguments, if I am understanding you correctly, is wind or nothing. You some how missed the point that Kent County has a renewable energy plan. 4.25% of the solar generation in the state is in this county with a land mass of 2.85%. Chestertown has just announced organizing a community solar project, where, in fact, the power will benefit Kent County residents. No one has even remotely said we will have none of it here in Kent County.
Here are some interesting numbers for you to mull over as you contemplate seeing this project as saving us from sea level changes. The Global Carbon Dioxide emissions in 2013 was 36.0 BILLION tonnes. For every MWh produced from wind .6 ton of CO2 will be avoided. The wind field proposed here in Kent will produce a saving in CO2 emissions of 210 THOUSAND tonnes.
If you don’t like chicken manure spreaders, perhaps you would be happier in a more urban setting.
Andrew Kraft says
I am quite familiar with RTO’s and ISO’s, and am fully aware that we are connected to a large grid which stretched from Michigan to North Carolina and Ohio to New Jersey. Unless there has somehow been a new device that allows you to utilize only power you purchase from an end user, what I say is true. Power, when plugged into the grid, is utilized by the nearest end user. Deregulation allowed each individual generating company to sell their own generated power, but that is a formality only. Once they plug into the grid, there is no differentiating the generated power from an engineering standpoint.
I am also not stating that it’s wind or nothing, but rather that continuing to knock down renewable plans for reasons of aesthetics is short-sighted. To think that I assumed that a wind farm in Kent County would somehow reverse the current issues we are facing from a climate stanpoint is a bit presumptuous. Obviously anyone with any sort of knowledge of the global climate system understands that the amount of CO2 emitted globally vastly overshadows the amount reduced by the installation of a wind farm in Kent County. However, the argument being had here is one that is being had on a national, and even global level. If the push for renewable energy continues to be shot down by NIMBYism, we will do nothing but continue on the path we are on.
I think Ben has valid points that warrant investigation. Mainly his point about the wind potential of the proposed area lacking. While this would certainly be a concern, I have a hard time believing a company would invest that sort of capital for a minimal return on investment.
Also ,
Not sure what the comment about enjoying a more urban setting would be, but I was more commenting on the arbitrary nature of people’s need to keep things scenic. What some people may view as aesthetically pleasing is quite subjective and often not based in rational thought. We often decide what should be part of the landscape based on our own personal experiences. I was merely stating that while cell phone towers, power lines, tractor trailers, and manure spreaders are considered scenic and given a free pass, the offense generated by the potential addition of windmills seemed disproportionate when put in that context.
Also, to lump wind generating plants with, as Ben put it, Landfills, Chemical repositories, Private prisons, and a Second bridge span seems a bit extremist.
Ben Ford says
I am surprised at how often in this local debate people say something along the lines of “but coal is so bad! If we don’t have renewables here, where will they go?”. Not one person who is against this project is arguing FOR enhanced coal generation, stop bringing it up. There are better renewable alternatives (like solar) that would ACTUALLY contribute to a local power grid. The power generated by the proposed wind farm would not go to Kent County. Neither would the profits. This would be an example of a turn-key corporation making money off of the county while simultaneously damaging the resources that actually drive the local economy.
-Make no mistake, wind farms DO negatively impact property values:
https://le.uwpress.org/content/88/3/571.abstract
“These results indicate that existing compensation to local homeowners/communities may not be sufficient to prevent a loss of property values.”
-The proposed site is in a location that is NOT ADEQUATE to make the project viable without subsidies (taxpayer money). You could, in fact, be having the money you pay in taxes be used to harm your investments:
https://mapsbeta.nrel.gov/wind-prospector/#/?activeLayers=kM6jR-%2CRh9Ekq%2CxY_VBM%2CqCw3hR&baseLayer=groad&mapCenter=39.029852466679316%2C-75.76858520507811&zoomLevel=10
(Note: The wind potential (average maximum wind speed) of N. kent Co. is between 5.5-6.5 meters per second, the cut-in speed [the point at which they even start generating power] is 5.5 MPS. This means that unless the wind is consistently higher than average, they will not produce at even near the capacity they should)
-Usurping local policy is a dangerous precedent. Will all of the things that more populated areas don’t want in THEIR backyards be suddenly rammed down our throats? Landfills? Chemical repositories? Private prisons? Second bridge span?
-Locally generated solar power has never interfered with military radar, property values over large swathes of land, bird migration, or human health; I would much rather see Maryland expand subsidies for local solar initiatives and microgrids.
-Arguing that people aren’t aware of their own NIMBYism is not true. I live where I would see (and likely hear) the turbines every day. I do not want them in my backyard, but not simply because, “not in my backyard”. I don’t want them in my backyard (or anyones), because it is a bad project.
Andrew Kraft says
So would they be storing the power and shipping it off to other places? When you connect power to the grid it is used at the closest end user. That is simply how it works. Now you can purchase power from the generating entity, but the stuff that is used in the home is derived from whatever source is closest.
Ben Ford says
I’m pretty sure you are incorrect. See Janet’s comment above.
joe diamond says
A solar project has already been rejected by the local(Kent County) appointed planning and zoning board. The solar company willing to make the investment in the project walked away. They had spent many thousands on engineering studies and property acquisition. They were unwilling to invest in protracted and expensive courtroom gymnastics. They just left.
So the next phase for solar development is to mount a legal attack & bypass the local zoning in much the same manner the wind advocates have done.
Part of that legal position may be to limit local ability to comment or legislate limitations of any kind on alternative methods of energy distribution. It would go much like the federal ban on limits to satellite dish antenna placement (OTARD + Over the Air Reception Device rule)
All this is just an interesting beginning.
Robert Blake Whitehill says
Kent County Must Pull Together to BREAK WIND!
Tracy M Griggs says
I personally don’t agree with a project of this type and scale for the eastern shore. But the project does beg the question on where our local counties stand on energy policies for the region and for “our own backyard” – for example: do government buildings in our counties feature solar panels? Do policies for new construction include mandates that new construction demand sustainability and use of alternative energy sources? What about tax credits for individual private property owners who install solar and reduce reliance on the “grid”?
This wind project promises to destroy our pristine environment, while not providing any long term impactful employment and most likely provide a tiny percentage of “energy.”
Just a very bad idea.
Stephan Sonn says
In Kent County attitude trumps progress. Always has and allways will.