The North Carolina State Senate has voted 42-1 to ban the use of wind turbines along the mountain ridges on the grounds that they are too ugly? How will this precedence be used in other states to ban the potential wind energy? In one sense I can understand not wanting to mar the natural beauty of the area but in another way I see the need to harness our own energy. In contrast is coal mining in the mountains more beautiful than these turbines? These wind turbines would have amounted to 2/3 of the states energy use in one year, by some estimates. This is an issue that we will see an increase in the coming years as other alternatives are pursued.
Subscribe to Community Blogs
Community Blogs
+ new post


Justine Burt
said on August 11, 2009
Elizah Leigh
said on August 11, 2009
1) cost and materials required to produce the turbines
2) harm/population decline of birds and bats
3) wind turbine syndrome suffered by local residents
4) and YES, they do mar the natural beauty of the landscape!!
(But then again, so do power lines.) Until we figure out how to make turbines them invisible (without inadvertently murdering all flying creatures), I think that they are a necessary "evil" that will evolve over time with improved technology and better design applications. Way WAYYYY better than coal!
scribhneoir blog
said on February 10, 2010
Contrary to popular myth wind turbines are NOT responsible for population decline in birds or bats - obviously they should not be sited in the way of known migration paths and it is important that a genuine environmental impact study is undertaken.
In Carolina they could still site turbines - they don't have to go on the ridge-line of mountains, I am sure there is a prevailing wind on one side of the mountains or the other...
To say that they are too ugly - that's just plain silly!