Senator Alexander energy sprawl concept, confused, inaccurate and out of context
Senator Alexander’s latest tirade against wind includes the concept of energy sprawl; see an October 5, 2009 press release from his website and this Wall Street Journal article.
Matt Wasson of Appalachain Voices points out what should be obvious - coal mining is far more destructive to habitat than wind farms
He has taken a Nature Conservancy report out of context and is using it as a reason to continue bashing wind and solar. The original report appears to be more directed at concerns about unlimited biofuel production leading to biological habitat destruction. One of the report’s main authors recently blogged about how the report is being misused and cited Senator Alexander by name. Also, Matt Wasson of Appalachian Voices has a thoughtful piece in Facing South on the report.
We have blogged several times on Alexander’s poorly-articulated positions and statements on nuclear, renewable energy, and coal. We do agree with the Nature Conservancy about the importance of thoughtful policies on siting — and most importantly, on the need for aggressive energy efficiency measures. We also agree that poorly designed bioenergy policies can lead to serious habitat impacts, and that we need to put much more effort into ensuring that bioenergy development is done sustainably.
If only the senior Senator from Tennessee would spend his energy focused on supporting aggressive policies for promoting energy efficiency. Instead, he bashes clean, renewable energy and promotes unrealistic and dangerous policies, such as 100 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years, thereby suppressing real movement on energy and climate policy in this country.
Tags: climate policy, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Tennessee, wind
1 Comment
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
This is a highly subsidized waste of our tax dollars. Wind energy does not work. We would be FORCED to buy a lousy product. I do not want to see my tax dollars used for this! This is an inefficient and proven to NOT WORK technology. Also, the claims of their benefit of reducing pollution or greenhouse gases are greatly exaggerated. Despite decades of experience and huge wind plants in Denmark (Obama always uses Denmark as an example…someone needs to educate him), Germany, and Spain, the giant turbines have not been shown to reduce the use of other fuels on the electric grid — such as coal and nuclear. All of the new reports coming out of Denmark are now proving that it does not work.
Commercial wind plants do not close coal fired plants.
I am concerned about environmental groups that want to destroy the mountain ridges in the name of saving them. I am concerned about environmental groups that SUPPORT the killing of birds and bats by wind turbines. Placing commercial wind plants on our highest mountain ridges would require significant deforestation, habitat loss, noise pollution, losses in property values, damage views both day and night, require mountaintop blasting, and decrease quality of life for the area.
Two great web sites that present the “other side” of the wind energy argument, with GREAT PICTURES of energy sprawl are http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com or http://www.vawind.org
Comment by Ridgekeeper on October 15, 2009 2:52 am